Well I don't have an A700, so the only area I can talk about is the images I have seen from it, jpeg and raw. I think it has more in the highlight range than the 5d does, of that I am certain..shadow wise, no convinced it's as good, the overall DR might be a bit better, but not to a huge degree.
Cameras are getting better with DR, a bit. However, the figures banded about are not realistic. I seriously doubt you would get 12 stops + from an A900, and have no effect on IQ at all. Even Simon at Dp has pretty much said to get the figures they did, the images were a mess. Not that I am knocking the A900, looks like the DR is better than some others.
The crucial difference between neg film and digital is in the way you expose it. The above sample was one, here is another. If you go out with a digital, and take this shot, as it is..the sky would be gone. So you are forced to underexpose to hold the highlights, recovery is a risky thing at times, loss of colour is the problem, some are better than others. Pulling up the shadows on digital, can work well, but only to a point, you get some colour shifts, noise starts to become a problem. You could get near to the DR of neg film by heavy pulling about of digital images, but the final results are not as good quality wise, the DR is "just there" with neg film, no pulling..no highlight recovery. Films will vary in their DR..or course, but I do not think we are at neg DR levels with digital.
The other point is the DR is where you want it, for shots like this. We know neg film does not like to be underexposed that much, you can to a point, but grain becomes stronger..most of its range is in the highlight area, which for shots like this is ideal. In low light conditions, digital has the advantage, it will take underexposure better... I would use digital for that type of stuff mostly. For neg film, expose for the shadows, and let the highlights take care of themselves. In the end, I got tired of spending more time looking at the LCD and histogram on the 5d, than getting the shots I wanted to. So now I mostly use negative film, colour or b&w for contrasty situations. And when the highlights do start to go on neg film, they do so in a very gradual way, digital tends to in a sudden way at times. It's also not possible to blow a colour channel on film, you can with digital.
Pros and cons to both. Obviously, for instant results, and volume work, digital is the way to go. For me at least, I find I am taking a lot less shots on film (for obvious reasons) for static scenes, this is not a bad thing. Think more, take less.
What I would like to see with digital, is a couple more stops highlight end, just there already..then we are getting to a nice place!
).
