I suppose it depends how one defines 'better'. Before digital cameras were introduced, nobody ever thought about resolution; now many 'togs seem to be obsessed by it, often to the exclsuion of more important considerations. In my opinion, digital certainly produces 'cleaner' and 'sharper' images, but 'better'? Mmmm, I'm not so sure. There are so many competing aspects of image quality that I would be hard pushed to pick a clear winner; although both film and digital have undoubted advantages for specific applications. Considering the 35mm format for a moment, I would say with no hesitataion that my 5 MP E1 produces 'better' quality prints than a top quality 35 mm print film scanned on a top quality film scanner; even though the E1 has a more limited dynamic range. But if we move up to medium format, properly exposed Velvia 50 would be a hard act to follow, and for me, certainly produces far more 'pleasing' results. But how do we define 'pleasing'?