Digital BW, The Print

PanF and similar can outperform affordable Digital. But if you shoot 
high-ISO digital will provide cleaner images (especially at 3200).

Note that the Scan Dual III and IV only produce around 10MP scans, you 
aren't getting 20+MP of info from them. The 5400 will do better.

I went back to film from digital because I enjoy the process more and 
can buy a lot more camera for my money (compare the price difference 
between a $450 used F100 and a $1700 D200, that's a whole lot of film, 
and I'm shooting the even cheaper F3 currently).

Both have their advantages. Film's got dynamic range, vastly more ISO 
options (12-12,800 are easily acheivable with films on the market 
today), digital has lower recurring costs, cleaner high-ISO (well, 
800-3200) and crisper output (due to the regular pattern of the sensor, 
which is why 'modern' grain films, with their consistent grain size 
often look indistinguishable from digital).

-Adam




Art wrote:
> I am getting ready to purchase a Minolta Konica scanner over
> purchasing a new digital camera because everything I have read about
> scanning a 35mm black and white negative has indicated that scanning
> has the megapixal equivalent of around 20mgpixals or above campared to
> the cameras that are out there now.
> 
> does anyone have any comments?
> 
> 
> Art
> 
> 
>