what are the pros and cons of a nondigital canon slr camera?

IMO, learning photography with a film camera is best. Using a completely manual 35mm camera teaches you about light, ISO, shutter speed, f-stops and how they are all interrelated. It also helps with learning good composition.

It also teaches you to slow down and think about what you are photographing. I like this quote from Chris Faust, photographer and photography teacher:

“I’ll just walk around and see if I think an image is there. I try and do this with the students, too. I tell them to bring their tripods, that we’re not using a shotgun here. We’re going to carefully compose; we’re going to design an image, make a photograph.” (1) You can read the article at shutterbug.com.

Buy a copy of “Object & Image: An Introduction To Photography, Third Edition” by George M. Craven.

(1) Shutterbug Magazine, Feb. 2007, “The Cultural Landscapes of Chris Faust” by Barry Tanenbaum, p. 65

Pro: cheaper to buy a film SLR than a digital one.
Pro: Plenty of high quality used lenses and bodies available.
Pro: Having a slide or negative means you have a valuable “original” unlike digital, where copies are identical to original file
Pro: Film gives high resolution and negative film captures wider range of brightness than digital (dynamic range).

Con: Cost of developing film is high over time.
Con: No instant feedback via an LCD
Con: Have to stop every 24 or 36 shots to reload.
Con: Still pay for shots that don’t come out.
Con: Can’t e-mail a shot, unless film is scanned or put onto a CD.
Con: Can’t reuse film, unlike digital where you can reuse a memory card.

Cost comparison:
New Nikon D40 with lens and memory card, about $ 500.

Used 35mm SLR with lens: Maybe $ 100 for one in good shape.

Over time (cost of prints ignored as it’s about the same for both):
Digital–none really.
Film–$ 5.00 per roll of film, $ 5.00 developing (not including cost of prints), $ 10 to scan images to CD. So, $ 20 for 24 shots on 1 roll.
5 rolls = $ 100
and thus 20 rolls of film = $ 400.

So, by around 20 rolls of film, you’ll have spent as much as you would have on a digital SLR. ($ 100 + $ 400). Total number of images shot: 480 images. I’d say you’d easily shoot a lot more than that with digital, probably in the thousands, without a huge cost.

EDIT: I disagree that people learn better with film. People learn better with instant feedback, which they get from a digital SLR with the LCD. You can learn about the relationships and see the effects *right away* which reinforces learning. Film teaches you though how not to be lazy, because it’s too expensive to do trial and error.