Digital BW, The Print

> At least one review has compared it favorably
> to 645 roll film.

No 35mm digital camera compares favorably to medium-format film; even 35mm
film does not compare favorably to medium-format film.

> It is my understanding that B&W work is much
> more demanding on camera quality.

Digital is a poor choice for dedicated black and white work unless the
camera is designed specifically for black and white work (i.e., it will not
shoot color, and it does not have the color matrix filter over the sensor
that color digicams have).  Dedicated digital black and white cameras can
give excellent results, however, even if the resolution is typically lower
than that of fine-grained or larger-format B&W film.

Digital B&W also has a fixed spectral sensitivity, whereas B&W film has
sensitivity that can be changed by changing films.  To some extent this can
be mitigated by filters, but it still isn't quite as flexible as film ... if
you need that type of flexibility.

Since B&W film is easy to shoot and easy to process, and doesn't cost very
much compared to color, why would you want to do it digitally to begin with?

> How large can you print a file from this camera
> and still hold satisfactory detail?

Divide the viewing distance by 6875, then divide the dimensions of the final
print by the result.  This will give you the number of pixels required in
the image to preserve all visible detail.  Digital prints will not hold up
to this standard if you are preparing big enlargements that will be examined
at close range.  For prints that will be examined from a "standard" viewing
distance (equal to the diagonal of the print), a high-end digital with at
least 6 megapixels will usually suffice.  In black and white, the criteria
may be more stringent, because digicams lose luminance resolution because of
their matrix color filters (i.e., a 6-megapixel color digicam really doesn't
have 6 megapixels of resolution in black and white).

> I know it will never compete with a 4X5, but I won't be
> making any 16X20 prints, either. What do you folks
> think?

I don't think digital is the ultimate in B&W.  It's too easy to shoot
Technical Pan and handily whip any digital 35mm camera under the sun.
Scanning backs can do somewhat better, but I presume that you aren't
interested in scanning backs (which in turn imply large-format cameras,
AFAIK).