The gauntlet is thrown down to the MF back manuafacturers:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=136138\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think Canon has thrown down any gauntlet, even if their marketing department wants to think they have.
Perhaps some on this forum compare camera differences at only the pixel-to-pixel level, and I don't think this is a valid argument. It's like comparing a 24x36mm rectangle of an 4x5 chrome to a 35mm slide. There's
a lot more to the image capture than the size of the sensor.
Some obvious advantages of the DSLR format:
- Speed of the lens
- Speed of autofocus
- Range of lens' focal length
- Image proportions relative to a 2-page spread
- System portability
- Ease of hand-held use in wider variety of environments (surfing, mountain climbing, etc.)
Some obvious advantages of a digital back format:
- Better image proportions for vertical portraits when framing in-camera
- Can be adapted to a mini-view camera for optimum swings & tilts
- Greater bit-depth
- Higher pixel count improves quality of large display prints
- More headroom for higher pixel count in future versions
Perhaps others would like to add to these lists.
These things boil down to a difference in image production -- what the photographer uses and manipulates to acquire the image. They're the means to an end. However, once the image is printed on a SWOP press or posted in an 8-bit sRGB web gallery the differences at the pixel-to-pixel level are moot.