Field Use - This can be quite a broad topic when considering the advantages/disadvantages of digital and film photography. I'll try to limit the discussion to the expanded utility digital has compared to some of the detriments film doesn't have.

The first and most obvious improved characteristic digital cameras give photographers out in the field is immediate feedback. Whether it's a little 1.8 inch or massive 2.5 inch screen, being able to immediately review a capture is awesome. Because of this, the photographer can assess whether he got the image, whether his position was correct, his exposure was spot on, whether the subject had their eyes closed. There's just too many things to see with an immediate review. Essentially, being able to immediately review images significantly improves the probabillity a desired image is actually captured. When on site for a long time like I am when shooting on location, being able to review all my images at the end of a day lets me set my goals for the following day and to correct any errors I may be making. Being able to review images almost immediately gives anyone an incredible opportunity to correct mistakes.

Is this without a cost? No. Many little problems propped up for new digital photographers used to their film workflows. First and foremost is dust. A charged digital sensor is a dust magnet. Everytime the shutter opens revealing the sensor from its protective cocoon to the outside world, dust seems to migrate to the sensor like guided missiles. How is this a new problem you may be asking? Dust was always a problem for photographers. Anytime you remove and replaced lenses, inners of the camera were opened to the elements including dust. This wasn't a problem with film shooters because its "sensor" was replaced every 36 images. Dust, if there was any, was eliminated with the new roll of film. Digital cameras never replaces its sensor. Dust collected and collect. Even though I was fully warned about of the hazards of dust, my brand new Nikon D1h had dust specs all over its sensor on my very first field trip to Bosque Del Apache NWR. Fortunately, many techniques and tools were developed to minimize this problem. And, the camera companies developed their new cameras with dust avoiding technologies to minimize the problem. The problem is way less now with my Nikon D2h than it was with my Nikon D1h.

What else is there? Power. You can't have enough. If you were brought up in photography back in the days with internal meters were a relatively new feature, you remember mechanical bodies that didn't need batteries. Enter the 21's century with digital cameras, you now need batteries and even more batteries. Having power out in the field can be an incredible challenge. Even the fully electronic F5 didn't eat batteries as quickly as my Nikon D1h. In my 30+ years of shooting I've only been left out to dry once due to power. A couple years ago on a very cold morning in Jasper NP both of my cameras were dead as door nails due to no power. I had mistakenly assumed I could live with my batteries as they were and didn't charge them. The relatively low power state and the cold drained the batteries quicker than crap througha goose. There I was left staring at a majestic bull moose bed down in a beautiful meadow with a light snow. The imagery was awesome but not captured because I was left standing without an electron moving through my gear. Now, can I deal with this? I guess I can to a degree. Will I be able to conduct an excursion to the most remote parts of the earth with my power hungry digital camera and not worry about power. No, I don't think so. But for most places I frequent--99% of what I shoot--this isn't a problem. I usually have an electrical socket to plug into whether it's in my camper or at a hotel. There usually some place to get power in our 21st century electrical world. This just means you need to consider things when you go to places with less than western technology at your finger tips.

How does all this rate? The problems created by going digital for most civilized shooting situations are far out-weighed by the immediate feedback you get from the little LCD screen on the back of the camera.

Advantage - Digital

Exposure - The bain of all photographers is exposure. Digital technology changes this, not. Since photography is nothing but a pursuit of capture of light, you can imagine exposure is quite important. We'll discuss the differences between the two mediums, digital and analog.

Regardless of the medium, you use the same basic tools to determine exposure. You use a meter of some time to measure light, applly adjustments based on your subject's characteristics, and set your camera appropriately. Since the mid-70's cameras have automated most of this process and developed shutter and aperture prioirity mechanisms. As the years passed, meters became more complex evolving from basic reflective meters to highly refined, color aware systems that were "smart" enough to assess a scene to set the camera properly. All this technology is availabe regardless of whether you're working with an analog format such as slide film or a Nikon D2h's digital sensor. The basic metering capability between the formats are exactly the same.

"They're the same so the digital and film benefits are equal" you're saying by now. But they aren't. The first most obvious difference is digital's immediate feedback I noted above. I won't repeat what I just said except to say on average per shooting session, people will get exposure more accurately than with film simply because there's the ability to check right away if the exposure set correctly or not. Now, what about picture per picture? It's my experience moving from a Nikon F5 with its 1005 segmet color matrix meter to the Nikon D1h and its 1005 segmet color matrix meter the transition was a huge step backwards. I routinely used the F5 in aperture priority and rarely if ever used more than 1/3 stop of compensation to get the exposure right. Except for some backlight situations, the F5 meter was spot on. Enter the Nikon D1h and it's very similar color matrix meter. This meter is similar but not the same as the F5. I initially tried exactly the same techniques I used with the F5 with limited success. I learned how my digital camera was particularly sensitive to blowing out highlights. While I could shoot Fuji Velvia with my F5 and care little if at all about compensation during the day. The D1h on the other hand routinely blew out white highlights of Sandhill Cranes and the white feathers of Snow Geese I was shooting. Clearly something is amiss. I've seen similar characteristics with all of Nikon's digital SLR's. For one reason or another Nikon's SLR's have a particular sensitivity to over-exposure.