In reply to MikeTS:
I think it partly depends on the quality of the scan. I've used AG Photo Lab (
http://www.ag-photolab.co.uk ) for developing and scanning over the last couple of years, and although they do a very fine job, absolute image quality is still nowhere near what you'll get from a modern DSLR or mirrorless camera. For example, I have been shooting a Pentax MX with a Pentax-M 50mm f/1.7 lens (a good lens) and generally using Ilford XP2 400 film (which is fine-grained), yet this combo can't even approach the sharpness and resolution I'm able to achieve with my Fujifilm X-E1 and its 18-55 lens. This is a digital camera from 2012; new ones will yield even better results.
(This is just about the sharpest result I've ever been able to get from a scanned negative:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_roddie/16493085046/in/album-721576465721... )
*However,* it is theoretically possible to extract a huge amount of resolution from a 35mm negative, with the best quality scans. I'm sure that better scanning could yield bigger, sharper files. I still don't think they would be anywhere near as good as my X-E1 digital files, though.
There's also the question of dynamic range. Print negative film has superb dynamic range, but as far as I'm aware digital has now caught up (although you still have to be careful to avoid clipping highlights). Digital also gives you the flexibility of shooting in raw. Of course, if you process your own film, you will have something like that kind of control over your 35mm negatives.
Ultimately film and digital are just completely different. Film has a unique look that can be very difficult to emulate with digital – it's all in the grain structure and the tone. I think digital files are going to be sharper 99% of the time, with less noise and better objective image quality, but subjectively it's a lot more complex – and that's why many people continue to shoot film, because they love the look and the overall process.