You know what I just thought about? How dumb trying to justify film or digital or vice-versa is.
Photography is an ever-evolving art medium. From daguerreotypes, calotypes, tin-types, glass plates, roll-film and now digital sensors, there's always been something new and something old with photography.
The goal has been the same for each medium: capture what we see into a two-dimensional medium. Each form has its ups and downs. The daguerreotype provided a high quality image on silver-plated copper, whereas the tin-type provided a lesser quality output, it could capture and produce images much faster. Even among modern emulsions, one can choose the large format 4x5 negatives for the utmost quality, or settle for the small format 35mm creating images virtually anywhere. The same applies to digital, should you use a crop sensor such as MicroFourThirds for a small camera with a big depth of field? Or should you equip yourself with a full frame DSLR cable of creating billboard-sized photographs and break potentially your back at the same time? Okay, DSLRs, aren't that heavy :)
I'm glad there is a choice.
I'm glad I can machine-gun nine-photos per second with my finger pressed against the shutter release.
I'm glad that I can take hours, even days to meticulously shoot a mere twelve frames and eagerly wait for the results to be formed through a magical soup.
I'm glad that I can relish and relive the past through photography.