The quality of digital photos depends a great deal on the number of pixels. I have a 5 pixel camera and the quality is excellent. Also, the printing method is important. I get adequate prints at home, but if I really want optimized prints, I upload them to a commercial photo shop. I would never get rid of my film camera, but for convenience, ease and rapidity, give me a digital every time. Also, I think that unless you are taking professional photos, simple and relatively inexpensive will fill the bill perfectly. (Don't ask me for technical jargon, but personal preference, this should do it.)

I use both digital and film cameras all the time. They each serve a different purpose. Most people get better results with digital cameras. I prefer the look of film. Film takes much more work. Extremely skilled photographers can get better results on film if they can complete the many more steps from shot to print all perfectly. Beacuse there are so many ways things can go wrong with making prints from film, especially from print (negative) film, beginning photographers and hobbiests usually get better prints from digital because there are fewer variables to control. I get my digital prints made at Costco and they look stunning. Mark the Costco bag "Print as-is. No corrections" and your prints will look like your screen, so long as you've left your camera in its default sRGB mode. Labs usually make awful prints from film, which is why people who don't print their work personally get better results from digital. I've never been happy with prints from negatives made for me by any lab regardless of cost. This is because prints from negatives are at the mercy of the eye of the person making the print. If you're not making the prints yourself you usually get something completely different than you wanted, which means junk. That's why most photographers shoot slide (transparency) film, since the printer can see exactly what the photographer intended. Large format film still rules for serious landscape photography. I use digital for people, fun shots and convenience. Digital replaced film in 1999 for big-city newspapers. The biggest reason the results look different is the highlights. We're used to the way film looks. It overloads gracefully when things get too light or wash out. This mimics our eye far better than digital. Digital's weak point is that highlights abruptly clip and look horrible as soon as anything hits white. Unlike film there is no gradual overload to white. Digital cameras' characteristic curve heads straight to 255 white and just crashes into the wall. it's the same with video versus motion picture film. If any broad area like a forehead is overexposed your image looks like crap on digital. This effect is similar on cheap pocket cameras, my expensive Nikon D200 and $250,000 professional digital cinema cameras. A smaller reason is that film, especially larger format film used in landscape photography, has more resolution. This becomes important as print size increases to wall size but invisible in 5 x 7" prints. Which is Better? Neither is better on an absolute basis. The choice depends on your application. Once you know your application the debate goes away. The debate only exists when people presume erroneously that someone else's needs mirror their own. I can get great 12 x 18" glossy prints for $2.99 at Costco every day from my digital camera, and we all can get fuzzy results on film. It's the artist, not the medium, which defines quality. If and only if you're an accomplished artist who can extract every last drop from film's quality then film, meaning large format film, technically is better than digital in every way. Few people have the skill to work film out to this level, thus the debate. Most people get better results from digital. Artists print their own work, but if you use a lab for prints you'll have more control and get better results from digital. Convenience has always won out over ultimate quality throughout the history of photography. Huge home-made wet glass plates led to store-bought dry plates which led to 8 x 10" sheet film which led to 4 x 5" sheet film which led to 2-1/4" roll film which led to 35mm which led to digital. As the years roll on the ultimate quality obtained in each smaller medium drops, while the average results obtained by everyone climbs. In 1860 only a few skilled artisans like my great-great-great grandfather in Scotland could coax any sort of an image at all from a plate camera while normal people couldn't even take photos at all. In 1940 normal people got fuzzy snaps from their Brownies and flashbulbs while artists got incredible results on 8 x 10" film. Today artists still mess with 4 x 5" cameras and normal people are getting the best photos they ever have on 3 MP digital cameras printed at the local photo lab. Kenrockwell.com

As others have said, it depends on the application. I have one digital camera and a half-dozen film cameras. I use the film cameras for most of my work, principally B&W. A large-format camera - using 4"x5" and larger negatives - can produce an image with detail that cannot be matched by any existing digital camera. Some professional photographers take pictures with large format film cameras and then scan the negatives or positives using a film scanner. This has one advantage over digital-only cameras: you can rescan the negative as the technology improves, meaning that the picture you take today can improve in (digital) quality as the years go by. The main disadvantage of a digital camera is that once you have created the image, you are forever stuck with the resolution and quality of the sensor and camera used to take the photo. Medium-format cameras - using 120 or 220 roll film in 6x4.5, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17 cm formats - can also take exceptionally good pictures and their large negatives are also good candidates for scanning. Digital backs are available for medium-format cameras, but they are very expensive. Professional photographers have enjoyed the convenience of medium-format cameras for decades, but are now switching to digital for wedding and commercial work because it can be good enough. (Medium-format camera equipment is selling for 10 or 15 cents on the dollar today.) Most people, however, are primarily interested in snaps of the kids and such. For them, digital cameras have replaced film cameras, regardless of the relative merits of quality. One thing is certain: digital cameras are far more profitable for large companies who can keep up with the frequent redesign cycle. Some can't keep up - Contax, Minolta, and Bronica have closed doors recently. This year's digital fave can be next year's dud, while film cameras can produce top-quality images for decades.

I agree with the previous responders to this question. I also cover this topic at this http://apples.carsonwilson.com (apples.carsonwilson.com, "How Digital and Film Cameras Differ"). My premise is, "Film cameras are now a mature technology, which advances incrementally. However, our market-driven mass media showcase only new developments. They therefore provide overwhelming coverage of the immature but rapidly advancing technology of digital photography. This gives the impression that digital photography simply has more to offer, and has therefore now replaced film. There is some truth in this observation: people now use digicams instead of film for many purposes. But their choices often result from economics rather than the technical superiority of digicams. Digital photography is amazing and impressive in many ways, but if you choose it over film, expect to make sacrifices. I've assembled articles here exposing these sacrifices. I do this not to make a case for film, but to temper the popular view that advances in digital photography have now made film obsolete."