That is a question that only you can answer, as it depends on your imaging requirements and your budget.  However, here is some information to consider when making a decision.

There are at least  eleven key factors to consider:

• Shutter delay Revised November 2015
  
• Auto-focus problems  New (2012) Revised November 2015, October 2021 (see above)
• Image quality Revised and extended November 2017
• Focal length multiplier effect
• Speed of turn-round
• Cost
• Control of the image
• Sensor dirt
• Dead Pixels
• Viewfinder  New (2012)
  
• Differential focus  New (2012)
  

There are also other factors, such as

• the type of photographs that you take
• the enjoyment you may derive from using one system or the other
• being able to control the process and the output
• the time that you have available, etc.

Auto-focus problems

I have experienced two problems with auto-focus lenses:

• delays while the lens hunts for the focus point
• actual impossibility of focussing on the desired point of the image

In my opinion, digital hasn’t yet reached the point where you can even be sure of capturing good candids of the children – though you will know quickly that you didn’t get the shot that you wanted!

Of course, you can have that problem with auto-focus lenses on film cameras, too, but why use auto-focus lenses?!  I realize that I may sound here “as if I had just come out of Noah’s Ark”, but there really are times when the photographer wants to be in total control of the focus.  With a manual focus lens you can pre-focus on a chosen point, and then fire the shutter when the subject reaches that point.  This could be for a horse race, a cycle race, a bride walking down the aisle or indeed for many other events.  Naturally, auto-focus lenses will not normally let you do this, as essentially you are focussing on nothing that is currently within the image frame.

Some of the top DLSRs and even some of the newer smaller digital cameras do have an AF/MF (Auto-Focus / Manual Focus) switch or option – if you can find it in the menu in time not to miss the shot!!  I am not talking from a theoretical viewpoint here, but from experience.  I do have digital cameras, but usually leave them at home when going on a trip or for an important photo assignment.

Trying to get a close-up shot at the long end of a zoom on a top-quality digital camera in 2012, I even found that the camera refused to focus, even though I was within the advertised focussing range.  The camera and lens were not faulty; it was just a limitation of the system.  No doubt the next version of the camera and/or the lens will be better.  But by then, the picture that I wanted to capture will be long gone.

In 2015, with a newer digital camera, I have found that the camera can’t focus on interesting cloud formations, as there is just not enough contrast for it to fix on.  I likewise found this year that when I wanted to focus on damage to a kitchen work surface, the camera's focussing system couldn’t see the defect, and so refused to focus.  This camera and its lenses also does not offer manual focus as an option.  Fortunately, it does allow me to mount lenses from other manufacturers, and I found that an old Carl Zeiss Jena 25mm Flektogon in M42 mount, mounted via an adapter, was ideal for the job!  The lens in question was manufactured in February 1967, and this particular focal length was discontinued in August of the same year, but the results were technically excellent!

Image Quality

If you must have ultimate image quality and the ability to make massive enlargements, using film as the originating medium is probably still the way to go in 2017.

You may choose (like me) to shoot film, but print digitally.

If you scan in a “6×6” negative (actually 54mm × 54mm) at 4800 dpi, you will get a file that is 10,488 pixels × 10,488 pixels.  This results in a 629.4MB image – about one hundred times the resolution of many digital SLR files!  Digital technology is improving all the time, but even at the end of 2017, when a few of the best digital cameras can generate a 42 MB image, a Pentacon Six frame scanned as indicated here will give you an image with over 15 times that resolution.

• The Pentacon Six scan referred to above will produce a high-quality print at 300 pixels per inch that is 88.8 cm × 88.8 cm (34.96 × 34.96 inches)!
• Many people print at 240 pixels per inch.  The image size would then be 1 metre 11 cm × 1 metre 11cm (43.7 × 43.7 inches)!
• In fact, images this size are usually viewed at a certain distance, and you would easily obtain perfectly satisfactory results if you printed at 150 pixels per inch, giving you a print 1 metre 77.6 cm square (nearly six feet by six feet)!

If you are enlarging from such a tiny portion of the negative, I recommend a film of moderate speed, such as the Fuji 160 ISO negative films (which also have enormous exposure lattitude).  However, for normal degrees of enlargement (for me, “normal” means at least up to A3 – 11.7 × 16.5" or 297 × 420mm), you should not see any grain at normal viewing distances with correctly-exposed negatives from 400 ISO Fuji film.

Resolving power of the film and the lens  New in November 2015

Of course, scanning resolution is not the whole story.  The quality and resolution of the top scanners is so good that the resolving power of the film and of the lens is probably now the limiting factor in deciding how much it is possible to enlarge a scanned frame -- or how small is the area of the film frame that can provide an image of satisfactory quality.

The lens

Many (probably most) of the lenses that are available in the Pentacon Six mount provide a degree of resolution and correction of possible optical defects that is so high that in fact the limiting factor is usually the film itself, not the lenses.  I refer readers to the reports on this website of the results of tests of most of the lenses.

The film

The resolving power of the film is dependent on the film chosen.  The general rule is that the higher the film "speed" (i.e., the sensitivity of the emulsion), the larger the size of the grain in the emulsion, and seeing the film grain in a print (or on a screen) is not normally desirable, even though it can produce an artistic effect that may occasionally be wanted.

In recent years I have preferred to shoot with 100 ASA / 21 DIN film (ISO 100/21), when available, although for my Pentacon Six I currently buy mostly 160 ASA / 23 DIN Fujicolor PRO 160NS film, and take along a few packs of Fujicolor PRO 400H (400 ASA / 27 DIN, ISO 400/27) for those situations where the light is lower and using a tripod is not suitable for the type of photography envisaged (for instance, cityscapes, where people and vehicles will be moving around).  At massive magnification of parts of the image on a large computer screen, the difference in grain is dramatic:  the slower 160NS has much finer grain.  However, even for quite large prints, at normal viewing distances the difference between the 160 ASA and the 400 ASA films is scarcely visible, as stated above.  160 ISO film is sensitive enough to require exposures of approximately 1/125 sec at f/11 in most sunny situations.  It also enables one to use exposures that are easily hand-holdable (i.e., do not require a tripod) in overcast weather and even for moderately well-lit interiors.

For darker interiors, rather than using higher-speed film, I prefer to use a tripod, if permitted, or to brace the camera against a pillar or other solid support.  (In churches and cathedrals, when there are few visitors it is often possible to kneel in a pew near the back of the building and hold the camera firmly on the pew in front, to get an excellent and sharp image, even with speeds as slow as 1/4 sec! – and I have never been told off for kneeling in a church or a cathedral!!)

I would point out that even though most digital cameras offer a vast range of sensitivity settings, for most digital cameras -- even in 2021 -- the image quality deteriorates markedly very soon after the 400 ASA setting.  I refer readers to the detailed reviews of digital cameras in the photographic press and on the internet, where they will see the truth of this (naturally, with variations of detail, depending on the camera manufacturer and price range).

Scanning resolution

When scanning an image it is wise to consider:

• the size of the grain in the film
• the intended print size
• and, if appropriate, the size of the area within the frame that will be used for the picture.

In the light of these factors, it may not be necessary or even desirable to use the maximum resolution of the scanner, as many of the top scanners can easily produce massive files that occupy large amounts of disc space and slow down processing, without providing any visible improvement in the quality of the final image.

The scanning resolution numbers given above are therefore theoretical maximum-possible sizes for suitable film types.  The best way to find out what is the best resolution to set the scanner at is by experience with the film and the scanner.

The focal length multiplier effect

Also bear in mind that even Medium Format digital cameras have sensors that are not “Full Frame”: instead of a 56mm×56mm image you get something that is at most 48mm×48mm, and with many Medium Format backs substantially less than this.  This has an impact on all the lenses that you use, effectively making them appear to have a longer focal length.  This is especially a problem with wide angle lenses, where a 40mm ultra wide angle may provide coverage on a digital sensor equivalent to a 55 or 60mm lens on a full 56mm×56mm film frame – and in most cases with Medium Format equipment you will not find a wider angle lens available to give you the angle of view that you were expecting.  This is in particular a problem for shots of interiors, but can also be a problem for landscapes and other types of photography.

The same applies with the more commonly-purchased digital SLRs, which are not Medium Format.  In fact, very few even have a sensor that is 24mm×36mm, which is now commonly referred to as “full frame”, i.e, equivalent to the full frame size of 35mm film cameras.  But most DSLRs and mirrorless digital cameras have much smaller sensors than this, with various dimensions commonly available, depending on the manufacturer.  Again, the smaller sensors especially have the effect of making your wide-angle lenses appear less wide (which is normally a disadvantage) and your telephoto lenses longer (which is normally an advantage).

Of course, to every problem there is a solution, and much wider-angle lenses are becoming available for cameras with smaller sensors – but I really would advise that you check on prices before committing yourself to a system.  One can easily end up facing a bill of between £1,000+ and £2,000 for a high-quality wide-angle lens for a digital camera from one of the leading manufacturers.

Speed of turn-round

Digital images give you of course an almost-instant turn-round, though it is not quite as instant as you think, if you want actual pictures on paper.  It does take time to

• transfer the image from the camera to the computer
• convert from raw to another format
• process the image as required (contrast, sharpness, colour balance, etc)
• produce the print

Cost

A digital back for a Medium Format camera such as the Hasselblad would currently cost you in the region of US$20,000, and even with this the image quality would be way below what you can achieve by shooting fine-grain film in a Pentacon Six and then scanning it into your computer.  Using the mixed film/digital route is not a zero cost alternative, but you probably already have a computer and a printer.

A digital camera – even a 35mm one – may give you the quality that you need, but that won’t be in the same league as what you can get with film.  And even a 35mm digital SLR with a full-sized sensor will also cost you a lot more than a Pentacon Six.

Who is in control?  and What is the frustration factor?

In 2012 a neighbour and good friend of mine enthused about his new digital camera, and insisted that I try it out.  Naturally, I was delighted to do this.  It was the latest model of one of the top-name digital compacts, with a 10 point something megapixel sensor and an 18× optical zoom.  I took a series of pictures in my studio with it, and here are my conclusions: 

1) It is capable of some good results, so long as the image is not displayed or printed too large, and subject to the other factors indicated below. 

2) Getting the right framing is difficult because: 

• controlling the zoom exactly is impossible: press the lever to the left or right, but when you release it the lens keeps on zooming a split-second after releasing the lever, thus changing the framing, and making various attempts necessary; 
• the image in the viewfinder does not exactly match what is recorded; in fact, the recorded image shows slightly less!! than the viewfinder image!  (The Pentacon Six safety factor gives slightly more, which can easily be cropped off if required, but if you have the edge of an item or of a person missing, there’s nothing you can do afterwards to correct that.) 

4) Because of the tiny sensor and the extremely short focal length that is consequently necessary for the lens, differential focus is impossible.  For instance, in a portrait, the background will be as sharp as the face, which is usually the opposite of what is desirable. 

5) The manual says that at some settings, “straight lines near the edge of the image may appear curved, or unexpected colours may appear. This is not a fault”!!  Well, that’s what experienced photographers call barrel distortion, pin-cushion distortion and chromatic aberrations or colour fringeing! 

6) Down-loading the pictures to the computer and converting them from raw is complicated and tedious – no batch conversion from raw is available, and following the on-screen instructions generates error messages.  There are work-arounds, but they do not appear to be documented.  Doing this processing is definitely not an enjoyable experience.

7) The main difference between this up-market state-of-the-art digital camera and a Pentacon Six is that with the Pentacon Six the photographer is in control and can easily control framing, shutter speed, aperture, focus, depth of field/differential focus and other factors that are crucial to the final image.  Of course, the Pentacon Six is bigger and heavier, and you have to wait until the film is processed to see your results.  But in most situations what counts ultimately is the quality of the image.  And here, the Pentacon Six wins hands down.

Conclusion: Not only do I enjoy the results I get from the Pentacon Six, I also enjoy the process of using it.  Neither could be said of my experience with this expensive digital camera, so why use it?

Sensor dirt

For the flexibility and quality that you seek, if you do buy a digital camera, you will probably want a “DSLR” – a digital Single Lens Reflex.  After all, only an SLR will enable you to change lenses and build up a system that will enable you to go from extreme wide-angle to powerful telephoto, not to mention tilt, shift and macro work.  Many point-and-shoot digital cameras do not even let you see through the lens.

But after you have bought your DSLR you will discover a new problem: dust on the sensor.  No matter how carefully you change lenses, dust – and sometimes remarkably large bits of fluff and muck – will get into the throat of your camera, and when they are there, the electrical charge on the sensor will draw that dust, fluff and muck onto the delicate and highly-expensive sensor, where it will stick!  You can dust the rear of the lens before putting it on, point the camera downwards while changing the lens, only change lenses indoors – or anything else! – but sooner or later, dirt will settle on your sensor!  Some experts explain that the action of changing the focal length of some digital zoom lenses acts like a powerful pump to pull dust into the lens and from there into the camera.  If (sticky!) pollen gets onto the sensor, getting it off is going to be a big problem.  Like me, you may never have experienced this problem with a film camera, but with a digital SLR it will appear.

Worse, you are unlikely to see the dust, muck and fluff when you view the images on the camera’s screen; you will first see it on all your pictures from a given session, once you have downloaded them onto your computer.  Then you can have many happy hours, trying to clone them out!

Why haven’t you had this problem with film SLRs?  Well, each time you advance the film, you effectively get a brand new “sensor” for the next image!

Of course, if your camera has dust in it, this can scratch the film, but:

• this is rarely a problem with Medium Format cameras, as 120 film has protective backing paper the whole length of the film
• this is more common with 35mm film, especially if using re-loadable cassettes
• in the worst-case scenario, any in-camera scratch marks are usually too small to be visible on images at most degrees of enlargement.  (This is unfortunately not the case with dirt on a digital sensor.)