"If you have a task that can be done on six hours, it is better to write a tool that does it in 20 minutes, even when creating the tool takes six hours?"
Distributed Version control is a different beast to tackle. It requires substantial learning for each developer. If you have the buffer to accommodate the learning process for each developer, you should move to a good distributed version control system. Once the learning phase is over Distributed Version Control is much better than Centralized Version Control.
Distributed Version Control seems to be an eventuality. It is here to stay for a very long time, it is better that we adapt to it sooner than later. I remember the same discussion when SVN was new and people were used to CVS, lots of arguments were given for not using SVN, but eventually SVN became the most popular version control system.
If the company is well established with a lot of source code in the existing version control system, moving to a new system is a big task, but if the company is small or starting up, moving to a new version control is very easy. But if you stick to an older version control (in a new setup) you will hit the bottleneck somewhere in future where you will have to eventually plan a version control migration anyway.
I have seen a lot of pro SVN comments, but all of them tend to be of the nature "SVN is not bad" rather than "SVN is better". So I would strongly recommend that you choose a Distributed Version Control (such as Git) for your project.
Advantages of GIT over SVN
No dedicated server required Actually, both can be used w/o a server.
- Can continue development even without a network connection.
- Branch management is much easier.
- Better support from CI tools such as Bamboo
Someone mentioned tooling (for visual studio) as a reason to stick to SVN. http://gitscc.codeplex.com/ provides GIT support for Visual Studio.