"you've virtually wiped out the advantage of medium format v's digital or 35mm."

Well to be fair I'm sure PeterH used 35mm as an example coz of it's portability and image ratio/shape (correct me if I'm wrong Peter), but I agree in detail and sharpness (and lack of noise) that digital has the upper hand at 22mp. Yesterday I was looking at 30mo stuff. The immediate future is really exciting, but not portable yet.

Ye gods I'm so happy to have digital 35mm and a battery that lasts 300 frames, it's like a dream to me, and up printed to 20-30 inches on Fuji paper is still stunning.

Way off topic aren't we, argh.

Here's something to imagine

http://www.tpd.tno.nl/Pics/DII/gigazoom/Delft2.htm

I know that's in effect a massive stitch-up, but that's what 2.5 gigapixel sensor will be like one day, who knows?

Maybe it is just personal preferences, but it is not just about the quality of camera lens and format size. Of course, 35mm and a tiny lens can never hope to pick up the detail that larger formats can, but I have yet to see a digital print which isn't harsh and contrasty when compared with the gorgeous tones and texture of silver prints. Cereus comes pretty close. I know that there is no going back to film and it will soon be unobtainable with Ilford gone and Kodak and Konica not producing any more. I am so glad that real artists like Tyson are still in their dark rooms under their red safety lights - but for how much longer?

None of the above should be regarded as a criticism of the super digital shots we see here and on the Portal. Comparisons are odious and its like comparing a painting with a fine pen and ink drawing. Both can be beautiful, but are essentially different. Hope we can keep both for a little while longer