If it's not film, it's not photography.

Before we start a debate about analog image creation vs. digital imaging, we first have to define these terms.

As we use a piece of film, the light that is reflected or emitted by the source, consisting of photons (or waves, if you like), hits the surface of the light-sensitive emulsion of the film and therefore changes the molecular structure of the grain. The image now comes to existence. But the photo becomes visible after chemical developing and fixation.
So we wrote with light, which is described by the greek words graphein (to write, to paint) and photos (light, luminance).
Let's see this as an analogy to painting with oil or acrylic paint on canvas.

Now we use a digital image sensor, which is built out of millions of light sensitive electronic elements that we call pixels. As the light hits this surface, the light sensors emit an electronic impulse for a small part of a second. This impulse is amplified, computed and rendered to the final set of data that is transferred to the memory card.
The final image does not exist but we get various interpretations of the set of data as we open it on different screens or with different software or even if we use a different scale of magnification.
We can see this as an analogy to using a graph tablet and create digital images.
Digital “photography” is therefore just another method to do digital imaging.
As a result a digital camera is an input device – as a mouse or a keyboard.

These are two totally different techniques – so why compare them?
Because they can overlap in certain results, as I call it: The intended result of the artist.
They never have the same final result. A print from a slide, for example is not the final result – it has already been the slide itself. But the print was intended by the artist. The same we have to apply to the print from a digital file – even if we have no total final result as the slide/negative. The digital set of data is more like a code, a scale for the musical performance but no music in itself.

Opinion:

So we see that is is possible to create similar intended results.
Why do so many people these days bother with the question whether they should use this or that?
It comes down to a question of philosophy and personal preferences.
To my mind the magic of film is it's authenticity. The piece of film really was there, the image on it was really shaped by the original light of this day.
Digital imaging is digital imaging and to my mind a great way to create beautiful art.
But it is not photography.
It is strange to see, that camera makers did this transition from real camera manufacturers to companies that produce tools for digital imaging, still calling it photography tools...

For real art, this all does not make the difference.
Published notes from a famous composer who lived 200 years ago are like the set of data in digital imaging, but contain, once decoded and played, his ingeniousness.
But it does matter as a real document of the time is wanted that outlasted it's own age.
In the case of our contemporary digital culture there will be few of these documents.