Back in the days when there was a film vs digital was raging, I can't help but thinking there were different extremes. I think there were those who were a type doing photography that wasn't particularly lend it's self to early digital cameras like landscapes, where quantity isn't high, but quality is important, I think there was one guy ho ditched 35mm and slide film for a Canon G6 and the results looked awful. Although I do remember one person who claimed in the early 2000s such as the Fuji F10 compact could out resolve film even a drum scanned transparency from a Leica. On the other end there maybe people shooting birds or sports on 35mm long after 2010. I first got a DSLR in 2008 but it's quality in terms of look and resolution look, was never up to that of a good scan of Ektar form my night photography so it was my light meter, that changed when I got my D5300, but I still like to take a few Ektar shots at night in London and one of them became my most popular photo of the year in 2018. I do like the way that the film shots normally come out already looking good, the same reason I still used Portra at a friends wedding, and I still like B&W street photos. As for now, I don't think anyone does anyone actually go digital any-more I always thought it was a bit of a false dichotomy. Like how some people bought a digital camera back in the day and immediately ditched all their film equipment even though at the time the film was probably still useful for times when quality was more important.