Better quality than digital? I don't think so for scanners - even film scanners unless the negatives are fresh off and even then its going to be hit and miss - and you still have to spend loads on velvia and other high quality films to support the ISO range where as digital you can switch it on the fly.
The only benefit of film cameras that I can think up is that theres no multiplication factor which means a 10-20mm lens really is a 10-20mm lens on a 35mm, camera and not a 15-30 as it would be on a digital nikon (x1.5 sensor). Then again, this only effects landscape photographers as having the x1.5 on telephotos is a huge boost for people who use them.
More expensive digital SLRs, esp. Nikons are tough build magnesium. Nikon are the cameras of choice for the press because they can take such a beating. They were always used in war reporting for this reason to the best of my knowledge
I wouldn't mind a film slr tho, they take a lot more discipline to use altough I shoot full manual on my D200 which uses the same principles as film. Just if you mess a shot up you take another to repace it etc.
