In terms of quality from 35mm slides or negatives remember that
dedicated film scanners have optical resolutions of 2700 dpi whilst the
best flatbeds have only 600 dpi optical (despite exaggerated
interpolated figures). See Eg. the Nikon Coolscans at
http://www.klt.co.jp/nikon/EID/Film_Scanners/index.html
and my pages at:
http://www2.tcd.ie/People/Bernard.Picton/Nikon/index.html
http://www2.tcd.ie/People/Bernard.Picton/Nikon/LS-1000Specs.html

The big advantage of digital cameras has to be their instantaneous
results if their lower quality is acceptable for the purpose (eg. screen
display only). I still feel that the effort and time of taking the
photographs justifies using 35mm (or better), archiving these and
scanning from them. When digital cameras reach the same definition as
film, RAM costs 10p a Mb and screens have 300 dpi resolution then this
will change perhaps.

Bernard Picton

Chris Andersen wrote:

>
> There is an excellent article about the new digital cameras, their overall
> quality, and their utility (or lack thereof), along with a second review

*** text deleted ****

> Having tried out several digital cameras (Casio, Kodak and Canon), I would
> have to agree.  You can do so much more with a high resolution scanned
> image than you can with a low-res digital camera image that there is
> simply no contest. And given that the prices of really decent scanners
> are dropping like rocks, you would be *much* further ahead buying one,
> equipping it with a transparency adapter, and manipulating images with
> suitable software (e.g. Adobe Photoshop).  That is, in fact, what I did
> myself last month, and I couldn't be happier.
>
> Chris J.-Andersen ([log in to unmask])
>

--
    Web page: http://www2.tcd.ie/People/Bernard.Picton/

    "The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names."
(Chinese proverb)