16mp 1Ds MkII is the one I recall the camera LL said matched film. I haven't "bought into" the 22mPixel rumor. I was told by someone who attended the photo show in Vegas that it was announced. Beyond that, I have no knowledge of the camera. I'd be plenty happy with the Mk II. I attended a show by IIRC Fred Larson of the San Francisco Chronicle. This was the camera the Chron thought replaced film. [They made some corporate decision about two years ago to dump their Nikons and go all Canon. They used to have a mix of bodies.]
Astia 100f pushes well, though you can see increased grain if pulled a stop. Half a stop gets you a little "edge" without much of a grain issue. The claim (i.e. I have no first hand knowledge) that some fashion photographers prefer film IF there is an issue of aliasing. The MKII was about $4k+ last time I looked. There is obviously a price break point for film versus digital. I'm doing about 30 to 40 rolls a year. I probably haven't hit the break point, but someone who shoots for a living easily could pay for the MKii in a year. One thing for sure, the EOS1HS I got a few years ago will be my last new film body. I still like to do some telephotography with my F3 due to the ability to put a magnifier on the screen. I'm trying to convert my EOS film body to that task, but the removable prism is such an advantage. [I'm really getting tired of fixing the old F3, and I think now Nikon won't refurb it.] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Actually I don't think your recollection is entirely accurate. If it >was the 1Ds (Mk1), then it is only an 11mp camera. And when you say "as >good as", you really do need to explain what exactly you mean. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
