Howard,
The scanner vs. DSLR issue is a tough one to call. I have decided to stick with film for the near future, but if someone gave me a 1Ds then I'm sure I'd love it! The way I see it, the benefits of digital stack up like this: smooth images, no scanning hassle, instant feedback, ability to vary ISO on a per-shot basis, no film flatness worries, no concerns about airport X-rays and of course you can blast away without worrying about wastage, which can be creatively liberating. Film gives you: higher sustained frame rates, easier image storage, more choice over look and dynamic range by choosing film/developer appropriately (including a classic grainy look if that's what you want), cheaper bodies so having several is more feasible, ultimate sharpness using fine-grained B&W films, speed beyond 1250 or 1600 when necessary, ability to project slides, no sensor cleaning problems and (on the flip side of the "blast away" attitude of digital) a more considered way of working that can foster better craft.
For me, there will never be one camera that will do it all, and there isn't enough choice in the market for me to consider going all-digital right now. I have four systems that I use on a regular basis, and while it would be possible to splash out on a 1Ds to sit behind my Canon glass, where would that leave my RTS II, Oly OM and Mamiya 6? As long as I have even ONE film-based system that I care about, I need to face up to the scanning challenge, so my strategy has been to ignore digital capture for the time being and put my money and effort into the scanning side.
I'm really hoping that the Minolta 5400 will "slay the beast" for 35mm, as that would be a big step forward. I'm looking forward to giving it a good pummelling over the weekend to see where I can trip it up. What I didn't mention in the Photo-i posting is that I'm planning to do back-to-back comparisons with the Imacon 848, as a friend has cheap access to one. (This is the king of CCD scanners, with 8000ppi resolution and an actively cooled sensor. The price is an actively cool £12000 however...)
Neg is the real issue, that and low-key chromes, especially Kodachromes. I suspect that if I find the 5400 acceptable, then most other people will too, as I keep hearing that I'm fussy and my expectations are too high. I had an Epson Perfection 3200 for a short while, a unit that others raved about, but found it to have unacceptable shortcomings. Ditto the Canon 9900F. My Nikon LS-30 is reasonably sharp but has terribly coarse tonality that rules it out for fine print making, especially in monochrome. When I visited Salgado's amazing Exodus exhibition recently, I was shocked to see scanner artifacts in many of the portrait images in the upstairs gallery. I suppose at least I felt I was in good company with my scanner problems!
But anyway, keep watching the Photo-i thread, and I will update it as things progress over the weekend.
Best regards,
-= mike =-