Digital vs Film - caged deathmatch!

An interesting enough little read, but next time, do more than one test, in a range of conditions.

What it comes down to for me (and, I imagine, for many, if not most photographers) is a combination of convenience and cost.

If I use film, well, first I have to buy film. I have to buy the right film, in advance, for any circumstance. I have to have it in the camera, and once it's in, I'm stuck with that film until I finish the roll. Once I finish the roll, I have to take it to somewhere and get it processed, which takes time. I'm a procrastinator, and I'm forgetful, so often by the time I get around to picking up the film from wherever I took it to get processed, weeks or months may have passed since I first put that roll of film in the camera.

With digital, I bought two media cards once. Sure, they cost a bit more, but it's a one off cost (or close enough to it for the purposes of this rant). Each one takes around 80 pictures if I shoot RAW, around 300 if I shoot JPEG. If I run out of memory card, I can load the images off onto my laptop or my iPod while I'm filling up the other one. While shooting, I can get rid of known-bad shots - although, to be honest, I tend not to. When I get home, it doesn't matter if it's midday, or midnight, I can start processing the images - while the day is still fresh in my mind.

It's not about which is better for most people - it's about convenience. The question isn't is digital better than film, the question should be is digital good enough to functionally replace film? I think the answer to that is in the sales figures of digital cameras...