Dwight,

There really is no sensible answer to your question because there really is no equivalence between the two even though some have tried to develop some kind of mathematical formula. If you were scanning that 100 speed film with a 2700dpi scanner, a 4000dpi scanner and a 5400dpi scanner the result would be different between them.

Of course the more megapixels the more information is captured so the larger a maximum print size that is practical, and to some extent how large a print a photographer expects to make should influence how many megapixels you may want to afford.

Otherwise trying to equate digital capture and film is a an apple vs orange comparison. They are two quite distinct mediums. One produces a physical artifact as an image while the other produces a record of information that as no physical existence.

Back when 2 megapixels was standard and 3 was the bleeding edge of technology, we were told that once the technology reached 8 megapixels there would be no difference in resolution between film and digital images. We're now well past that mark and I'm making excellent 13x19 prints from my Digital Rebel XT's files.

But it's foolish to think that there's no future for film. Photography is both an art form and a hobby and there will always be a niche where film is still enjoyed. After all, George Eastman cut the legs out from under the large format cameras at the turn of the last century. Yet large format survives to the point where you can buy those cameras brand new in current manufacture.

Don't worry about film disappearing anytime within our lifetimes.

It is your call, really. Film and digital are tools to record your pictures. Film has been around, for what, 150 years? Affordable digitized images have only been around for 15 yrs(?) There is still serious questions of the permanence of the media. CDs can lose their images in two years. Poof, they're gone. Has anyone priced color printer cartidges lately? A few printed images can cost you $40-60 worth of cartridges. The only alternative is to have te imeages produced at an outside print shop and that can get costly too. Digital is instant gratification into a workflow that is optimal for commercial purposes. There are still plenty of alternatives to digital. Kodak and Ilford have dye-based B&W films that can be processed in C41 soup. This film is a bit soft but I think it is boon to having your B/W film developed at the corner drugstore for nothing more than a regular roll of color film. So, the bottomline is chose your tool of choice for the task. I for one am building a darkroom so I can enjoy my recently acquired medium format and 35mm film equipment. Upstairs I have a Mac, scanner, and PhotoShop for other purposes.

Quote:
Back when 2 megapixels was standard and 3 was the bleeding edge of technology, we were told that once the technology reached 8 megapixels there would be no difference in resolution between film and digital images. We're now well past that mark and I'm making excellent 13x19 prints from my Digital Rebel XT's files.

But it's foolish to think that there's no future for film. Photography is both an art form and a hobby and there will always be a niche where film is still enjoyed. After all, George Eastman cut the legs out from under the large format cameras at the turn of the last century. Yet large format survives to the point where you can buy those cameras brand new in current manufacture.

Don't worry about film disappearing anytime within our lifetimes.

So Chip, when I do decide to add D-SLR to my cache of image capturing armament (when they have decent Wi-Fi capability, and let's not forget a built in GPS ), I will not have to look for anything higher than 8 megapixels? That would be great, and would save me some digital megabucks as well!

In point of fact, a 3mp image will make a perfectly nice 8x10 print. What more megapixels will do for you is to enable you to make larger and larger prints from smaller and smaller crops of the original image. If that's the sort of capability which is not worth the extra cash to you, then you'll do just fine with 8.

Quote:
when they have decent Wi-Fi capability, and let's not forget a built in GPS

You say this with a grin, but in fact Wi-Fi is already built into some cameras and you just KNOW that GPS is coming too. After all, my cell phone's been GPS capable for years. It's not for everyone, but for some it would be invaluable.

Yeah, I know some of the Canon and Nikon point and shoots have Wi-Fi, and I could definitely see uses for GPS, oh say, for instance if it gets stolen!

Right now, though, D-SLR is just way too expensive for me. I would like to believe that there would eventually be a point where a plateau was reached with them, and a standard was reached, and prices would become realistic for me, but somehow I don't see that happening in the near furure. As they have become their own little version of computer, constantly evolving and growing, you'll be paying for the features that you need, or if you're among the noveau riche (<-sp?), the ones you want or think you need. I'd be looking for rugged as well, as opposed to it looking like it was a plastic toy!

I should have used the term megabuxels instead of magabucks in my original reply to you !!