I've long been a proponent of shooting film over digital for three simple reasons:

 

1. incredible exposure lattitude and higlight detatil when shooting negatives, which leaves you with more options in post.

2. resolving power when using something like Fuji Reala outdoes all but the most expensive DSLR's. At 35mm, Reala can break 20 megapixels of detail with proper technique and exposure.

3. cheap all-manual camera bodies and lenses allow for use in harsh enviroments/dangerous places with little worry.

 

Until now, I've thought the advantages of sticking with 35mm film for still/candid photography outweighed the disadvantages. That was until my Minolta Scan Elite 5400 II broke a couple months ago. The scanner was $600 in 2005 and Minolta has since dissolved as a company, meaning no customer support and limited repairs. I sent the scanner in for repair at Precision Camera, and it came back in the same condition it left- putting black lines and a bizarre greenish bar across scans. I spent $150 dollars for nothing, and now have to send it out again (probably will not be fixed again either). I'll keep sending it back until they refund my $150. I don't think there's any way they can locate replacement parts for a scanner with such a limited run.

 

This leaves me with a huge problem. I have a large archive of film that needs to be scanned, but no scanner to do it. I may have to buy an expensive $1000 Nikon 5000 ED, scan all my film, and then sell it back on ebay.

 

With prosumer DSLR's now in the 10-megapixel range (matching or beating higher speed 35mm film), I see no reason to shoot 35mm film ever again, unless for special projects requiring the exposure lattitude and highlight detail negative film offers. For the same price as the Nikon 35mm film scanner, I can buy a 10-megapixel DSLR body plus a good lens.

 

In the long run, that's saving money and I will have a much easier workflow (no more scanning). Basically, it's time for me to give up on film altogether, even if it does have more exposure lattitude and an "organic" look.

I'll agree. The Nikon D70 was significantly better than 35mm, but not quite up to medium format, IMO. The D200 seems to clearly stand up to medium format; I made some 12x18 300dpi prints from D200 shots for an exhibit, and the detail is as sharp and crisp as I could want.

 

I still had hopes of using up my remaining inventory of 120 Fuji Reala and Provia 100F, but the pro lab that I used has gone out of business (not enough film-based photography) and there's no one else local that I trust. I may shoot up the stuff anyway and send it out of town, or maybe I'll just forget it.

 

The Nikon scanners are pretty rugged; I've run thousands of slides and negs through my 8000ED, and it's still going strong. Now, watch it die tomorrow!

 

I've thought about upgrading to a 9000ED while they're still making them. I expect film scanners to become nearly extinct before long, except maybe for the high-end drum scanners that the pro labs use. So far, Nikon hasn't released 64-bit drivers for their film scanners, and I suspect that the current generation may be the last.