Hi Clive,
You are absolutely right in that you mentioned the ink jet printer used as being a limitation. And I do totally agree that photographic paper will definitely give better resolution, as I mentioned. Ironically, the larger you make the printed image, the more important the source becomes while printer resolution becomes secondary.
What I don't understand is how you then generalize that an XA will always provide a better image than an ND. The point I was trying to make is that under certain circumstances that may be the case, but if you optimize the production chain from each of the sources, like Marc says, you will definitely get superior images from the ND.
Also, you are assuming that the printed paper is the final product. While that may be true in your case, computer monitors are becoming more and more prominent as a mainstream photographic output.
I also believe the Zeiss lenses on the ND will make their mark in overall contrast and color rendition, which are far superior than that of the XA's rather humble lens (good for the price, though
).
I believe a valid comparison could only be done by printing an original ND file (not some web JPEG version) on a truly high-quality ink jet, and a custom print from an XA neg / chrome, from the same subject, preferably one chosen for its wide latitude of tonal range and contrast. Comparing otherwise is good only for lively forum discussions
.
But in the end, hey, we can all agree to disagree. After all, how boring would it be if we all thought exactly the same way!
In the meantime, enjoy your XA (well, I'm sure you use your other cameras as well).
Cheers,
DJ
BTW, know anybody in the NYC area interested in a Jobo ATL-3? I'll give them a great deal.