>>4134199>IQ isn't everything and film beats digital in a number of aspects, sometimes even detail. A cheap roll of 35mm film can outresolve almost every digital camera out there save for specialty ones, with the caveat of being B&W.This is patently false ken rockwell bullshit. Even if lenses for film cameras were sharp enough, the only film manufacturer to explicitly rate their film for potential resolving power in excess of any digital camera since 36mp sensors came out was adox, with a 20 ISO black and white film. Most films, even velvia 50, are good for no more than about 22mp *in theory* - that's derived from the lp/mm potential of the film. You still need a sufficiently sharp lens on your film camera, and that's only at max contrast - the scene needs enough strong contrast to drive the chemistry to its limit. Meaning you wouldn't be able to perceive a difference in detail between velvia 50 on 35mm, and a 22mp 35mm digital sensor, assuming you used the same sharpest possible lens on both cameras and shot the perfect scene, and in most cases the 35mm film would look worse.
In real photographic applications, where scenes do not have the strongest possible contrast everywhere and lenses for film cameras are showing their age, drum scanned 6x7 is roughly equivalent to a modern full frame kit with a 36 or 42mp sensor. Gains in medium format past that are rather minor, but might be worth it if you rarely shoot scenes where you demand quality and don't want to blow $6000 on a GFX100s or five figures on a hassy. Large format film however genuinely mogs 100% of digital.
Film has its own aesthetic from the color response, grain, and halation but 99% of the time, it's flat out inferior to digital.
>inb4 retard thinks bayer means digital cameras have 1/3 as many megapixelsNot actually how it works. You can try it yourself, buy a digital camera with about 22mp, and shoot velvia 50 on a film SLR, drum scan it. The digital and film files will have about the same detail.
