Originally posted by Tony Belding I don't shoot much black and white. Kodak Ektar 100 is my favorite film. Also, I've found that although both of these cameras are fun to use, and both of them can take very good photos, I began to see the limitations of 35mm pretty soon. The color and dynamic range are superb, but you can really only get roughly 6MP scans out of 35mm -- beyond that, you're just getting more noise and film grain, not real image detail. The limited definition and sometimes-visible grain is just enough to be annoying when compared to a M4/3 digital camera. As a result, my satisfaction with 35mm has waned, and I've begun shooting more medium format film.
I am certain we all have our own limitations for one reason or another but I would disagree on this one by comparing a couple of real world images - one taken from a 24MP Sony A900 at ISO 400 and the other a scan of Fuji Sensia 400. These are unprocessed/unaltered and 100% crops. Keep in mind that the A900 file pixel count of 6048 x 4032 actually exceeds the Coolscan file of 5583 X 3655 (cropped). It is completely coincidental that they happen to be very similarly framed of the same looking cat but they are different. I took the Sensia shot years before the A900 was even introduced which was at the time of release the highest pixel count full frame dslr.
->Fullsize Sony A900 & Fuji Sensia 400
I also have a Coolscan 9000 for those medium format film and of course my medium format 6X7 film scans exceeds 35mm by the area of film difference using the same film.
I only shoot medium format 6X7 so I have a comparison of that with 35mm film as shown below.
We don't have to descend down the film vs alternate road but on the film forum I wanted to be sure nobody mistakes 35mm film resolution being limited to a measly 6MP.