I still tinker with film occasionally, a couple of colleagues at work
use it exclusively and they are semi-/professionals and do good work. It
can be fun working with film but to get excellent results takes a lot
of care and work. I have also read that 35mm is around ~10MP if tripod
Sure. As I ahve sid, I did buy a cheap digital camera which I use for
snapshots. Quick record photos just to remind me of something. There
is _nothing_ wrong with taking such photo, of coruse.
But one thing you quickly relaise when you go to large format (5*4" sheet
film and above) is tht with digital or 35mm you might well take >100
shots ina day. with alrge format 2 or 3 is doing pretty well (for an
amateur). You spend a lot of time settign each one up, getting jsut the
view you want, the alignemtn you want, etc. The care takein is IMHO worth
it for some subjects (like old buildings, which is the main use of large
format for me).
mounted and sufficiently fine grained, and that hand
holding it drops to
I think a good 35mm film, camera on a tripod (of course), good lens
(Leica, Nikon, etc prime lens, not a zoom) is rather mroe than that
around 6ish. This seems to echo my own experience with
film vs digital.
My first dSLR was a 6MP camera (a Pentax *ist DS) and in Raw shooting
side by side comparisons with Fuji Provia 100f they seemed pretty close
to me (with a slight edge to the film).
It's always possible somethign else was the limitng factor. I don't know
what lens you were using, but I ahve certainly seen some (older) Pentax
lenses that wre noticeably unsharp compared to a Nikkor of simialr
aperture and focal length.