The prints of his that I saw at the AIPAD show were magnificent, no matter how they were produced. If it gives him more time in the field capturing new work, I'm all for it.
While watching the recent Photography marathon on the Ovation Channel, I saw a definite trend. The really big money fine art guys (Gursky, Crewdson, Moore) all use film to capture their images. I'm not sure about Andrew Moore, but I know that Gursky and Crewdson both print digitally. But they still use film, and so does Soth. What's so sad about using film to create images that fetch >$100,000/print?