Digital or Film

[David planning Le Chemin de St Jacques/El Camino de Santiago]

i> I will say, though, that on my next Camino, I will be carrying the
> smallest digital camera that I can find.  I have my serious landscape
> and architectural pictures taken, and next time I will be concentrating
> on the people with whom I am walking and our activities.

In my view the really extreme shortcoming of typical digital cameras is that
they can't handle really contrasty scenes with the 256 levels of intensity
available in the usual image formats (I don't know whether the low-end CCD's
are capable of better).     This means that if you have shadows and snow
you're not likely to be able to see any details in either the pure white
snow or the pure black shadows.    More megapixels doesn't help.
Avoid taking pictures inside dark cathedrals (especially of stained
glass windows from inside).

Film has a lot more latitude for adjusting
things to be the way you meant, more so if it's printed.
So if you REALLY think you might be taking photos for enlargement and
publication and sale, you'd probably find a film camera preferable.
Computer graphics systems don't usually support more than 256 intensity
levels, so none of this matters unless you want to print it out.

I usually use an Olympus D520Z for well-lit scenes and a C3040Z with
tripod for darker occasions, when I'm willing to carry it.   I don't know
if I'll take both on my camino, since my photos just go on my web sites.
Small groups of people indoors work well with flash.    Dark building
interiors beyond flash range
would be a problem with the D520Z since its slow lens is hard to
hold still long enough.