fail
if you were talking about medium (6x6cm/7cm/17cm)or large (4x5inch) format cameras as a means of doing quality landscape work for not much money, then it would be worth considering film (because the digital equivalent is still extremely expensive: several thousand pounds and more expensive).

But 35mm film and cameras are pretty much obsolete (unless you're in the middle of the arctic/wilderness and need a fully manual backup if your batteries fail); no 35mm film can rival the output from a bog-standard DSLR at ISO 800 and above.
( custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:17, archived)

My med format scans come out at 20,000x15,000 (@300 megapixel)
my 35mm scans come out at @ 12,000x8,000 (@100 megapixel)

I may be out of date but I have never heard of a digital camera coming anywhere near those resolutions

I accept running costs of film are higher and that high resolution images are not much use on a 1600x1200 monitor
( CanonCaliber A big bore, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:37, archived)

You could scan your film at 120'000 x 80'000, but you wouldn't gain any more useful information (you'd just end up with a nice images of dye clusters and silver nitrate crystals)
Whereas an 8-12 megapixel image file from a DSLR has 8-12 megapixels of actual information.

In practical/printing terms (assuming normal viewing distances and not doing some fetishy like examining slides with a loupe), 35mm film maxes out at between 6&8 megapixels.

When I go to Alaska in a couple of years time (kayaking), I will take a manual camera loaded with slide film (not Velvia; too saturated) as a backup, but my DSLR will be taking most of the images.
( custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 21:59, archived)

*sigh*

( TopUpTheTea you ain't seen me, right?, Sat 23 May 2009, 22:00, archived)

*hugs*
perhaps this is a sneaky ploy to get us to have a whip-round and buy him a cheap DSLR out of pity :P
( custard, Sat 23 May 2009, 22:18, archived)