I’ve been shooting with my Nikon 4004 and then taking the film to the local Walgreens where I tell them I only want a photoCD and no prints. It costs a little under $5 per roll, which is less than prints and I still get them in an hour.
Now the interesting thing is I get back images that are 1536×1037. The Canon 300D/Digital Rebel produces images that are 3072×2048. So they get a higher digital quality from a digital camera than I do from a 35mm one. It is possible you could get higher resolution images made than what Walgreens is doing but I don’t know of any and the cost would surely go up.
This is interesting based on all the debate about the quality of 35mm being better than digital. In practical terms digital is better if digital is your destination. Blowing digital up for large prints is another issue. But I’m betting you could get good images at about the same sizes you could get good images with 35mm. If you want to get bigger than 8 x 10 both formats are going to start going down in quality.
I may just not know enough to know I’m wrong, but this seems right to me.