Which O.K probably weren't, the technical piece of gear that ultimately decided the final print resolution was the enlarging lens. For 35mm I always used Leitz lenses because for me it was a little pointless taking snaps with their lenses then projecting them through lenses like bottle bottoms made by the likes of Nikon and Schneider.

Now moving away from the dark ways when alchemy was practised and we weren't Europeans I have a question. Digital cameras improve in leaps and bounds. Photographically I am partially housebound and refuse to lug a camera around when I do go out. But I have always enjoyed portraiture and architecture. I could revive my 'church' period and I have plenty of room to install a studio. then camera size wouldn't come into it, in the past I used to enjoy using Nikkor perspective control lenses Yes O.K. the first remark was a bit of poetic license) on my R3. So why not a D3 if it's as good as claimed? Only one niggle. Film output was controlled by the enlarging lens, so do printers such as the Epson R2400 out perform even the D3, are they capable of resolving all that information and getting it down on paper? If they aren't and the printers bring everything down to their level any ideas where that level is?

Or as usual am I barking up the wrong tree and it doesn't work that way?

If anyone replies please remember. I only reached the point where Hawkins explains how simply it would be to understand his " Brief History of Time"