Bill,

It all depends on how large you want to print. With my Nikon D70 6MP without interpolation 12x18" is about the largest I want to print. With interpolation I've gone up to 20x30".

Thanks, Frans. I can get excellent 13X19 prints from my EOS 20D (8.2MP), and that's a large as I can print, anyway. So I don't think I'll be losing anything in that arena by upgrading to the full-frame 5D. What I'm concerned about is losing that subtle, indefinable quality (how do the French put it, je ne sais qua?) of MF film, something which I've believed, up to now, that can't be captured by a digital camera, no matter how good. But, recently, I've done a lot more work with the 20D and I'm more impressed with the results than I used to be. Maybe that's an age thing ,too. Add to that the fact that there's a lot less post-processing time involved with digital than with film.

At the same time, I really love the Hasselblad, and maybe I'm hoping someone will talk me out of this before I box it up and ship it down to Georgia.....

Bill,

Although I have not tested the very latest APS-C dSLR cameras, I had used most of them previous to the release of the Canon 5D. And I have files and prints made from them.

Putting the prints side by side the only possible conclusion I could come to is the more pixels the better the image quality with finely detailed subjects.

I opted to buy the 5D and got rid of several APS-C cameras because the full-frame sensor I found much less subject to edge artifacts with wide angle lenses, although I don't recommend trying to do architecture with a 16mm on a 5D, and the 10mm on a APS-C camera is much worse producing a lot of color fringing at the outer edges of the image frame.

I also have a 17 inch Canon imagePROGRAF iPF5000 printer so have taken quite a few 5D image to prints with a 16 inch wide image. Quite acceptable and comparable to many 120 film scans when the film scanned was ISO 400, but not quite as crisp as ISO 50-100 medium format scanned images.

The new Mark 2 5D should take care of that and then some. But I'm not going to upgrade as I find running the wide format 17 inch printer just too costly in paper and ink just for my own amusement.

Thanks, David. That gives me a lot to think about.....

Bill

Bill,

PS, another factor which may or may not be an issue for you: I find the viewfinder of the full-frame body is brighter and easier to see with my old weary eyes than the APS dSLR's, just about identical to Canon pro 35mm film SLR's, which I still have and use.

PS#2. If there is any way you can rent a new 5D and compare it with your 20D, that would be convincing one way or another, I won't buy a car I have not driven quite a bit more than just around the block.

Well, I've decided to hang on to the Hasselblad for a while longer. Time to quit whining and get on with it, I guess. But you pointers will come in handy if I change my mind again.....

An update:

Well, David, I did it after all. I'm now the proud owner of a brand new 5D Mk II, and I have to say I'm very impressed with it. I posted a sample shot in the Canon Users Group forum this morning. I've done more shooting in the last six weeks than I did in the previous six months, so I guess I'm a digital convert.

The only speed bump is the fact that you can't open the CR2 RAW files from this camera directly into Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop CS3. You have to download Adobe Digital Negative converter 5.2 and convert the CR2 files to DNG first. Either that, or upgrade to CS4, and I'm not ready to do that yet....

Anyway, thanks for the help and advice along the way.....

Bill

PS: I thought I'd be missing the Hasselblad, but I don't. It's kind of like an amicable divorce after a seven-year marriage....

Bill,

Great, glad you aren't disappointed.

If you have not done so, install the Canon Digital Professional application on your computer, or check the Canon web site for the latest vrsion- it's all free.

My preferred workflow is to tranfer the Raw files to my computer using a card reader. Then I open the folder in Canon Digital Professional, mark the entire selection after trashing the obvious duds. Then I batch process them all to 16-bit TIFF files saved to a folder. I can then open them with a browser and also individually in an editor (I prefer Lasersoft SilverFat HDR), to adjust and tweak to save files for printing in 8-bits at the print size I want to use, usually 12x18 inches at 300dpi.

It's the most efficient workflow I have found, and also preserves the best image quality to reproduces the best print output.

Actually, I'm pretty comfortable with the workflow I have now: RAW CR2>DNG>Adobe Bridge>Adobe Camera RAW>Photoshop CS3. I've gotten to like the DNG converter. It's pretty intuitive, and the batch conversion process is fairly simple to set up. Of course, one of these days I'll upgrade to Photoshop CS4 and the issue will become moot. Also, I save the original RAW files on DVD and an external hard drive, just in case. (In case of what, I don't really know, but a little paranoia is a healthy thing.)

Bill,

Just because a trail exists, that people have beaten a path into the ground, is no assurance at all it is the best route. Its just the path of least resistance.