I read that article...it's really weird. If you read it again, note all the places where they talk about how the digital comparisons come pretty close to 35mm film, yet in every instance it sure sounded to me like film came out ahead. Then, and only then, in the last paragraph do they come to the conclusion that digital has surpassed film. If nothing else, it was a poorly written article.
From the other side of things, magazines that have been around for a long time are probably liking that they have something new/different to write about to avoid becoming totally repetitive.