Whenever I read comparison articles such as this one I always wonder about a couple of things. One thing, that has already been mentioned, is the use of the very best prime lenses for each camera. The other thing is not applying any sharpening or image enhancements to get the best image possible from either image, particularily the digital image. Isn't the point of these comparisons to see how great an image you can get at a given size? Why should it matter how that is achieved? I was looking at one of the 1Ds photos with the bricks that looked duller then the film version and I am certain that I could work with that digital file and by using some slight edge sharpening, a high pass filter and a couple of other tricks I could really make that image 'pop' and be very comparable to the film image but with the added benefit of being free of noise. Underexposing the digital image a 1/2 stop, at least, would have helped as well to provide a better starting point. I know many of people will say that sharpening and other enhancing filters don't add any more detail where there was none and, while that is true, those tools can significantly improve the detail that is already there. My point is that, as most of us digital users have learned, digital can require some additional work using filters and other tools to create the best image possible. I don't think that that was the case with these digital files in this comparison and many other comparisons I have read about.