my LE perspective (Score 1)

As a law enforcement officer working in a forensic audio/video lab, I have to give my "why analog is greatly preferred over digital recordings" speech five times a day. In a nutshell, almost all digital recording schemes use lossy compression. I know this discussion is about recordings like interviews where identification is not an issue, but we still prefer the trusty VHS format anyway. Have you ever tried importing digital video (especially DVDs) into an Avid system http://www.avid.com/forensic? On analog recordings, we can use tools like frame averaging to bring out detail, whereas digital video simply is what it is. Granted, it is just a matter of time before surveillance video is captured full-frame 1280x720 uncompressed, but in the mean time we are dealing with at least a thousand different DVR systems from mom-and-pop establishments that use different (often proprietary) codecs and compression schemes. We used to complain about the Stop-n-Robs that used the same VHS continuously for two years and expected the video to be perfect evidence. But now, based on my real-world experience, we wish the DVR stuff was half as good as the old tape/time lapsed/multiplexed analog video.

I do recommend you use pro gear regardless of which route you take. And always use a backup/redundant recorder (maybe even one analog and one digital). And ALWAYS test your equipment prior to use. About once a week I receive a request for audio enhancement on a video made at a Children's Assessment Center because the child cannot be heard. Did the system installer not realize that an abused kid might just whisper/mumble with their head down when having to talk about what happened to them?!?! Of course the adult can be heard just fine, but come on!