I recently did a personal comparison between my 5 megapixel Nikon 5000 and\nFuji Velvia ISO 50 slide film, Kodachrome 64 slide film, Kodak Portra NC\n160 negative film, and Kodak Gold 200 negative film:\n[URL]http://www.mindspring.com/~dreamflier/Films-vs-Coolpix.html[/URL]\n\nI also recently won an Ebay auction for a Yashica Mat 124G twin lens reflex\nmedium format camera, and I've run some rolls through the 124G.\n\nI'll be honest. My goal in doing the comparison test was to "prove" that\ndigital technology has equalled film.\n\nContinuing with honesty, my own results have confused me. All the 35mm\nfilms definitely have more resolution - both slide and negative - but the\nnegative films definitely have more grain. The slow slide films look best\non my monitor, but, when printed, the negative films look best at 8"x10".\n\nI don't know what to think. It's a neck-and-neck contest when comparing\n35mm films to 5 megapixels.\n\nHowever, I don't think there's any contest between format slides (haven't\ndone many negatives yet, and haven't gotten any medium format scans) and 5\nmegapixels. My meidum format slides are things of beauty.\n\nWouldn't it be ironic if, after decades of trying to sell the customer the\nsmallest possible slides and negatives (110 film and disc film), film's\nsalvation lay in selling the customer the BIGGEST possible slides and\nnegatives?\n\nIs it possible that, to compete with digital technology, Kodak needs to\nintroduce an affordable medium format camera? Imagine a 0 medium format\ncamera that could use almost any lens with a cheap adapter, coupled with an\narray of services that allowed customers to buy very big enlargements of\ntheir pictures at an affordable cost. I think this scenario could keep film\nalive for quite a long time.