ChrisnSteph said:
Frankly, I suck at it right now.
That's *exactly* how I feel about my skill!
I've had a couple photography classes, I've done some minor work on the side with a wedding pro, and I take tons of pictures of my church activities and my kids' sporting events. I've also read (and re-read) a lot of photography books. And I still suck.
The best way to sum up film vs digital is that it's different. Some things are easier in digital; some more difficult. Some digital unique issues you may need to concern yourself with are: the crop factor (sensor size versus film size), digital noise, exposure issues (it's more difficult to get correct exposure with digital than it is with negative film), color spaces, color profiling for monitors and printers, and post processing (Photoshop!).
But... I've learned more with digital because I was never good about keeping log books of my exposure settings with film. With digital, the exposure settings are stored in the picture, and it's cheap to experiment so you can rapidly start to get a sense of what works and what doesn't without wasting money on processing.
I think the D70 would be a nice step-up from your N65. If you enjoy your N65 and aren't afraid to learn a some new things, I think you'll get more enjoyment out of a D70. (Budget a little extra for post processing software like Photoshop or Nikon Capture as well as some memory cards.)
A salesman at the local camera store referes to DSLRs as "expensive Polaroids" - so there's definitely a contingent of folks who are hanging on to film. And there are still people listening to stereo amps made with the old glass tubes from decades ago. As for me, I'm yearning to try film again and eventually will. My point is accept digital for what it is - a new technology that is different from yet complementary to film.
Sam