According to http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/LS2K/LS2KPICS.HTM : "If one thing's clear with the LS-2000, it's that you (sometimes) clearly get what you pay for. While scanners we've tested selling in the $300-$500 range are capable of producing nice results (and in the process, far exceeding the performance of all but the highest-end professional digital cameras), the Super CoolScan LS-2000 completely blows them away! Of course, this should probably come as no surprise for a scanner costing almost $2000, but we were surprised at just how great the difference was." Based on above statements, I guess the digital imaging quality is classed like this (From the best quality to lowest quality): 1. Drum Scanner. 2. Pro-level film/slide scanner, such as above mentioned Nikon LS-2000 Super Coolscan. 3. Highest-End Professional digital cameras / backs. 4. Scanners in the $300-$500 range (I guess HP Photosmart Scanner is in this class). 5. Consumer-grade digital cameras. If the Imagek digital film is not vaporware, I expect it will join the same class as consumer-grade digital cameras. Certainly not for professional stressing the utmost in picture quality, but highly useful for many photographers. Warmest Regards, Januar Rahadi. Bandung, Indonesia. >BACKPACKER's print resolution (minimum) is the equivalent to 270 dpi, which >means that the megapixel digital cameras have adequate resolution for small >photos (generally up to about 4" width). But...the real problem I've seen >with most of the digital cameras is that they have far too much artifacting, >which would be visible at the resolutions we print. > >Thom Hogan >Executive Editor, BACKPACKER Magazine >author, The Nikon Field Guide (Silver Pixel Press) >www.bythom.com
