I'm sure everyone is heartily sick of 'digital vs film' threads, which I understood had been emphatically answered in favour of the former in almost every respect, and particularly as regards the resolution of fine detail. However, I saw a BBC programme about a year ago about Howard Carter's photographer, Harry Burton, 'The Man Who Shot Tutankhamun'. Basically a presenter showcased Burton's images. She travelled to Luxor accompanied by a photographer who attempted to recreate a couple of the shots using equipment similar to what Burton had used. (Incidentally, in my opinion, he failed dismally.) What I found particularly interesting was that the modern photographer (Harry Cory Wright), when looking for somewhere to process his negatives, discovered a fully equipped state of the art dark room set up by The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, which is engaged in an ongoing archaeological 'Epigraphic Survey' (The Epigraphic Survey | The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago). The Chicago photographer (Yarko Korbylecky) was asked why he used a large format film camera in preference to a digital SLR and his response was that digital couldn't yet match the resolution that he could get with film. "It will happen," he said, "But it hasn't yet. Film still gives finer detail." or words to that effect. I want to emphasise that he was using the view camera not because of the front/back movement advantage - he was basically photographing hieroglyphic inscriptions on flat surfaces - but because of the superior resolution. This came as a surprise to me. Surely the Chicago academics running such a technical project would get this right. As I say, I saw this film about a year ago and I suspect that it was produced in 2017 or perhaps 2016. A certain amount of time has passed since then of course, but not that much. I'm considering buying a D850. Clearly there's enough resolution there (with the right glass) for pretty much every application, but it's an interesting thought that Harry Burton may have been able to match it in 1923.