My surprise is that the OP found it made sense to compare 35mm and 645 with similar film. Having spent most of my career working with Nikon and Hasselblad, I came to the following conclusions: using Ilford´s 125ASA films in 35mm and then in 120 wasn´t at all the same thing - the 120 didn´t work out to have the same look, both processed in D76 1+1. However, going UP to TXP, 320ASA, on the 120 gave a better tonality. Based on that, comparisons are sort of misplaced.
Regardless, at 10x8 ins. I would have been surprised to see a noticeable difference in ultimate quality, just in look. The only problem was that with 35mm you had to lose top and bottom of the frame to get the format of the paper.
Further, I produced quite a lot of 35mm film display prints for fashion stores (black/white) on 40 inch paper, heights up to 60 ins. Too close, they weren´t so hot, but then neither was Ektachrome 120 blown up to similar sizes. I have to say that I did not do the printing at those sizes and my faith in sub-contracts was never high, but at 10x8 ins. I would have used either format without trepidation.
The D200 is my own digital camera too; sadly, I have not used it on people, just landcape and ruined buildings, so it becomes difficult to make a meaningful statement about how good or otherwise it might be compared with films. My guess would be that if you want to do outdoor shots of people, it might not look as good as original b/w or transparency film scanned. I say this because of what my experiences in the dead subjects world indicate: back lighting of hair etc. might just burn right out and not look like you expected it to look.
Using Ciba as a benchmark is a big leap of faith. I did use it too, when I had to, but it was such a temperamental and narrow minded material that short of making complicated masks etc. which would never have been financed on the few jobs where I used it, it was a material best left alone unless you had a subject with a VERY narrow range of brighnesses.
Making comparisons between Kodachrome 25, Velvia etc. with D200 capture is also complicated to say the least: how were they printed, those transparency films, to enable you to compare with digital originals? Again from personal discovery, my old Kodachrome 64 shots printed in b/w via a CanoScan FS4000US scanner and an HP B9180 printer on A3+ look far crisper and more detailed than they ever did scanned via drum and printed on 4 colour litho commercial presses at about the same size. To me, that suggests that the quality was always there on film, it just lacked the means to bring it out as finely as can be done now, AT HOME!
But the ability to use non-chipped lenses with the D200 is what made me take the plunge into digital; otherwise, I might well have just stayed with film until the labs ran out. As far as I can ascertain, the pro one nearest me has given up on E6 already...
Rob C
