Although they've been getting better, it's more difficult to be precise about capturing photos at the instant you want with a digital camera. There is a slight lag from the time you push the shutter button until the image is captured. Further, it's difficult to capture multiple images in rapid succession since it takes a moment for the camera to record each image before starting on another. Any delay in a film camera is in the winding mechanism, usually significantly faster that digital.
There are still issues with dynamic range on a lot of digital cameras: they're generally about as good as slide film, but don't quite have the latitude of colour negative. However, the noise thing makes a big difference: you can get astounding quality at 1600 ISO+ from digital where film would just be a noisy mess.
The only other unique advantages are all in the fact that it's analogue: you can fuck about with the film in development, the negatives afterwards, and the prints while you're making them -- I haven't seen digital solarisation that looks as organic as darkroom, for example.
There are some differences with film, but I think we are at the point in technology where a DSLR is definitely preferable to film. (Note: I say this a long-time film holdout.) It sounds like budget is a big issue. Here's my 2 cents:
If you can scrape together enough for a used Nikon D-40, I think you will be very happy. Others people will have other recommendations, but I have used my D-40 for over a year now, and I could not be more thrilled with the results. A kit including a lens can be had for under $500. I'm sure you can get one used for much less. Keep in mind that the semi-DSLR you used was probably significantly different than a true DSLR in several ways, the most important of which is sensor size. DSLRs have a generous sized sensor, which makes all the difference in the world when it comes to "grain" at higher ISOs. (Properly called "noise" in digital-speak.) For example, a decent DSLR can shoot at ISO 800 or 1600 with no more "grain" than a 400 speed film. This is a huge advantage over film in low light situations. There are too many digital advantages to list here, and the internet is full of examples, so I'll leave it at that. Do keep in mind that in the long run you will spend less with digital due to not having to buy film, and being essentially unlimited in the number of photos you can take.
Now, if you absolutely can not afford a digital DSLR, and have to go with film, then by all means go for it. The digital world has given advantages to the film world as well. For one thing, a great film SLR is dirt cheap. You can get a great SLR outfit with all the lenses and accessories you want for peanuts. The other advantage is digital processing. Until I got a DSLR, I took my film to Costo, and they developed it and gave me a CD with the images for $5. I could then edit the images and upload them back to Costco for printing. This is a very inexpensive way to get back into photography. As a counterbalance to my above statement about digital being less expensive in the long run due to lack of film costs, in the same way you can buy a lot of film and processing for the cost of a DSLR.
No matter which way you go, go for it! People have used film forever, and it's no less a valid way to take pictures today than it ever was. But if you can afford to go digital, with a real DSLR, that's the better option.
Answered by
Gyan Singh
, an ibibo Master,
at
8:30 AM on October 18, 2008