This is a mixed format film/digi forum, so I think I can risk saying this:
You can pay about 800 dollars for a bells and whistles dSLR, fine. Or stay with your current digital camera, and use it like professional film photographers used to use a polaroid, to check pose, layouts, lighting, etc.
Then spend a fraction of the 800 dollars on a second-hand film camera, and use the remainder to pay for the prints you will take.
How does that sound? Some of those film SLRs out there have nearly as many bells and whistles on them, are just as light, and can be enlarged to stunning sizes of print. And before I bought 2 clunky old SLRs on
ebay, I was stunned by the lightness of several of the NEW film SLRs at about 200 dollars, which had good 28-100 ish lenses, were very light, and had so many electronic settings there were maybe 100s of different ways to take a bad photograph!
Maybe even try medium format? A second hand Hasselblad at less than 800 dollars? Is this possible? Think of the street cred!
And I think that the availability and control of large print providers may well be greater for film than it is for digital. Where I live I can get a large digiprint, but it will have to be sent away, and I have limited contact with the person creating the print. But for film, I can wander into quite a few places and have an exchange along the lines of:
"I want this bit burnt in a bit, what do you think?"
"Ok idea, but it doesn't have much detail, I would do something else. How about...."
and so on.
I think we should struggle against the manufacturers' drive to get us to buy new technology. I anticipate my Z1 will be broke within 3 years. Hell, at 3 mp it is already out of date, 2 months after buying it. My Minolta x300 is maybe 20 years old, and I reckon it will outlast me.
It cost me 45 dollars.