I have no doubt whatsoever about the validity of the B&W points raised here. Not many folks shoot B&W and in my case, for what I've done so far, bracketing and blending for scenes of excessive DR has been a very adequate solution. As I go through my huge archive of Sierra images, it's becoming obvious that quite a few will work best, if not only, in B&W, but I would still not bother about a second camera for B&W film, since so far I've been able to cope with DR just fine as is.
As for negative film also having better DR than digital, yes, but I think just the DR advantage doesn't come close to offsetting the grain problem and all the other big advantages of digital for most of us. Not much fun to look at a strip of negatives on a light table either.
True, full frame "ueber cameras" are still (and maybe always will be) very expensive, but even typical 1.6X gives you about the same effective resolution as color film, without all the grunge and with the countless digital advantages listed here and so many other places so many times.
If the issue initially raised had been DR and B&W film superiority, rather than the pleasure of seeing slides on a light table, little argument would have been raised. If I end up specializing in B&W (doubtful), I'll surely get an MF film kit or do it with my 4x5. If really hi res digital doesn't happen soon enough, I'll surely eventually get back into 4x5 transparency work as well, but for what most of us want/need/can afford to do most of the time, digital it is. For my particular case, I can't carry everything for every purpose backpacking. A 1ds full kit is way too much already.