Depending on what professionals are doing with their images, film is still an excellent medium. Some estimate that the megapixel equivalent of medium-format film is somewhere between 20 and 60 megapixels. Until high-end digital backs become cheaper and more mainstream, those who need high resolution will have to stick to film and film scanners.
Acutally I think amatures will stick with film longer, and artists. PJs love digital. The workflow is so much better. Wedding photogs love digital.
I noticed a huge drop in color quality between my cheapo film camera and my cheapo digital camera.
I agree that film has more warmth to it, and is the preferred medium on large prints, however, even though I own a Hasselblad system, I haven't used it in over 4 years. I haven't shot my Canon film SLR in an even longer period. But I've owned 2 different Canon DSLR bodies in the interim.
Balderdash.
I do professional advertising photography and its how I have put food on the table for 25 years.
Digital is here for pros and it makes film look pretty sad.
I use the 16.7 mp Canon 1DsMkII and it smokes my medium format Hasselblads. Its more than enough camera to print stunning double page spreads in magazines and brochures. It's fast becoming the standard choice for many professional photographers.
I have a 48 mp Betterlight scan back that trashes any film I have ever put through my 4x5 Sinars.
39 mp single shot backs are now on the market for MF cameras for 30K.
Film is gone.
Still sad to see film cameras being taken off the market, but given where digital is today, and where it will be in just a few years (rgb pixels?) its understandable.