>>3466695>I really thought digital was better in IQ from an objective viewpoint
In terms of objectively measurable characteristics, it is. With caveats.
1. Modern digital is higher resolution. For usable detail, even an old 12MP full frame can outresolve 6x7 with most films, much less modern 36 or 50MP monsters, or things like the Fuji GFX line. There exist specialty niche films like Adox CMS20 that can potentially outresolve digital, but only under extremely careful conditions, using their special developer, and limiting yourself to extremely low ISO. If you want to shoot at blazing speeds like ISO 100 or 200, digital is going to destroy everything below large format. Example source: https://luminous-landscape.com/shootout/
2. For dynamic range, it's about equal, with digital pulling ahead at the high end. It's basically a question of preserving highlights better (film) or preserving shadows better (digital). And again, there are some ridiculously high dynamic range films, and large format is always its own thing. But also, again, digital totally stops on film in dynamic range when you start moving up the ISOs.
Any other question of image quality is not an *objective* question of image quality, it's subjective. And some people definitely 100% prefer film's *subjective* look. But they can't then use that and say it's *objectively* better even though they constantly try to.
Personally, my own experience, I have always gotten better looking results out of digital cameras than with film. The only film that I ever even came close to liking more than digital was Kodachrome, and that's gone forever. So for me, digital is the way to go. But I understand the difference between a preference and objective reality.