A certain publisher accepts 35mm slides for magazine use, but for their calendars, they require medium format. As they say, "35mm rarely holds up to a 1200% enlargement." (And of course, they only accept film transparencies.) Does this mean that the advantage of medium format kicks in a lot sooner than some suggest?
And by the way, considering a couple of quotes from that "controversial" article:
"Of course while the D60 runs out of steam (pixels) at a width of 13" and the 35mm frames does so at just under 18", the 645 file can make prints up to 29" in width."
"...13X19" or larger prints then a 6MP camera isn't quite enough...there's no doubt that medium or large format is the way to go."
"...photographers who make Super A3 and larger prints are still ahead of the game shooting medium format..."
So far, there's not a hint that the author is making any inflated claims for the D60. There is one conclusion that is somewhat open to interpretation:
"If you shoot 645, 6X6 or 6X7 and have a high quality scanner, such as a Nikon 8000ED, Polaroid LS120, Minolta Dimage Multi or Imacon Flextight, then you are getting image quality and print sizes that digital SLRs can't yet touch."
It's clear that the author is comparing the D60 to scans of medium format. And earlier in the article:
"I'd like to parenthetically add that most people find that 35mm film runs out of steam on prints reaching 13X19" (or 16X20" when printing in the chemical darkroom)."
Therefore, one could conclude that without the additional degradation introduced by the scanning process (and he names several of the scanners he deems "high quality") the gap between a medium format print and D60 print is even wider. Lastly, if there is any question of bias,
"...I do most of my landscape work in medium format...because of the superior image quality."
I really have no basis for an opinion on this particular comparison, because I don't have a digital SLR, a medium format camera, or a high quality scanner. But I do have an opinion about the D60 review--it seems just about as unbiased and objective as any review I have ever read. The only bit of favoritism might be the selection of a Canon digital SLR over a Nikon SLR, but nowhere does he suggest that Nikon products are inferior.
We promote a friendly atmosphere at Nikonians, and generally treat each other with respect, no matter how irreconcilable our differences. But the Web is very public, and we live in a glass house. The last time I saw this much indignation over another website was when the famous Grumpy ripped the F5 to shreds. I don't think Michael Reichmann (I never even knew his name before) deserves to be described as whacked, losing it, disengenuous, schizophrenic, misguided and charlatan.
"I am always doing that which I cannot do, in order that I may learn how to do it." Pablo Picasso