Daniel, for your purposes, it is very possible that a 5D is going to give you more bang for your buck with regard to colour 35mm and that you will be, on the whole, more productive with it. You should make that determination yourself and not feel beholden to what I or anybody else says you should see or not see in your images.
If a dslr makes you happy/productive/creative then, hey, go for it. On that point I am pragmatic.
I think many/most of us use a lot of different techniques. I use a dslr from time to time, trad. b&w, MF, LF, drum scanned stuff, polaroid, paper negs, you name it. Depends on the purpose. There is no one solution for everybody. And, even for one person (e.g little old me) there is not necessarily a single solution.
I think where I part ways with some of the other opinions in these threads is in point (4) regarding grain in my other post. My honest opinion is that if low frequency information and grain is such an integral part of the "look" of a particular film image, then one must simply adhere to the traditional process, period. Print it 100% traditionally and then scan the print if you must. I'd say that you just cannot force that grain/tonality aesthetic into the digital workflow at a cost that is reasonable to most shooters. That's why I still use a 100% traditional workflow for most of my b&w stuff.
Different purposes, different tools.
If a dslr makes you happy/productive/creative then, hey, go for it. On that point I am pragmatic.
I think many/most of us use a lot of different techniques. I use a dslr from time to time, trad. b&w, MF, LF, drum scanned stuff, polaroid, paper negs, you name it. Depends on the purpose. There is no one solution for everybody. And, even for one person (e.g little old me) there is not necessarily a single solution.
I think where I part ways with some of the other opinions in these threads is in point (4) regarding grain in my other post. My honest opinion is that if low frequency information and grain is such an integral part of the "look" of a particular film image, then one must simply adhere to the traditional process, period. Print it 100% traditionally and then scan the print if you must. I'd say that you just cannot force that grain/tonality aesthetic into the digital workflow at a cost that is reasonable to most shooters. That's why I still use a 100% traditional workflow for most of my b&w stuff.
Different purposes, different tools.
But hey, yea... I mean if you like pure/natural grain then why alter the process? That is of course if you prefer hours of standing in total darkness, working pilot after pilot, dodging/burning, agitating trays, etc with absolutely no guarantee of having anything to show for it beyond accepting a compromise. 