A few years ago, Mike Reichman claimed that a 35mm-style Canon FF DSLR could compete with a scanned transparency from a 6x7cm film camera. Since then, I've longed for the day when I could make a 16x20 print from an image shot with a not-absurdly-overpriced Nikon DSLR that would look as good as a scanned image from a 6x7cm piece of film, thereby allowing me to sell off my MF gear and have only one camera system. From testing the D700, I'm afraid that day hasn't come. Currently, for 35mm-style cameras, I have two D200s. When the D700s arrived in my store, I had two hopes: 1) to again be able to use my 28mm and 85mm f/1.4 AFD Nikkors at the angle of view God intended; and 2) to get dramatically better resolution than is possible with the D200s. I'd shot some images with the D700 over the last two weeks, and the results weren't blowing my skirt up. Thinking I was missing something, yesterday I shot the same image with the D200 and D700 (see alley photo). I set both cameras to lowest ISO: 100 for the D200; 200 for the D700. I used a 12-24mm f/4.0 at 16mm, f/8.0 on the D200 and a 24-70mm f/2.8 at 24mm, f/8.0 on the D700. Both lenses delivered outstanding sharpness and contrast. Then, I made 12x18 inch prints from each camera’s image. Neither camera's image held together particularly well at 12x18 inches, which I expected from the D200, but not from the D700. The big disappointment was resolution. Without any uprezzing, the D200 delivered a resolution of 215 pixels/inch at 12x18 inches- no suprise. However, the D700 only produced resolution of 236 pixels/inch at 12x18 inches. With the considerably larger sensor and higher sensor pixel count, I really expected the D700 to have dramatically better resolution than the D200. Neither camera compared favorably with a print I could make scanning film from my Mamiya 7IIs. I'm not going to post sections of the images. Differences in quality between the two cameras' images aren't particularly noticeable in 12x18 prints, and are less noticeable on-screen at 100%. Let me give the D700 its due: 1. The D700 image is a little more contrasty, apparently owing to its larger sensor. 2. If you look really, really close, the D700 print is a hair sharper than the D200 print. 3. ISO-wise, the D700 produces a little better image at its low ISO (200) than the D200 produces at its low ISO (100). That having been said, for me to dump my D200s, grips and 12-24mm and 17-55mm DX lenses and replace them with a pair of D700s, grips and a 24-70mm f/2.8 would cost me $5-6K. I've decided it isn't anywhere near worth the price (though when bonus time comes at the end of the year, who knows how foolish I'll be).