This is posted on behalf of my BF,
I noticed that most people here are using digital camera.... spare a thought for the humble film SLR.
I still use a Nikon F80S SLR, and a F65 as a back-up camera. Instead of processing my film as prints I get the camera store to scan the negatives straight to disk so that I can take it home and crop and color correct to my hearts content on photoshop.
Sure, you may ask why I dont just go straight to digital if all I'm doing is scanning negitives in the first place. Well consider this.... If your serious about your image quality or you want to print your masterpieces in larger formats than the traditional 4x6inch photo having the means to get hi-res scans of your images is crucial. If for instance you have a 6.1mb res camera that's all the res you'll ever be able to get, which means that you can't really print much bigger than an A4size print, less if you crop the image. However taking a 35mm negative to a professional photo lab and asking for a high res scan (usually done on a drum scanner) should get you an image around the 32mb mark, offering huge scope for cropping options and bringing out the smallest details with great clarity. There's nothing worst than a potentially great image being ruined by pixelation.
Digital is great for snapping away and getting instant results and personally I'm still looking at getting a Nikon D100. I think film forces you to think more carefully about your composition, lighting and the content of the image. Digital cameras still have a long way to come before they truly compare to film cameras in the quality of image you can achieve at the lower end of the market. The best digital camera WILL achieve a 32mb res image.....but it also costs around $42,000 a piece. I picked up my F80 for $650 (second hand) and I think it's more than capable, with the right film of creating images of equal quality.........
So, spare a thought for film........ the digital revolution hasn't conquered this market just yet.....