film v. sensor

I recently came across an article from the Guardian in which David Sillitoe explains his switch from film to digital photography. As a piece of writing, the article ends rather abruptly, but as to it's content, I can't disagree with the author: digital has really come of age. I wonder then, in considering my purchase of a Leica M9P in 2011, why I dithered between it and a Linhof Master Technika 3000?  

I grew up in an analogue world. My first film-based camera was a Xmas gift from my parents in 1974—a Kodak Pocket Instamatic (love the alliteration!). In the 80s I bought a Minolta (can't remember the model), and in the noughties, a Canon EOS 300. But I was crap at taking photographs on film. I rarely ventured beyond auto settings, and I relished convenience and instantaneous results.

Sure, if I had more time on my hands (i.e. actually made a living from photography, rather than be an enthusiastic amateur*), I'd learn more of the 'historical' side to my craft. The nostalgia for film is strong, despite its time intensiveness. For now though, the freedom afforded by digital is exactly what I need.

It's horses for courses.

* The etymology of 'amateur' hints at a much kinder meaning than what's commonly used.