In reply to the message of Ckw.
I disagree with you that the quality of a scanner is higher than that of a digital camera. See some of latest uploads which were all done with a digital SLR, e.g.:
Click for large version
Photo © Marco Miltenburg
You definitly need a good film and a very good scanner to even match this result. The lack of grain and the sharpness you get from a digital camera are very difficult to match with normal film or slide.
It's neither true that digital camera's produce 8 bit results. For example my Nikon D1 (and I know some Kodak's do as well) works at 12 bits internally and you can get that out of the camera when shooting in raw format. When shooting normal JPEG, you get 8-bits output, but it uses the 12-bit data for that.
The same goes for scanners by the way. The 12-bit models also give you 8-bit results as that's the standard to work with. Most consumer slide scanners aren't 12-bit either. Most are 10-bit or even 8-bit. Only the more expensive models (e.g. Nikon LS-2000, Canon, Minolta).
You are right in saying that scanners can produce larger files than most digital camera's. This important if you want to print the picture (especially if you need a large print) but is not at all important for use on the internet. I have to down-sample all my D1 images otherwise they would be to large to view.