logs: I don't bother with zone shooting a DLSR. I also do little work in B/W as post software allows by to force a color shot into a very good B?W.
There are advantages and disadvantages. And, your style of use, subject matter. should have something to do with the decision.
An SLR camera, at it's basic, is simply a light tight box with a method of attaching a lens. So, they are comparatively cheap unless you desire hyper shutter speeds and such. Most require a battery for the meter and shutter. The FM2 did/does? function w/o a battery, the meter is kaput then. The world's best back-up camera back in the day in my opinion. Now I carry spare batteries. The disadvantages are of course the delayed viewing and appraising of the shots, the need foreither a darkroom or a good lab, the desire to work with the chemicals, and the cost of film. Also, in many cases, limited lens choices. Nikon is the only manufacturer which allows older, not digital designed lenses to be used on the latest body.
Today's digital cameras are relatively expense but, offer all sorts of in-camera settings, great sensors in the pro grade bodies, although the cropped bodies do very well indeed. Of course there is the ability to immediately evaluate a shot and no waiting for a lab. The "brain" in the camera handles automatic settings probably better than most shooters can. Automatic modes will give you a salvable shot probably 95% of the time. This is a God send when caught by surprise. I usually travel with my cameras set to auto. If a bear jumps out in front of the truck, an auto accident or any surprising incident occurs I can grab a couple quick shots secure in the knowledge of have a good shot. If the subject poses or the accident or whatever is static I can go to manual settings.
My Nikons allow me to set a crop mode, meaning fewer pixels but still large sized, therefore effectively increasing the length of the lens. This alone can save an entire day's shoot sometimes, the subject is simply to wary to be approached. One of the greatest advantages is that many cameras can handle very high ISO's. This means one can do away with the 15,000 dollar plus lenses. Slower lens are of course lighter and shorter and allow one to carry more gear. I'm talking shooting at 1600 ISO verses 400 without a noticeable increase in noise. Seriously, it's true! So more often than not there is little to no need to pack a tripod. I still teach that a tripod is to be used whenever possible though, even if it only makes it easier to stay on target. At my age heavy bodies, coupled to heavy lenses make a tripod convenient, even when not required.
I will aver Nikon handles higher ISO's more efficiently than Canon but, the difference is pretty near negligible and will probably be comperable with the next generation of Canon. Must be seen to believe. I can easily produce enlargements of 16x20 at 3200 ISO.
Again, if you are my age, concerned with weight, travel some with your cameras, desire interchangeable lenses, I'd strongly suggest looking into the various mirror-less DSLR's on the market. Nikon is touting their new line. Sony seems to have the best reputation though.They are light, compact and, as I've heard, deliver great photos. The range of lenses is not as great as DSLR's but, that shouldn't be a concern for most of the "enthusiast" level of shooter.
A warning to any just entering the DSLR market, there are lenses for "crop mode" cameras and lenses for full-frame. Usually each is compatable with the other but, full-frame lenses on "cropped" DSLR's will act as if they are half again as long. Put a 400 on a "cropped" body and you effectively have a 600mm lens or, there abouts. The inverse is also true with regard to bodies and lens marriages.
Hope this isn't too confusing. I also see that truly exceeded your question. Sorry. Perhaps the information will be of use to others so I won't delete verbiage.
