As I see this thread has gone on for a long time, I am re-posting my contribution from early-on, because I imagine not many at this point have reads it, and I thin that it makes some cogent points about a subject which has failed to die a much deserved death; film and digital are quite different paths to image making and always will be, and, therefore, their uses and aesthetics will continue to diverge more and more.
Here's my previous post, keeping in mind that a previous poster brought up his film camera - a Fuji GX 680:
"My most used camera before I totally switched over to an all digital capture workflow was the Fuji GX680. Wonderful cam and lenses. It was a big tripod-bound brute though, but, run some Velvia, or even Provia, throught it and...shaazzam. Do a good 16-bit 4K scan and you've got an amazing image to work with.
I've shot with, and unfortunately owned (too much money!), just about every type of digital capture cam, from big Phase One backs, to full frame, to APS-C, to snapshot cams. No digital capture quite looks, or reacts to PP, quite like film. This doesn't mean it's better or worse, just different. Those who dismiss film images out of hand as inferior to digital probably haven't worked with really good film images very much. Autofocus 35mm derived color negatives are OK for making good 11 x14 chemical prints, or even larger, but terrible for scanning, and if that is your comparison to digital, then most every digital capture is better.
But, now look at some Fuji 6x8 transparencies, or certainly 4x5's, or 8x10's (yes, I used to shoot this stuff all the time), and your 'full frame" digital camera, even a Nikon D800, is left far behind. There is a combination of real physical and observable differences that, when combined, give film derived images something quite different from digital captures, and sometimes it comes down to just a superior looking image. Then again, sometimes not. But, different just the same.
While there is no question about the great cost benefits, efficiency, speed and startlingly quicker learning curve for beginners associated with digital capture, all the characteristics which make it now almost impossible for film to compete as either a commercial tool for competitive professionals or a medium fit for those with minimal skill sets, there is still a place for film in the hands of those already schooled in its proper use and for those who just love the "look" it can give. This smaller market will continue to slowly wither, but probably not die in the next 30 years or so. There will always be those, like analog sound enthusiast who brought back vinyl LP's and belt-drive turntables, who can hear the difference.
This is no contest of "film vs. digital" techno nerds; that pissing contest was always a foolish pursuit of a chimera at its most hotly debated. This is about the fact that excellent film shots will always look better than just average digital ones, and vice versa, no matter how good digital capture or future films ever become, and that film and digital will probably always look just a little different. Furthermore, if digital ever comes so close to being able to mimic the film look perfectly, who will care? Digital enthusiasts aren't really looking for it, and film lovers already have it. Go figure."