It's a wash with a bunch of caveats.
Caveat 1. As webestang64 noted the scanner is a critical factor and that brings the pragmatic factor of cost into the equation. The D850 then is really cheap by comparison. Because if you really intend to squeeze the full measure of what's recorded in film into your scan may I suggest:
Hasselblad Flextight X5 Scanner H-70380301 B&H Photo Video It's not an accident that scanner is sold by the foremost maker of MF film cameras.
Most folks shooting film are either paying to get scans done and again if you're not paying $10.00 per scan then you're eatin' D850 dust, and so again the pragmatic cost factor. Most scan it yourself folks are looking at scan hardware priced below $1000.00 and again you're eatin' D850 dust. Epson scanners like the V series are prime choices. Epson claims 6400 PPI res for their V series scanners. Your reaction to that should be ROFLMAO!! Trump didn't have sex with the porn star is much more believable.
Caveat 2. We don't normally take and use photographs that push on the limits. 90+% of what most of us do is well served by either film or digital. So it's a wash. A nice big piece of 6x7 film is going to ultimately record more detail than a FF digital sensor. But so what; we don't need it and don't typically use it. This get's into the kind of pissin' match between two men (not women who have more sense) comparing their muscle cars and massive engines and boasting about their zero to 60 best-time and then getting into their respective cars and driving away on residential streets at 30 mph. I feel another Trump joke coming but I better behave.
Caveat 3. Most folks who make this comparison focus first on fine detail rendition. And MF film still wins that one by a nose. I was pleased to see tonal response mentioned above because in fact the technical characteristics of an image should be considered in hierarchial order and tone response tops the list -- that's most important. In this case digital has the lead. However it's still a wash and caveat #1 still applies as digital's lead gets comfortable when a mediocre scanner is used for the film. It's still as wash because digital now records more tonal range than we typically need and MF film records enough. Either way we typically have enough.
Caveat 4. Axe grinding: This is a topic that has a past history of biased positions and hard feelings because some folks need to make it a competition and some folks feel threatened. So when you go out there and look for info you're bound to run into an axe grinder. For example the tonal range difference. People quote all kinds of nonsense figures for both digital and film DR. I've seen sites where an axe grinder has taken Tri-X and developed it for 4 hours in Rodinal diluted 1:5000 or some similar nonsense and then claimed they measured 18 stops of DR on their densitometer. OK! I feel another Trump joke coming on.....
Caveat 5. Pushing the limits, resolution: It's a rare case when we make a wall sized print that is best viewed from so close that you can't fully see the image. Our need for resolution reaches a point of diminishing returns when we make a print so big that we have to start backing up to view it. Put another way; you can make a highway billboard from a 35mm neg and it'll be just fine. The resolution attainable from a medium ISO 6x7 neg shot with good glass is already overkill for most of our needs. Do we need to push the limit and if so what can we get? We can crop. In fact if you shoot 6x6 and make rectangle prints you're cropping by default. So we can crop more and still be good. Digital gives us less room to crop with abandon. Nobody out there is jumping up and down right?
Pushing the limits, tone response: I can take a color photo with a modern digital sensor at base ISO under extreme contrast lighting conditions and pull it off where film is just going to have to sit on the sidelines and watch -- digital records more usable DR. That's a real capability that digital has and film doesn't but it's a rare case used as I just described. It doesn't factor into our day to day work and so we're still at a wash. This plays a more critical role when we're in fact forced to start giving up DR in low light. Because digital has the lead to begin with it's going to hold on better into those dark places. My newest camera (Fuji X-T2) can do this at ISO 25K:
And that's an APS-C sensor. Imagine what the D850 is capable of! Film can't even dream of doing something like that and so here we have maybe the biggest difference that actually matters for most of us. I'm still going to call it pushing the limits and call it atypical. I have never had recourse to use my camera at this extreme -- the only reason I have this image was because I was testing the camera.
Caveat 6. Fine art. Film can be shot in B&W and a B&W fiber print can be made in a wet darkroom adhering to archival practice. That print has the potential to outlast by centuries all digital ink and RA-4 prints made to date. Now it is possible to go from digital to that same B&W fiber print but it's not easy and it's not cheap. A small group of fine artists are going to keep working film and wet darkroom for that reason and rightly so. There's a bottom line there that equates directly to what a discerning buyer will pay for a print.
Caveat 7. What's being compared? Or put another way; who's skill at doing what with what additional tools is being compared. This isn't just about a D850 versus a MF film camera. As noted the scanner plays a big roll. But so does the skill of the photographer not only behind the camera but in the darkroom and/or digital darkroom. So often when you see blogs and articles claiming they just did a head to head comparison between Brand X digital versus MF film and here's the results and the winner is..... the results are badly marred by the incompetence of the tester. Normally what we're seeing is the article author's lack of skill.
It's a wash.
Joe
