I like cameras which use film.

My main interest is landscape photography. The price of excellent digital cameras is coming down, but I'd still need to pay way too much to get a digital camera which can equal the enlarged prints I get from pro film shipped across the country to be scanned on a way-too-expensive scanner (which I don't own) and printed on an equally expensive printer. Heh. But then that's starting to argue for using digital rather than film. I will go there within 5 years probably, once full-frame sensor SLR's are around $1,500 or less. If money weren't an issue, I'd probably be using only digital right now.

I own a small Pentax 35 mm SLR. I chose Pentax because it was less money for the same features which cost much more in other products.

Digital is nice for everyday snapshots, travel, and portraits though. It's hard to beat being able to see the photo immediately. Most cameras for sale can easily take a photo which looks great printed at 8 x 10.

I also use a wooden 4 x 5 large format camera. (The film is single sheets measuring 4 x 5 inches.) When conditions are just right and I can take the extra time it requires, I can take photos which capture detail only people who use cameras like this really notice in the final print anyway.

The camera is only a tool. The photographer is the one who makes the photographs.

Here's a site with excellent wisdom and information:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/recommended-cameras.htm