It struck me that there is a major flaw in the ultimate shootout: at 255 dpi with the 1Ds, that maxes out the resolution of the Epson 2200. Basically, there's no way to put more information on the paper. So, a priori, there's no way that MF will win.
(Also note that 255 dpi from a 1Ds is slightly smaller than 11x16. Were you are printing on standard A3 (11.75" x 16.5") paper with a small margin???)
It is pretty amazing that the 1Ds produces definitive photographic images at 11x14. I was never able to get decent 11x14s from 35mm (Plus-X) in the darkroom.
However, the claim that the 1Ds has more resolution than 6x7 seems seriously problematic.
If you printed a 4000 dpi scan of 6x7 at 450 dpi, you'd have about the same size image (about 18" in the short direction) as when you print a 1Ds image at 150 dpi. My experience is that 450 dpi printed film scans are a lot sharper with a lot more detail than 150 dpi printed digital images (including dowloaded 1Ds samples).
Dear Michael,
First I want to say, how much I admire your work and enjoy your site.
Somehow, after reading your shootout, I had the feeling, its pure goal was just to show how good the 1Ds is. Everything is so straight. Your 1Ds Field Report seemed to me to be more "neutral".
In that report you end up with
"in terms of resolution, our final conclusion is that while it's very close, medium format still has a slight edge in this area". In the Con's corner you mention grain, sharpness, equipment. Even in your conclusion, there's no talk of a margin, it sound's more like a equilibrium thing to me. Your shootout starts with
"The 1Ds surpassed my Pentax 645nii system by a considerable margin". Hm.
In the Field Report you compare the Data itself, which IMHO is the fairest way. Now you compare prints! Their quality is not limited by the available data but by the output medium (printer). The only conclusion can be, that a print in the size xy from a 1Ds meets the quality of a MF's (if it is not limited by a scanner, as shown in the drum scan section).
I don't understand your point of view. Heck, when I watch an image appropriately sized to my 20" CRT, a coolpix 990 meets MF! It is undoubtly remarkable, that the 1Ds is capable to produce high quality A3's. It leaves 35mm in the dust. In concerns of grain it rules. Mobility and variety of equipment is hardly competable. And up to A3 they deliver the same quality.
In pre-1Ds days there was a point, where you said (going for pure resolution): Ok, for this size prints I have to leave 6x7 and go for 4x5" (or whatever). And this is the size you have to compare. If the 1Ds rules there, it rules 6x7. Otherwise there is a region, where the 1Ds just doesn't meet 6x7 (which would be no blame!).
By the way, you confused some readers claiming about missing window bars in the grain section crops. The crops are different. If you overlay, you see that the right building's windows are quite different.
Best regards
Dennis.
Please excuse obscure expressions, I'm just a Kraut.