Dear Stephen,
First off, I sincerely apologize if I unintentionally insulted you. One of the things I've had to do in prepress shop & photo lab settings is troubleshoot imaging problems, whether the image was captured on film and then (drum) scanned, or digitally captured.
What I do is go back to the origin of the image, the scene, and then follow it through the lens onto the film or CCD, then through the film processor or RAW converter, and so forth: Nothing is immune from scrutiny, whether it's a white balance problem on a Barco monitor, or the pH of the E-6 color developer.
Digital imaging is wonderful: I use it for many things, and my customers use it for many things.
That being said, film has not died just yet, either: Although Kodak is trying to stick a fork in it (like not releasing to manufacturing Kodachrome 400, according to frustrated insiders in Rochester), Fuji is continuing film R&D as well as digital R&D... That's why their new two electron technology is so exciting, at least to geeks like me: It allows photographers more room to work, especially in available light scenes.
Keep in mind that the motion picture industry still uses a lot of ECN-2 color negative film, both in the camera and for release prints: The 2 electron technology first went into those films; with still photography following suit.
After reading a lot here from underwater experts like you, Dr. Mustard, and others, I sure can now see the utility of the 35mm dSLR format, especially in a commercial environment; and that is why I am seriously considering abandoning my pursuit of medium format for my upcoming underwater work and using 35mm film or dSLR format.
By the same token, on terra firma, I'm sticking to film for my high-end work, since, among other things, I enjoy wet darkroom work more than sitting in front of a screen.
Dan - I condensed your post above to get to the cogent points:
1. Trust that I know the difference between mirror slap and depth of field.
2. If film sensitivity has "vastly improved", it matters little to me. I'll never go back to shooting film and scanning the results.
3. Nothing Weegee ever shot has much relevance to what I do for a living.
4. Two-electron film technology adding 1-2 stops of speed means little to my current workflow. See #2.
I'm not saying it won't be the solution for ultimate UW imaging someday, and I appreciate your enthusiastic support of the format. I'm simply saying nothing out there right now in a digital medium format makes me, personally, want to push for a housing.
Now, I'm going to lob a grenade as to why I will probably house my Nikon F100 and shoot color neg film, instead of housing my Fuji S2 Pro; and for this I am also grateful to the people here.
The reason: Exposure latitude, especially with flash. Among the most prevalent of complaints I see is controlling flash... And, with lack of tolerance to overexposure with digital imaging, this is deadly... Even worse than blown highlights with chrome film.
[Exception: Fuji's r+s pixel CCD architecture really works well; and in fact I'm coming close to trading in my S2 Pro for an S3 Pro or even a new S5 Pro.]
Ever notice what wedding photographers still shoot color neg film... And why they shoot it? Exposure latitude, and more specifically, resistance to overexposure. (Or, cynically, it's idiot-proof! B) ). Basically, you can push the exposure 2, even 3 stops into the shoulder, and you'll still get a decent (albeit "thick") neg, without color crossover.
I can definitely see that when shooting underwater, you don't have the luxury of tight exposure control when using flash. Couple that with the limited time underwater, managing the air supply, and other things dry land photographers don't have to consider -- And which I'm grateful to all for pointing out -- I can see myself using 35mm color neg film before dSLR.
Damn: I ditched most of my Nikkor glass over the last couple of years in favor of Mamiya 645 autofocus glass... Now I'll have to buy the Zeiss glass to take my Nikon underwater! 
