The D1x is a current camera model that still sells to a certain type of customer. It's imager is 5.4 MP and is certainly up to current standards. The Kodak 14n is not a failure, either (at least not technically). You need read the reviews more carefully. If you meant to say $2000 dSLR's you should have. You said essentially all dSLR's "in existence" and you got called on it. You may feel the S2 that is at the top of the heap, but for resolving power the 14n and 1Ds clearly beat it. I suspect the SD9 can produce superior images as well at half the street price of the S2. It's a shame the SD9 is such an undesirable camera otherwise.
Don't make this personal. I'm glad you like your D100 and are getting acceptable images from it UW. Congrats!
I was comparing current 6mp $2000 DSLRs, not $25k digital medium format camera backs or the 1Ds. The D1x is OLD technology as digital goes and it's 4+mp image not up to current standards. I don't care if Nikon still charges $3500 for it, it's past tense. Same could be said for the failed Kodak 14N, failed Contax, lackluster Sigma Foveon and lackluster Canon 10D. In my original post I mentioned, "almost" every other DSLR in existence, not all; but I'd challenge you or anyone to prove me wrong with any image from any 35mm DSLR. Show me your best image and I'll show you mine. We'll let the readership here decide.
I am not a Fuji worshiper. I am a fan of image quality however. The fact that I've spent 30 years with Nikon systems means only that I'm reluctant to jump ship for Canon, Sigma or Pentax; I have too much invested in Nikkor glass. Right now I honestly believe that the S2 offers a superior image in the digital 35mm realm. Its a subjective opinion (wasn't that the impetus of this thread?) based on professional analysis of many thousands of images. Tomorrow, maybe the D2h will smoke the S2, next year the D2x. After that the Canon 2Ds. Who knows? Right now I think the S2 is at the top of the heap. Just a personal observation. Your mileage may vary.
As for your challenge, it's irrelevent. We're talking about cameras here, not photographers. I imagine Bob could match anything you produce with your S2 out of his existing inventory, but that wouldn't make the Nikonos V a superior digital camera, would it?
I'm surprised you called the 10D lackluster. I don't think you'll get much agreement on that from anyone familiar with the camera.
As for the other thread:
You're right, prints are much worse. The only reason that a low-end camera is suitable for web work is that high resolution is not required. Otherwise, a well calibrated CRT monitor is far better for judging images than paper. Apparently you and your nine friends don't know how to calibrate a monitor. Since you don't calibrate, the ten printers you have will produce 8-10 different prints as well.
The simple answer is color luminescence (monitor) versus color reflectivity (print) are not the same.