The smartass answer: because shooting digital is like sex without foreplay.
The (slightly) more serious answer (not that the above is totally flippant): It's really the gestalt of the photographic process with a film-based camera. The cameras I'm used to using have fewer buttons, dials, knobs and levers, but allow me just as much direct control over general parameters as your typical dSLR, without nearly the fuss. When I gave up my tech'd-to-the-max SLRs some six years back, I left behind AF, multi-mode AE, multi-pattern metering, five-frames-per-second motorized firepower, and wireless TTL flash. (Okay, I sometimes miss the last one, but I can deal easily without.) The photographic experience for me now is wonderfully uncluttered, just as my viewfinder is. Not that I've gone totally caveman; my Hexars advance and rewind my film for me, which I appreciate.
I also understand and appreciate the characteristics of my film choices.I know full well what I can and cannot get away with. I know how to scan the stuff. I know how to handle the stuff in Photoshop. I (uaually) know how to strike a pretty good print from the resulting image file. I don't have to deal with or compensate for any digital peculiarities intrinsic to a particular camera. I don't "do" software/firmware updates with my cameras; doing this with computers and certain peripherals is enough, thank you.
And, I do have a digital camera in my life: a little Casio Exilim EX-850, which I happen to be quite fond of, and which packs a lot of useful stuff into a quite small package without making it unweildy. It gets used mostly for a lot of utilitarian stuff, but I also hail it out when I'm in the mood for something a bit experimental or just out of the ordinary (like the lunar eclipse thread i started a short time back). A pocket full of pixels can be fun somethimes.
- Barrett