Partly true and there are some very good points, but some of it is a little out of date. Possibly 2 years out of date!

I dont agree that a disposable 35mm cam is equal to a 5MP high end digital. Even so much of it will come down to lens quality, it would be pointless to use the best film/digital camera and put a cheap lens on it.

The issue regarding print quality depends greatly on the CCD/CMOS sensor, a 6MP compact has a physically smaller sensor than a 6MP DSLR therefore cant produce as clean an image. I use a 10D ant it can produce A4 @300 dpi photo quality prints and very close to photo quality A3. I have a friend that has a 8MP Nikon that cant match it for quality. (Bigger sensor = less noise) ISO value is also an issue.

Archival is probably the biggest point as digital hasnt been around long enough to offer enough data on that, but I do know that on average digital images have a life span of approx 5 years, due the changing file formats, this can be worked around by re-saving digital images in the newest formats as they become available.

Also tonal range is a big issue with digital, but that can be worked around to some extent.

Film = 35MP max. Well I dont know if that is a fact but I have been lead to believe that it is more like 15MP maybe 20MP (by someone in a high profile digital working environment)

Most photo journalists now use digital, but the hard core pros still dont and still use med/large format.

Just some thoughts, there is just too much on that site to comment on all of it

Message edited on: 11/25/2004 18:57

The Truth is Out There