I feel compelled to point out for passers by that this is not really completely true: very few 35mm lens formats are wholly incompatible with modern digital bodies, and most support graceful degradation for things like autofocus. However, the crushing truth is that older optics are often insufficient for modern digital full frame sensors. A normal f/1.8 50mm plastic-fantastic Canon lens will give you sharper resolving power 90% of the time than an older equivalent, and only costs $100. Sure, you lose something in bokeh, but that's often irrelevant. Also, there are many compelling technologies that have emerged in lenses recently that are very useful for realistic shooting scenarios: stronger autofocus, quieter operation, better anti-flare coatings, lighter construction, superior per-image documentation (eg. specific zoom lens position recording in EXIF), ability to immediately shift between a far broader range of sensitivities than film and shoot confidently in near-dark, etc. You get none of that staying still, even though the benefits of equipment familiarity should never be understated. Where film does shine is resolution with good optics and larger (>35mm) formats, and dynamic range (though this will come under threat soon, and cannot match multi-exposure HDR).

I'm not a film apologist - digital is awesome, and for most use cases, superior. If I were a working photographer, I'd definitely be shooting digital. For artistic photography though, on a hobbyist level, I'm fine with film. When I need a digital camera, I have a pretty decent sensor built into my phone that I can use.

The only 'problem' is that the smaller sensor means that the old glass is effectively longer. In practice it means that some of the old glass gives beautiful results because you are only using the centre part of the lens, resulting in less distortion.

While certain of the new digital bodies are compatible with certain older film bodies and can use the same lenses and accessories, that's not universally the case, AFAIK.

Even the newest Nikon cameras can use F-mount lenses from 1959. Some of the metering modes are not available in some or all cameras. Some cheaper digital cameras cannot autofocus with lenses that don't have built-in autofocus motor.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

Canon DSLRs can use old EF lenses (since 1987).

Olympus OM lenses (since 1972) can be mounted to Olympus (and other) Four Thirds cameras using an adapter.

Also, ancient M42 lenses (since 1949) can be connected to most modern DSLRs using adapters.

Unless the camera system had autofocus in the body (which, as far as I've been experienced with, really only is medium format bodies) the lens always has had autofocus. Canon, Nikon etc.

The problem is that a lot of adapters for old lenses only feed mechanical (if even) instructions to the lens, for aperture and the like, and don't send over autofocus instructions.

Luckily manual focus will work just fine.

Nikon's compatibility with old lenses is quite stunning. They did one major change to their mount in the 70s but every mid-range or highrr camera since then has had 100% compatibility with any lens. Metering, aperture control, everything. The AF system still works too. You just have to use your hand as the AF motor and the camera will give you an indication when it thinks focus is correct.

Nothing about the experience of developing film sounds interesting to me.

Would you mind sharing other subtle nuances of shoot on film vs digital?

With film you have to supplement a lot of what's achievable in digital via guessing and checking with careful thought. You also have many fewer opportunities to get the shot right before you exhaust your film and probably blow the moment replacing it.

This makes film into a forcing function to perform excellent technique and to pre-visualize your shot. This creates better technique.

It's also nice that film has a very high effective resolution (when drum scanned), that film grain is a favorable aesthetic right now (it was usually considered ugly before digital), and that film has a logarithmic response to light meaning that it can handle a wider dynamic range than digital.

On the other hand, scientific imaging is definitely something where non-emotional performance matters and I doubt people use film for any kind of scientific work these days.

Not sure if that situation still exists in DV but for digital photography that stopped being true a long time ago (the balance started shifting almost 10 years ago), most digital sensors support more stops than even the best brands of film.

That said, subjectively I still feel that way. It might have something to do with digital noise and how the experience of actually witnessing different exposures feels between the two media.

I see a lot of photographers starting out not learning the craft. Some of the convenience of digital can reinforce bad habits. You can shoot a thousand photos in a few minutes, switching between a bunch of modes and options that you don't truly understand, and inevitably get a few decent photos. This isn't a fault of digital, it's just human behavior. I think for this reason, a lot of schools are still using film when teaching photography.

As an artist, I have a use for both digital and film photography. There's something about the way film feels, and the way the process of shooting film makes me feel, that makes me enjoy it so much more. My old Pentax cameras are very substantial, physical objects. The shutter opens and closes, and you can feel it - it's a physical act. Digital cameras don't have the same physicality about them. I still use both digital and film, they each have their own advantages to me and have their place.

Darkroom work was rewarding in its own way (for B&W). But, honestly, it was always a means to an end. I knew people who would spend all day making the perfect print. I never had that kind of patience.

I'm not one for strong opinions either way, I think there's a place for film photography and also for digital, and I like both.