There are some benefits of both system.
In general, analog film is resolution-wise still much better than (billable) sensor chips. In the not so far future (or maybe even today) it might be possible for CCD-sensors to beat analog-film resolution-wise, but such tiny sensors-elements would for sure produce a lot of noise. If you want to have a maximum resoluton AND a good signal/noise ratio, analog film is the best choice.
On the other hand, you need to have really good (and really expensive) lenses (and perfect shooting conditions) to be able to fully use the possible resolution. And if your photo is finally developped on a 4x6''-print or even in A4-or A3-format-print, you give away the potential super-resolution anyway...
What is more relevant for 'normal' photograpy is that analog film usually has a better dynamic range than electronic sensors. So if one works often with very strong or extreme contrasts, analog film may ¨be the better choice. For static objects, the dynamic range of digital photos can be extended with the DRI-method, but several shots of the same scene must be taken.
Another advantage of analog-photography is that you are (at least almost) independent of electricity when taking the picture. Especially in a cold environment, on longer trips in the wildness, when doing very long time exposures etc. the permanent need of electrical power can be a serious problem.
Next, an analog film is (usually) cheap, therefore you can even by 'one way'-cameras. For some strange experiments or in a very harsh environment, you don't have to risk a few-hundred-dollar sensor when you work with film.
Last but not least, with an analog film, dust is almost no problem. at least it's no permanent problem which affects many pictures.
But the digital photograpy has its benefits as well and some of them are really amazing:
A Digicam makes it possible to develop your pictures comleteley without a dark-chamber, without handling with (or buying) chemicals, simply with a complete 'digital dark-chamber' on your desk! This is also an important point which makes digital photography interesting for professionals. It simply saves a lot of time (and therefore money) if a picture can be processed immediateley after the shoot - or sent by email, published in the web or printed out directly in a minute.
A digital sensor allows you to change the sensitivity anytime, if you want, even from shoot to shoot. With an anlog-cam you have to change the film (or wear a couple of bodys, each loaded with a film of different sensitivity...
When doing long-term exposures, a digital sensor keeps its sensitivity over the whole exposure - an analog film looses sensitivity with time (but not with the same rate foe all colors) which leads to color-shifting and which makes it more difficult to calculate or guess the correct exposure time.
But what really brought a big change in photography is the possibility to immediateley check - at least roughly - the picture after it has been taken. It's simply a joyful and effective way to learn about photograpy if you get immediate feedback, if you directly see the effect of a change in the settings - even as a histogram.
My conclusion is, that analog film is usally technically better than digital photography - but to really get the overhead over digital sensors out of an analog film, the necessary time and effort is - compared to the development of a purly digital picture - often inadequate.
One last word: Nothing (expect money maybe) speaks against buying a digital camera AND an analog body. Good analog bodies are in the meantime very cheap - and in an emergency case, an analog body can of course act as a backup cam.
Post Edited (0:27h)
