>I didn't state my point very well about "we're >there" in megapixels.
I got your point quite well.
>In the olden days of film, when I was a Leica shooter (sold in >2002), the limit to image resolution was (typically)the >resolution of the film.
>The film that photographers used, as opposed to specialty >films, >was about that of the D600 sensor.
Rather depends on which photographers we're discussing doesn't it?
>That may have changed in recent years, but somewhere around 20 >Mpx approximates fine grain film resolution.
This seems to be a moving target. I've heard this stated when we got to 10MP, 12MP, 16MP, and i've heard that 24MP now exceeds what we had on 35mm film. But I take your point.
>That was my point- that this resolution (16-24 Mpx) is now >normal. >I have a photo I made with a 16 Mpx Lumix camera and a Leica >lens. It is hanging in my bedroom. It measures 5'4" x >3'4", and is visually sharp from 24" viewing >distance. >We're there.
In ye olden days of film, those of us who wanted to make significant enlargements, or shot more demanding subjects shot medium or large format. Whether that was 2.25, 4x5, 6x7, or 8x10. This was common in landscape, architecture, wedding, portraiture, fashion, etc.
Since fully half of my subjects tend to be fashion, portraits, or other demanding work, I say we are NOT there. Not with my D600, not with my D800. The Leaf, Credo, Phase One digital backs are pretty close.
In limiting the discussion to solely 35mm film, and say 100 ISO, I'd say my 16MP cameras are pretty close. I'd say my D800 does a great job replicating the slow films. It's really about perspective. In 2013 I am not really happy with the idea that I can now replicate what I was shooting 25 years ago. I'd really hoped to be further along, if that makes sense.