"Film is still hard to beat"--not cost-wise. I dunno, I just got my EOS 3 off ebay for $150 shipped.
at $12 a roll of film plus $8 developing, how many rolls do I have to shoot to equal a 5D3 body?
If the roll has 36 exposures then each image costs you 55.55 cents. You've spent $150 on your film body. A 5D3 costs $3499. So you can take around 6000 photos before your costs catch up to that of a 5D3. For a professional, that's not many images, although you won't be as trigger-happy with film as you would be with digital.
I shoot at least 1k photos on a three day vacation, sometimes upwards of 2k. Over the course of a year I shoot at least 10k pictures, I try to do about 100 pics per day. A lot of it is learning, I learn a little bit more (usually) with each shot. But buried in there are some really good pictures (non professional and zero interest in going professional)
When I shot film I'd do a few canisters on a vacation, hate the cost, and miss 99% of the shots I could be taking. No way is film economical, I happily just 'blew' about 300 shots on a nephews birthday party, and some of them are really good. Never would have done that in film days - never mind the extra goodies like now I can do work in post in a civilized manner (no stinking chemicals in a stupid darkroom)
As far as I'm concerned digital equipment is free. A vacation in film is roughly equal to the cost of a 'L' lens.