burkleman, it really boils down to what type of photography you’re getting into. I would definitely pick your own model and brand as photographers seem to be very bias to their own equipment. Using resources such as
www.dpreview.com and
www.dcresource.com you will be able to gather a large amount of info. Even though both sites focus around digital photography, there are a lot of film gurus.
My opinion
If you’re exploring the hobby, finding subjects to shoot, and learning the technical aspects, go with digital. The convenience of being able to shoot 1,000 pictures with no development fees is a priceless feature. SLR cameras have many things to tweak. Experimenting is far less time and money on digital than film.
If you've found your niche in photography (possibly macro), then film might be the way to go. Specializing your equipment will be cheaper. There are limits to CCDs. Not just resolution, but color creation. The biggest thing about film I see is its ability to capture both light and color in its true form, where as a CCD relies on computer generated equations. Man has been making film cameras for many many years now and just by chance, certain cameras seem to do better with certain objectives. dSLRs have been built to serve as general purpose cameras. If you plan to shoot under water or macro shots, there are some VERY unique cameras out there. Some that date back to early 1900s.
Then you have the brand debate. Some say Canon, some say Nikon. A lot of photography, besides macro/tele, is shooting in bursts. You will find that one of the biggest keys to photography is the ability to snap as many pictures as possible. Having a SLR camera allows you to burst without loosing FPS or focus. Both film and digital SLRs have burst capabilities.
In the digital realm, it seems as if Nikon has burst a little more figured out than Canon. I am not arguing Canon over Nikon one bit as I am a Canon man myself. When comparing burst capabilities, look at FPS, but also look at the buffer. Canon is in the 30 frames per burst range where as Nikon reaches the 80s. This wont matter if your taking shots of corals or scenery, but shooting kids, wildlife, insects, birds, people; burst is key.
In the end, I would encourage you to pick your own setup. Once you do, you'll be super excited and probably become bias like everyone else. I still laugh whenever I visit a camera store such as Wolf. I act like a dumb consumer and ask to see their SLRs. Upon handing me each model the employee starts talking about features. It soon turns into, this Nikon D50 has xxx, xxx, xxx, where as this Canon 350D doesn’t have xxx, xxx, xxx. You then ask what the employee shoots with and they'll say Nikon. The same is true for Canon owning employees too. People love their cameras just like they love their cars.
I'm not stating that film or digital is better or that Canon or Nikon is better. Being that you are looking at the low/med end Canon dSLRs, let me give you a few quick pointers. The Rebel XT (350D) is a GREAT starter camera. Leaves money for a decent lense. If you do buy a Canon, stay away from the bundled 18-55mm lense. You will have absolutely no use for it as soon as you buy your next lense. Buy the body only. The biggest differences between the 20D and the XT (350D) is the size of the body and burst capabilities. The 20D is considerably larger. I've owned both cameras, so if you have any questions about either, let me know.
All in all, get out there and shoot regardless of your camera. I've seen friends shoot amazing photographs with Kodak point and shoots. Good photography comes from the person, not the camera. I'm far from a professional, but the biggest thing I've learned is to shoot shoot shoot. With a digital camera its effortless to take 500 shots a day. I might only pick 5 or 10 photos I actually like, but I find that shooting hundreds of photos is far more efficient and natural than trying to setup 15 different shots. Setting up shoots produces orchestrated un-natural pictures.
