Boy this would be a good troll post for APUG!
Originally Posted by snaggs
I just went over to Luminous Landscapes very very briefly and checked this out. What I saw was a comparison of the Canon to the 6x7 digital back (This was on a contax 645 in the review I saw) right? That isn't comparing digital to film.
Let's see, a 6x6 Velvia/sensia (insert favorite film here) chrome vs. the Canon...which would win...
If you just want shear numbers, the back they showed was 22megapixels. 6cm is ~2in, which at 3000 pixels/inch is about 36megapixels if I did my sums correctly.
Now, 6cm is more like 2.25", and 3000 pixels/inch isn't really the resolution of film. You get the point.
That said--what do you shoot, why do you shoot. Why did you pick the D70 in the first place? The MF gear will be a lot slower for taking pictures and even slower for viewing the images. That isn't a bad thing, but it may not fit your style.
I recently wanted to get some nice portraits of my little boy at the piano. I had my 4x5 ready, but in another room (to keep it hidden from said little boy while I did some setup). I put the boy in the chair to see how well he could do on his own (he is only 20 months). At this point, my wife thought this was so cute that she got out her D70 and rattled off a dozen pictures. She had them uploaded to a website for the grandparents to see before I could get my 4x5 in place. A week later, when I finally got the time to develop the negatives, I found that my little boy moves faster than my shutter...crisp piano/blurry boy.
Which was the better camera for that application?
Well, probably my N90...it has film and a good flash.