I agree with Er1kksen.
Digital has got advantages and disadvantages in comparison to "chemical" photography.
You know the advantages of digital already. I think people tend to overlook the advantages of film.
One of those is that you can have, with certain "point and shoot", a quality which is certainly superior to that of digital p&s.
I have a Yashica T3, 1989. Fixed 35/2,8 lens, no possibility to exclude motor (no manual film advance, no manual film rewind) and only automatic exposure. The Zeiss Tessar is good but not on par with the lenses I have on my SLR (Minolta MD).
This camera is "weather resistant", has got a tiny vertical viewfinder besides the normal tiny viewfinder, can force fill-in flash with daylight, can disable flash at night (it would flash automatically), has got a tripod screw hole, can lock focus, autofocus is 16-step (not the 5-step or 6-step you find in cheap P&S), reads EV from 3 to 17, shutter times from 1 sec. to 1/630 (central shutter, synchro on all times) and I take pictures with it that are accepted by Alamy (a stock agencies) so not that bad as far as quality is concerned. With DX films ISO setting is automatic (64 - 1600). Minimum focusing distance is 0,5 m. (parallax indication on viewfinder).
Weight is 295 grams with battery (lithium 3V CR2025, you still find it everywhere). Dimensions are really tiny. I had it hidden in my pocket when a guy tried an armed robbery (a small knife) against me on the Boca quartier of Buenos Aires (he did not get anything, by the way, I think I risked something that day...), it is with me when I go hiking, or when I go round with my motorbike. Actually I often have it with me when I walk round Rome just because it is handy to have a camera in your pocket. The tripod screw makes sense if you carry with you one of those very small tripods which can be quite useful. Remember the camera reads down to EV 3 at ISO 100 (1/4 at f/2,8) which is enough for nocturne pictures in town (monuments with lightings).
I have examined various digital alternatives but I never found something that could really add flexibility without detracting from quality, or without adding weight. Especially distortion of zooms at the wide end makes those cameras less desirable. Only image stabilization might probably induce me to switch to digital for this kind of pictures.
The two big disadvantages are: fixed focal lenght (you guessed it, you can't have a P&S, with a zoom, and expect quality. This camera has a decent quality lens, but no zoom) and no manual exposure.
In order to overcome the autoexposure you have only two means, or three:
a) Cover the DX info on roll canister so that you can set ISO speed manually, than you can correct somehow. Dangerous, never done so. Also if you use 100 ISO film you are limited on overexposure correction (minimum ISO is 64).
The good old trick: when you are in the sun and your subject is in shade, you raise your hand over the camera in order to project a shadow over it, the hand must be outside of field of view and there must be no violent antifascist around so the camera will expose for shades. This covers almost half of the cases when I would like not to follow the light meter.
c) You can use negatives. I have always used slide film but now I want to experiment with negatives + scans. Negatives obviously can forgive some exposition mistake.
"Minor" disadvantages are a certain amount of vignetting and some chromatic aberration that you can see sometimes at "actual pixel size". Lens distortion is not very well corrected. Flare control is really excellent. Overall optical and digital quality is probably way above any digital point & shoot around.
Oh, I forgot: you can project real slides on a screen in a darkened room. Remember the sensation?