#1. "RE: Film Vs Digital for landscape" In response to Reply # 0
well, i'm probably not the best person to say, as i'm not really into landscapes, but it seems that velvia-like images are well within the capability of DLSRs like the D100. for large prints, you may find that film will give you a little more detail, but apparently most people don't find this a problem that sharpening can't compensate for. on the flipside, digital seems to exhibit better tone compared to most films. basically, digital and film are different, but equally capable in the end. my main concern for you, actually, is that the crop factor will shift all your primes' effective focal lengths up by 1.5x. you may not like how your lens collection sits after that. if you want to maintain your 20mm wide angles, you'll need a lens capable of 13mm or so! $$$! not to mention your 105mm will now be about 155mm and your 80-200 will be 120-300 or so. not sure you'll appreciate that.
#2. "RE: Film Vs Digital for landscape" In response to Reply # 0
Salt Lake City, US
I'm getting great 12x18 prints via my Fuji S2. This camera squeezes out a little more resolution than a normal 6 Mpix sensor (about 9 Mpix equivalent). I'd suggest you find some full res landscape image files from a D100 and you'll have what you need to do your own evaluation. What works for me may not suit you, so it's better to experience the files first hand. If you have a converter like ACR in Photoshop CS, I'd also suggest you also try raw file conversions.
I don't shoot 35mm film anymore except occasionally via my Xpan panoramic rangefinder (24x65 frame). You can use raw settings to get color characteristics of many film types. If you like Velvia you'll want to run the color saturation relatively high along with the contrast.
I do still want higher sensor resolution, but that's because I'm excited about getting medium format performance via a DSLR. The Canon 1Ds and Kodak 14n offer this, but the prices and the Kodak's quirks aren't for me.