Now I really like film and it certainly has some nice image feature and rendition qualities and paying per shot is a fantastic way of forcing composition, choice, and ultimately quality (the counter argument is equally valid- learning, experimenting and sports photography gets very pricey).
However, I think some of the analogue fans needs a little firmer grounding in reality.
There are lots of numbers throw about for film/slide properties that are simply not true for very simple reasons and can shown to be false.
On resolution, a 35mm frame has an agreed maximum resolution of around 20MP under
optimal conditions. Funny enough this matches the current FF camera top models. This is true only under optimal conditions, that means, high end tripod and head, top end glass stopped down a little, the highest grade of film, mirror-lockup and remote release. Most people shooting with 35mm wont get more than 8-12MP. And these numbers match well to currnt digital cameras. If we take the 12MP Nikon D3 we know from peoples experience is that it is fairly easy to get high resolution sharp (sharpness is an effect of capturing optimal resolution) photos at this lower resolution. People who use the 24MP D3x struggle to get the true 24MP resolution without shooting under optimal conditions with the very best lenses.
We can look at theory to see why this is the case (look at table 3):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
Take a 35mm frame at a landscape scene, we have typical green light (forests, fields, grass, mountains, etc.) shot at f/16 to get foreground and background with the DOF, and blow me, a theoretical resolution of only 7MP. Hence shooting at f/16 will always be problematic on full frame. If we drop back to f/8 we get a good 29MP and the lens is still stopped down enough.
One physical measurements instead of theory? Head over to Photozone and see the MTF charts. Take the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 a typical lens FF user might sue, the NIkon version is the best wide to normal lens there is and will out resolve the Canon, so it should give about the best number for a zoom. This l;ens is much sharper than any equivalent that was available 20 years ago in the film heydey.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/456-nikkor_afs_2470_28_ff?start=1
What do we see, that across all focal lengths the lens cannot get close to the 4000Lines per height, thus there is no possible setting to get close to the 24MP.
In fact, exhaustive search will show you there is not a single lens in existence that will offer 24MP.
The high numbers that people state for film arise from a misunderstanding of grain. For example, we can take the 24MP frame of a D3X and interpolate it to 48MP. IF we printed the 24Mp and 48MP on a large canvas the 48MP would actually still look better than the 24MP. Furthermore, we could interpolate again to 96MP, then we can throw in some artificial grain. If we took a 100% crop of this 96MP frame it would appear to be plenty of details, but these are fake details produced by the grain and interpolation details.
As for dynamic range, the film strong point. True, but this is rapidly disappearing. The Nikon D7000 has 14 stops of DR, Ektachrome 100 has 7.5 stops, Kodachrome 25, 64, 200 has 8 stops, Tri-X 10.5-13.5, Tmax 100 17 stops.
To look at the progression, Digital sensor Dr has risen form 10 o 14 stops in 8 years, this progress will continue (especially if Canon and Sony stop having an MP fight).
As for grain/noise, digital sensor have long since surpassed the best film. No film comes close to the Nikon D3s.