I started out with digital photography and then i took a film photography class 
Thank you
I started with film. To be more specific, a Nikon EM in about 1985. It had no aperture priority mode, no auto-focus, no automatic film advance, no nothing. And despite the Nikon badge it was cheaply built, so it wasn’t even good for clubbing them pesky dinosaurs that still roamed the streets back then. As the years went on, I added items.
My first digital camera was a Nikon Coolpix 8700 in 2004. It produced nice images but its limitations compared to an SLR drove me up the wall. In 2006 I upgraded to a Nikon D200. To me, that was the first “affordable” digital camera that was good enough to retire my film gear. I took the D200 on a round-the-world trip in 2007-8 and wore it every day with a heavy zoom lens attached. My back still hurts, but I got some great images!
And just this week I’m getting back into film. A few days ago I bought a 1968 Agfa Silette LK for $5. It’s a fixed lens little thing that slides into a coat pocket. What a great feeling to have a tiny camera again! So yesterday I upped the ante and bought a Canonet QL17 G3 for $75 on eBay.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Canonet became my main camera due to the small form factor. With a fixed 35mm f/1.7 lens it’s great for street photography. And unlike any digital point & shoot, a film camera is responsive and with f/2 you can blur the crap out of the background.
I was saving my pennies for a Nikon D700 to replace my D200. I almost did, actually. But if this Canonet turns me onto rangefinders I might rethink that. I’m more of a gear head than I should be – reading up on every development and spending way too much cash on gear – but really, I’m happy with any old camera and an interesting location. The older and cheaper the gear, the more thought/ effort/ skill it takes to get great shots… which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Fun question, by the way. I enjoyed reading the other answers!