One of the biggest reasons for me is that I was able to acquire an entire pro-grade manual focus SLR system with lenses from 20mm to 400mm, an 5 different camera bodies, for less than the cost of a new Canon 5D. The same new digital-based system would have cost well over $15,000. That's a savings of $13,000, which buys one whole heck of a lot of film. Plus, film camera bodies just keep going, with $100 worth of maintenance every few years. Three or four years down the road, a $2000 digital body will be hopelessly obsolete. As if this isn't enough, probably most importantly is that I just like film. I like the way it looks, and the predictable results that I get from it.

There is also one other little known advantage a digital has over it's film counter part and that is the 1.5 lens factor. This means, for example, a 300 mm lens on a digital camera acts like a 400 mm lens on a film camera. This is due to the internal placement of the sensor in a digital as compared to the film in a film camera.

Unless one can get their hands on NASA's Kepler space vehicles camera (something like 95 tera-pixels) digital still can't do the job of a good film camera due to the large variety of available films.

Basically, these are the big differences in the physical form between a film and digital camera:

*On film cameras, the back will open to load film, on digital, it won't.

*Generally, digital cameras use much more power, so batteries are usually of the rechargeable type.

*the digital camera will have a screen on the back for immediate image review

Otherwise they're pretty similar.

I would of thought they are fairly simular, depending on the spec if the cameras you're refering too. You get to see the image and whether you are happy with it and need to retake it or not on a digital, but you can also delete it accidentally in an instant by mistake.

Don't really know what to say about this

I was thinking to ask this too