Digital BW, The Print

Now I'm curious to know which DSLR you use for which format(s), Dan, 
and at which size print you would instead use which film(s) with the 
Minolta 5400 (to which I might upgrade my Polaroid SprintScan 4000).

My work space is so small that I don't think I can mat and frame 
larger than 16x20. So I'm trying to optimize my gear for images 
printed no larger than 11x14. And wondering which digital exposures 
scale up as well as 35mm film scales up to 12x18, or even larger. I 
say "or even larger" because, when I find inside one of my exposures 
an image I want to print at all, it's usually well within the borders 
of the 35mm frame as well as closer to square than to 3:2.

Thanks.
--
Sam


At 5:51 PM -0400 8/21/04, Dan Marder wrote:
>I don't see how that observation could be challenged, short of assuming
>sloppy technique.  It doesn't make film 'better', or the final images
>necessarily preferable, but 35 mm film/lenses can record roughly 4-10x
>as much information as a DSLR.  I've read several analyses, but this is
>based on my own tests.
>
>Excellent 35mm lenses can record 120-140 lp/mm on film - actual, not
>theoretical, without 'artifacts'.  Excellent 35mm DSLR 40-60 lp/mm,
>with artifacts.  Even a relatively inexpensive scanner (Minolta 5400)
>can read 100 lp/mm, again actual observed.  The math is trivial, and
>sectional prints confirm it (I don't make very large prints).
>
>Yes, I use my DSLR almost exclusively these days, and I'm pleased with
>the results.
>
>Dan