My two cents: It's not the cost of your medium per se (camera), but the cost of the total infrastructure. Your level of expectations, and the cashflow you commit to feeding them may well determine how closely you can approximate your ambition. If you're ambitious in terms of the sorts of images you want to make, then the camera and the medium are probably the least expensive parts of the journey you're about to embark on. Locations, travel, lighting, training, experience maybe even models or crew - all these things can cost significantly more. Antique gear isn't expensive in onesies, but before long, there's a backup or an alternate. And then there might be a darkroom with its chem sets, an enlarger, an inventory of film, paper, printers, scanners, dedicated inks.and heaven knows what. First thing you know, that $400 camera bargain's spawned a gear buying spree. And even if you decide to save by outsourcing, you convert the fixed to a variable cost. And as much as outsourcing might sound convenient, there seems to be lot less quality services and availability can be an issue, too. More true the pickier you are. So you may very well have to do as much of the dirty work yourself after all. Which brings it back to digital, the computer, and its workflow vs. film, the darkroom and its workflow. Then there's the likelihood that you may end up with a mix like many of us hybrid folks. Hybrid in the pursuit of the "best of both" probably ends up with a workflow that's (in truth) the least efficient. And so here I am.
But if it's not about efficiency, then maybe jump in. The water's fine. I've had a whale of a time rationalizing one cost saving (film) expense after another, and though my iPhones keep getting more expensive, too, film costs aren't really accounted in full until you start "trading up"/