i recently did a presentation on the myths and details of film vs. digital (35mm slide vs. 35mm or smaller digital sensors). In my opinion the ISO has littler to do with resolution that people think. For instance, I get the same detail (except much cleaner) with my 20d at ISO 400 than I can get with slide film at ISO 400 or 200 even. The issue is not just about megapixels. In past years, many film shooters complained that it would take a 30 or 40 megapixel camera to rival the resolution of 35mm film. However, over the past decade or so modern technology has progressed quite a bit and there are now several digital cameras that can consistently near, match, or exceed the pure resolution of 35mm film, even at low ISOs (for instance, nikon's d2x, canon's 5d and 1dsMKII).
One time I took some shots with my 20d at ISO 100 and immediately after took some shots with my 1n with the same lens using velvia (iso 50). The detail is cleaner in my 20d's images, and I actually prefer it's image quality. At this point, the resolution of 35mm isnt that much greater than popular 1.5/1.6 crop digital sensors, and there isnt a big enough difference to make resolution a deciding factor. The only thing that would make me want to shoot slides over digital is the larger color tone gamut.
You have to keep in mind that there is more to this issue than resolution, or else we'd all shoot 4x5. I think we can agree that image quality (and of course workflow and such, but I wont go into that) is the main 'subsection' on the debate. IMO, this is composed into 5 subcategories - resolution, color accuracy, color gamut, shadow/highlight capabilities, and grain/noise.
While film may have a slight edge on resolution (depends on the scanner used and the digital camera it is compared to), there are many other factors that go into what we view as a good photograph. As far as color accuracy, digital almost always takes the lead as the initial capture of digital is much more versatile than film. For instance, if you were shooting some landscapes in velvia in austria or something and saw some people that you wanted to take candids of, you might worry about using velvia because it botches skin tones terribly. This is partly a workflow or convenience issue, but it is still apparent that digital's capture is more versatile and accurate for color, even though there are types of slide film with good color accuracy. This is one reason why many portraiture photographers havent hesitated about switching to digital.
Color gamut and tonality goes to film. plain and simple. Even with 16-bit Tiff files in AdobeRGB or ProRGB and 32-bit HDR files, the color range (tonality ranges can equal or exceed slides in some situations) is almost always larger with slide film than with digital.
the shadow/highlight thing is basically split. Digital can capture more shadow details than slide film can, while film's highlight capacity is higher than digital's, and can capture subtle highlights that digital would just blow out. Neither is really bad at one or the other, just each has strengths and weaknesses.
Aside from possible color accuracy, one section of the debate that digital clearly wins is grain/noise. Digital is much cleaner than film. A digital sensor captures no grain at all (because the formation of the granular specs of film is a chemical process), but does have digital noise, which is slightly different. A digital camera (esp. that 30d, which has terrific noise capabilities) can capture cleaner images at ISO 400 than slide film can at ISO 100 (or even 50, depending on the film). However, in film's defense, the noise from digital sensors can be slightly more bothersome than film's grain because while grain retains a more gaussian spread, noise is more like tiny speckled splotches of color (which is only really noticeable at ISO 800 or 1600 and above).
Just keep in mind that it's not all about megapixels (resolution) nor sensor size as someone else mentioned (hence the d2x's capabilities). After all the research and comparisons I made while studying this topic, it has become apparent that when buying a dSLR such as the 20d, 30d, 350d, d70, d200, etc., you dont really need to worry about resolution. If the resolution of these cameras isnt good enough for you, chances are 35mm slides will dissapoint you also.
I'd say go buy that 30d, you'll love it. i've printed some large images from my 20d (16x24") and they turned out beautifully. I've come to a point where when printing orders for clients, no matter what sizes they order, I never have to worry about if my camera's resolution can cope. And that's what is important.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/32/32806-e16129723fd659a65a21d27ec96c2637.jpg?1734162488)
