[noah]

oooh now thats a very big can, i'm happy with it compared to my experience with film. but like said above i used 35mm, not the larger formats so i dont know how they compare

[Arkady]

I've got a Pentax 6x7 and used a Hasselblad for quite a long time in the past - I reckon the D1x was as good as medium format for most of the time - and the D2x is definitely way better.
We can print up to A0 with full photo-quality with the right printer.

[dazzajl]

I've got a Pentax 6x7 and used a Hasselblad for quite a long time in the past - I reckon the D1x was as good as medium format for most of the time - and the D2x is definitely way better.

I find that quite surprising.

I don't really know anything about Nikon stuff but I do know that shots from my little Bronica SQ are still better than the EOS 1D II.

[Arkady]

A lot of it depends on the film you use and the way the film's processed - I used Ilford FP4 developed in D76/ID11 at 1:3 dilution. This gave me very fine-grained negs. I printed on Ilford Galerie using a cold-cathode enlarger (which some would say is ALL WRONG, but sod 'em).
Most of my work was very Low-Key - subdued lighting and printed quite dark.

I just find that with the D2x I really have the flexibility to do all that I could with the 6x7 and more. Maybe if you enlarged up to ma-hoosive size, the 6x7 would have the edge, but at 16x12" there's no discernable difference.

[dazzajl]

but at 16x12" there's no discernable difference.

I'd agree totally with that. I've been more than happy with the 1D up to and a bit beyond that range.

As for the FP4 stuff, I always hated it with a passion. Although like you, lots of people seemed to be able to get great results with it, I never could.

Was more of a T-pan man myself. Of course that's gone the way of many great films now.

[Arkady]

I still have a freezer full of T-Max and XP-2... God knows if that'll ever get used up...