I think Nikon was slow in developing some hi-res DSLRs compared to Canon.
I remember I watched a poster like portrait print which looked very good and I asked what the source was. It was from a 11 MP Canon DSLR.
Can't remember what Nikon had a that time......4 MP maybe?
I then thought......ok....when Nikon come with around 11 MP DSLR I will consider.
So my first DSLR was a Nikon D2x.
It's true Nikon didn't have a full-frame camera early on; Contax, Canon and Kodak did. I believe a technology known as offset microlenses was developed and used first in Leica rangefinder cameras to manage the light coming from a difficult angle from the point of view of a digital sensor, and Nikon used this technology in the D3 which was their first full-frame DSLR. I don't have any inside information on this I am just recalling what was discussed at the time.
It was this camera that caused I sold my Hasselblad as my printed scanned (CS 9000) 6x6 slides does not looked better then D2x printed files (shot at low ISO). The largest prints I made were A3+.
That's interesting; I have an LS-9000 as well and I do find 6x7 cm film scans to be excellent and in some ways better than digital was at the time. Especially I think black and white film could hold amazingly fine detail. Yes, there is grain also, but there is robust detail and beautiful, rich tones in the sky and other even areas. I was using a Mamiya 7 rangefinder.
I think Nikon was settled only for DX sized sensors. I remember a Nikon article with a headline saying something like "who needs full frame?"
Every company has to try to sell what products they have at the time.
I also guess the D in DX stands for Digital.....or what is the history behind the "DX" naming?
APS film was called IX and so DX is basically Digital APS or DX.
For me it was difficult to get the dark shadow details out of the slides by using the scanner. It looked much better projected than when scanned. Maybe I should have made some "thinner" slides for scanning purpose only.
I was "allergic" to blown out highlights when projecting a slide.
I think it's just best to accept that the printed medium is different from a transmitted medium (transparency) and they have different properties. I've always been happy with the latest-generation LS-5000 and LS-9000 scanners compared to what scans I could get commercially for a reasonable price per scan. However, the film still contains more detail as can be seen in some comparisons between Nikon's 4000 ppi and Minolta's 5400 ppi scanners, as well as when looking at slides under a good microscope. However, depth of field creates challenges in the scanning process and while there are ways of mitigating it, digital cameras do capture more consistent detail across the frame than scanned 35 mm film.
