Five years is a long-ass time in terms of technology, economics, and other things that will influence the future of film materials.
Five years ago, things were still pretty cool, as far as what materials one could get. Five years before that, we were just a little way into the film-to-digital switch in the journalism/magazine industry, and we still had a huge selection of analog materials. Five more years, and I think color film photography will either be totally dead, very close to dead (give it another five if not dead yet), or literally on its last legs.
Even though digital cameras have not, IMHO, improved in any hugely significant way from a practical standpoint in five years now (I would say ten, but I don't want to start any craziness here), we have lost tons of analog materials. Of course, the ones that go first are the ones that digital largely replaces for most shooters. Tungsten films (white balancing in camera takes care of that), high-speed films (high ISO settings take care of that), instant prints (LCD previews and tethering/wireless take care of that), transparency films (speed of digital work flow renders the entire reason for their near-total dominance in commercial photography moot), etc.
In other words, the coolest of the cool analog $hit is what is the "most replaced" by digital!
It is not any one specification of any one digital camera that has killed the films we have lost so far, but the innate ability of the digital medium to provide the things that these special, unique, and esoteric materials provided...and that were the very reason for their existence in the first place. The loss of the largest variety of instant prints has already occurred, after a gradual picking away at selection. The loss of all tungsten films (sans MP films) has already occurred, after a gradual picking away at selection. High speed films have been gradually picked away. They are even removing Tri-X Professional now, of all the damned things! Fuji Pro 800 was axed, and amid complaints, was brought back. The way I see this, it now must be hanging by a thread; a money-losing product kept on board just to keep people from getting too pissed off at the company at large. (Take a hint from this, Kodak.) It is bound to go again, as I can't see the market changing much. (Lots of complaints to Fuji, but how many of those complaining will actually buy huge quantities of the film on a regular basis?) Where else do you see high speed films going except for bye bye?
However, a medium speed daylight film has actually been added recently...as if we need more of them! The irony to me is that what I view as the most unique and special analog materials, the ones that give the results the most different from digital, are the very ones that digital has killed off. I would gladly see all the low, medium speed, and daylight film go away long before all the tungsten, high-speed, and transparency stuff that we have lost, and that we will soon lose totally. I would much more gladly use digital as a replacement for these lower-speed daylight materials (which I rarely use in comparison to the higher speed stuff) than for what has already been lost, or will be soon. I see less difference there. It is not about maximum ISO speed (higher with digital for sure now), or instancy (new word, BTW
), or easier color balancing, but about the individual properties and character of these lost products; fundamental aspects of an image's aesthetic and hence emotional qualities, not mere details of workflow, convenience, and ease. The focus on detailed, consumer-oriented specs as opposed to over all aesthetic effect by most shooters is a vapid judgment of materials, IMO, and has killed all these cool films and papers.
All of this is why I see the run-of-the mill stuff that 90% of plain-ol' photographers use (100/160 daylight color neg films, and a few 400s, maybe) sticking around longer than the cool unique stuff, that has already largely made its exit. The reason for these special analog materials existing in the first place is nullified by the very existence of digital (instant previews, in-camera white balancing, and high ISOs). The very existence of digital does not nullify anything that the lower-speed daylight films provide. Therefore, there is less for these materials to fight against; just details of whether the market for film in general is big enough to support their existence. Meanwhile, the high-speed/tungsten/instant/transparency stuff has to fight against something that, for most people, nullifies the entire reason for their existence (which was originally to do all the cool stuff that digital now does for most people).