I have for now, just the written word of those with experience to go by. So I welcome all input: From the writers in old magazine articles and postings on other sites, I gather that the combination of 35mm SLR and colour negative film is not recommended for shooting landscapes. The advice suggests the format is too small and that Medium format (or above, I believe) is required. As proof, they point to photos and the credits associated with them as published in major magazines. The question is, does this mean that 35mm film is a poor choice for landscapes as a whole, or is it relative to printing and to the largest size that would be of acceptable quality? Or is it a matter of the working photographers choice as compared to those who shoot at leisure for the art form itself? Do 35mm specialists shoot landscapes in this format at all? Further, can a DSLR produce good results in landscapes while the specs indicate that the image capturing component is smaller than a frame of 35mm film? Im concluding that it must be the skill of the photographer but I am not sure. Ive always thought that the incredible landscapes in the magazines were done with 35mm. So much for assumptions!