D700 vs F5 : is it another nail on coffin?

They didn't say what fim they used, or how they scanned it or how they applied post to the two, and they didn't balance it so the colors and saturation came out the same. They just showed that the D700 is kickass and made a better image than whatever film and film process they used, and they didn't mention the expense of the D700 or that the film image would have been the same coming from a $70 F75. They also did a shot with almost no color in it and printed it at a size very few people use (and if they did they'd be using a better camera). Hardly a nail or a coffin.

Although I am suprised a 12 MP camera can make an okay print like that size... (just going to show MPs don't matter) Doesn't work unless we know the film. Also, they should have shot with ISO 100 film in a studio because one of their complaints was grain.

Yawn.

That awful, hysterical video segment got mentioned again? It's a very flawed test... for all the reasons above: scan resolution is never revealed, and neither is the type of film. As for the ability or expertise of the participants to "declare" any winner based on what they see... well, that's an open and shut case to me: they just say what they were told.

Completely bogus. They're just taking advantage of the hot-button "film vs. digital" issue to make a show. It's fluff and filler, nothing more. But Suzi Perry in the skintight Emma Peel suit? Yeh, I like that part. The rest is hogwash.

It's impossible to make optical prints directly from film negatives to that scale. Any use of the hybrid film-to-digital process in comparisons with a purely digital process invalidates any meaningful test. If I never see another bogus "comparison" that cripples film using a hybrid process, it'll be too soon.

Ignore the silly people. Use whatever equipment pleases you, inspires you, facilitates your quest and helps you to make the photographs you want to make.

What stood out to me is that both are totally the wrong camera for the assignment. They should have at least used a medium format test. Who shoots images that big with a 35mm camera? I'm surprised it was as good as it was, but as mentioned, you really would need to know how to post process the image to get the best results from either Nikon camera.

Yeah.. This again.. seen it a few time in various forums LOL. They did say it was ISO 400 film vs ISO 400 on the D700.. They should have gotten Velvia 50 and shot a sunset landscape! then we will see which is better! LOL.
Of course thats a wrong test as well but ... as along as we get the results we want ! Right?

shows like these, and magazines, are what is driving digital photography. the rush to buy digital has little to do with quality and work flow advantages. these productions are sponsored by Nikon, Canon, Sony et al. what you saw was just pure crap.

Well, one thing came out of that comparison for me. Cheesy, hyperbolic, flashy, intellectually deficient shows, using flawed methodology and over-the-top examples, aren't just limited to the U.S. TV market.
One conclusion was accurate, though. Digital has improved.
Wow. Big news.