edward_brinker

It all depends on the weakest link. A scanned LF transparency with a crappy lens is not much better (maybe worse) than a 5D2 or a 1Ds3. But with top quality gear the LF beats the MF beats the DSLR every time.

Good lenses give about 70 lpmm

36mm film or digital 2520 lp

MF film (54 mm) 3780 lp

MF digital (48 mm) 3360 lp

LF (4x5) 8400 lp

LF (8x10) 16800 lp

Good quality film is 50 to 70 lpmm

Canon digital sensor 5616 pixels which converts to 57 lpmm using Nyquist's theorem

Scanner @ 2000 dpi is 78 dpmm or 26 lpmm

Scanner @ 4000dpi is 156 dpmm or 52 lpmm

The resolution of the system is 1/R ~ 1/Rlens + 1/Rfilm + 1/Rscanner for scanned film

or 1/R ~ 1/Rlens + 1/Rsensor for a DSLR.

Plugging the numbers in the resolution for unscanned film is 1/R = 1/60 + 1/70 =32 lpmm

For scanned film 14.4 lpmm

The scanner almost single handed destroys the image

For the DSLR the resolution is 32 lpmm

So a DSLR is pretty equivalent to high quality unscanned film on 36mm wide images. I've seen other studies to confirm this.

MF to SF is about 1.5 to 1 so there is a difference but you'll have to look close to see it. It really doesn't stand out until about 2 to 1.

LF to SF is 3.5 to 1 or 6.5 to 1. You'd have to be blind not to see the difference unless you scanned it a 1000 dpi or used a crappy (30 lpmm) lens.

I work in all three formats, film and digital. Each one has it's special advantages.

I have seen the argument that the eye cannot resolve more than 300 and therefore a print with more than 300 dpi is wasted. Nonsense. To me, higher resolution in a print adds a quality of aliveness.

In 2006, my wife and I photographed Bridge Day in Fayette WV. She used a 12.7 megapixel 5D, I used an EOS 3 with Fuji Velvia. Same lenses (300mm F4). Comparing the results, the film seemed to have a better presence. Comparing the digital images to the slides on a light box under magnification, there was ever so slightly higher resolution on the slides. (Don't compare scanned slides to digital images because consumer scanners have abominal resolution and do horrible things to slides). I'm really looking forward to comparing the 5DII to film. It seemed the film was about 16mp and the 5DII should do better.

Medium format is more image to spread the line pairs across. A really good lens will do about 70 lpmm no matter which format. 70 lpmm gives 2520 line pairs on 35mm film or a 24x36 sensor. 70 lpmm gives 3780 line pairs on 120 film (54mm) or 3360 on a 36x48 digital sensor. But medium format is expensive ($45k for a digital back)

To me, large format is the way to go if you want high quality images and don't mind the time it takes to set up. Large format gives 8400 line pairs on 4x5 and 16800 line pairs on 8x10. Scanning (digital) backs are near useless in my opinion because something always moves in the image during the scan. Anything that moves is fuzzy. You can see object details on a large format transparency where you barely make out object in a smaller format. Extremely sharp wall sized posters are possible. Another advantage of large format is the tilts, shifts, swings etc. With a little patience, it is possible to get both foreground and background as well as the subject in sharp focus.