Not really.

I’ve owned a bunch of digital cameras (never a full frame one) and I now have a Canon 30D which is ancient by DSLR standards. With the Lightroom de-noise AI the RAW files I shoot with that camera might as well come from something made in the last 10 years. I might be exaggerating, but besides the megapixel count, for whatever I use my cameras for, the pictures come out great out of that one.

For me, shooting film is about the random glitches analog media produces. It’s about the sound. It’s about handling an old, mechanical camera. It’s about the achievement of catching a nice moment without any aids. That can’t be reproduced, just by the virtue of the fact that it’s literally just not the same.

On the purely technical side, digital and film is just two different mediums and there are some things you can’t reproduce. Like painting on a canvas or a wall and on a tablet. But for most use cases where you don’t intentionally require an analog image, I would say that digital does just as good of a job and is way more flexible.

My 2 cents.

This is like the digital audio vs vinyl record debate in audio, that is to say it’s not a debate, not when it comes to the fidelity of the output. Digital audio clearly wins here as does digital photography. The appeal of analog is not related to fidelity.

Many other things are like this on some level, like hand made furniture from skilled workers vs mass produced identical pieces. The appreciation of the hand made table doesn’t come from it’s ability to hold your dinner any better than one from Ikea.

I don’t think it does anymore. Perhaps some films still have better dynamic range compared to cheaper cameras though.