I write in 3rd person for my series mainly for the aforementioned "flexibility" issue. However, I do want to give 1st person a shot down the line, but probably for a short story rather than a full novel, just to try it out.

The good thing about 1st pespective is that the only truth you can glean from the events comes from the 1st person narrator. In other words, you are completly dependant on that person for the story, and hence, you can never be entirely sure whether or not that person is telling the truth. The best example of this is probably Salinger's Catcher in the Rye.

Another good book in 1st person narrative in which you share in the confusion and pain of the narrator is Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale.

And finally, one of the greatest books from the 20th century, The Great Gatsby was in 1st person.

So, although we shouldn't strictly say that one form is beter than the other, because in the end it is the writer who determines how good the story becomes, I would side with 1st peron narrative only because I like my books to have the more personal, introspective and much more confusing touch than most 3rd person narratives have.

And of course, we're completly ignoring 2nd person narrative in this discussion? It's probably the most over used form of expression on the internet since pedo bear.

I personally like first person a lot better, but I'm also more partial to literary fiction as opposed to mainstream, so it goes with it that I prefer the style that more typically delves into psychological character development.

However, I do like the flexibility of third person.

So to be most accurate, I like a very limited third-person, such as Harry Potter, in which the story might as well be told from first person except for a few scenes. Even though it's told in third person, it only delves into the mind and emotions of the focal character, similar to first person, and almost never leaves that focal character to follow any of the supporting characters, except when absolutely necessary.