Digital BW, The Print

I use film cameras all the time, mainly 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5.  I also regularly
use a D200.    In my experience, the D200 does not have enough resolution to
give a first rate 16x20" print.  That said, there are higher resolution
cameras out there, such as a 5DMkII, which I expect could give pretty good
16x20s, with a good lens, at a sharp aperture, on a good tripod....  I'm a
professional assistant photographer, and most of the pros I know use the 5Ds
on location.  Their biggest gripe, quality wise, is not with the camera but
with Canon's wide angle lenses, which can get pretty soft in the corners.

Regarding scanning: there are a lot of variables.  If you use film like
Acros in high quality medium format and larger cameras, you can get
outstanding quality, but you need a good scanner, and these aren't cheap.
At a minimum you would need something something like the discontinued Nikon
Coolscan 9000 medium format scanner with MF film.  An Epson V700 with a
better scanner holder might get you to high quality 16x20s from 4x5, but
it'd be close.  A professional scanner, such as a pro flatbed or drum
scanner, would be needed to capture the quality needed for bigger
enlargements.

So you have a number of options:
1) try stitching multiple frames from a digital camera together.
2)  get a higher res digital camera.
3)  learn to like smaller prints.
4)  learn to like looking at large prints from a larger distance.
5)  Investigate film/scanning.

Since you have a 6x7 camera, you could always give it a try.  Rate Acros at
EI 50.  Develop it in something like Pyrocat HD, as it can give higher
resolution than than a non-staining developer.  Don't over-develop.  Send
the film to be scanned by someone who knows what they are doing on a good
scanner.  Adjust and print the file. Compare the print to one made with a
file from a digital camera.  You would then be in the best position to
decide if the hassle and cost of using film is worth it for you.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]