I do not understand why we need to debate this point. I have looked at the post that started this thread and all I can see are assumptions based on scanner resolution and Dmax. No other facts or valid comparisons. Resolution for example is not just about numbers of megabytes. My only interest in this discussion is, can you take a better picture more easily with a digital camera most of the time than you can with a film one? In my experience, the answer would have to be yes and this is what most people seem to have discovered in the last two or three years.
The reason for starting this discussion was not to start another silly film vs digital debate. That is much too broad and simplistic but unfortunately, this is how some people choose to perceive it. I am committed to digital (Canon 20D) and certainly am familiar with its advantages and disadvantages.
Again, my point was that, at this point in time and FOR LARGE PRINTS (ie: bigger than A3) does it make sense to spend $8,000 or even $30,000 to assure yourself that you are getting superior image quality?
As a photographer, I can evaluate this subjectively without the need to quote technical details. The "proof" is in the perception, not the "facts", which as you know can support any contention you care to imagine.
For thoughtful people who are open to different opinions, we have debates. In dictatorships, only one view counts. Which do you prefer? It is not beyond question that an 16 MP camera is better in every respect than MF film. No matter how often Mr. Didger offers his entusiastic support for Michaels' views, I still think there is a debate here, as evidenced by the opinions of other very experienced photographers in this same forum.
This year, I won an international photo competition in Japan with a 6x7 image that bested many 12MP and up digital photos. Does this prove 6x7 is better? No, of course not. What it does show however, is that making a good picture is determined much more in composition and technique, and finally by perception. It's not in the number of megapixels. (and yes, I agree digital workflow is superior) Which brings me to the final point I was trying to make.
This was about cost- the upshot tbeing that IF you already have a MF film camera, and IF you are on a limited budget, AND you want to retain excellent image quality for large prints, THEN it would be wiser to buy one of the newer scanners, scan the film and wait until 22MP camera prices fall into a reasonable range.
I guess that means I respectfully disagree with Michael that an 11 MP image is "better" than 6x7. All I can say is I there is a legitimate time and ocassion to still use this format. Viewing the images from both formats side by side, I made my own subjective evaluation.