I am chiming in a bit late here, but I have just seen this topic... I did want to comment on the statement that a 35mm digital print is as sharp as a MF print... I would urge that all read this website:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples
Look carefully at all the example scans... Click on all of the links in the article and draw your own conclusions...
I might mention that I pay attention to the red roof tiles in the motel images in all the scans as they give me the best clue as to overall accutance and accurate reproduction of detail... The other item to look at is the edge of the roof/wall on the bank building images... About 2/3 of the way from left to right along the top of the wall there is a defect in the roof cap... In many of the digital camera pics this is all but invisible.. In the 12 gig digi scans it is better seen, and best seen in the MF negative scans... Just another point on reproduction of texture...
Another point I would make is that visually comparing a digital picture versus a digital scan of a film (2nd generation) or print (3rd generation) on a 72 dpi computer screen is mostly a waste of time... Only gross changes can be seen... The valid comparison would be to make a good ink print from the dig camera file and a good silver print from the MF negative in 8X10 and hang them side by side... You will find that illuminating, especially for those who have never seen an 8X10 silver print from a MF negative...
Now, having made statements that can be interpreted as being anti digital, let me make a few points...
I shoot digital with a Kodak P&S for family pics... It is handy, simple, and gives my wife small color prints for relatives... I happen to like it... I suspect that a 5x7 print would be acceptable for hanging on a wall... I am considering moving up to a better digi camera...
I also shoot an F5 (mostly for the telephoto glass) with both color print and Velvia transparencies...
I also shoot MF in B&W and with Velvia... (Mamiya TLR)
I also shoot 4X5 in B&W and Velvia... (Speed Graphic)
I have no axe to grind here... Digital is coming of age and the 12 Gig sensors make color photos that look awsome at 8X10 hanging on a wall... Digital post processing allows you to do more with the image than you can in a darkroom... But when I compare a digital print to a 35mm print to a MF print to a print from the 4X5, there is just no contest... The tonality and sense of surface texture is best from the 4X5...
The bottom line is that it is "horse for courses"...
If I were shooting pics for Arizona Highways, National Geographic, Smithsonian, etc., I would still be shooting color transparencies, mostly 4X5...
If I were shooting pics for publication on national magazines or the newspaper I would be using one of the high end, DSLR cameras - they are now the only game in town...
If I were shooting Lands End catalogue pics I would be using a MF digital back on my Hassie, et. al...
If I were shooting high school yearbook pics I would be using a D70, or the like...
If I were an enthusiast I would be shooting a digi camera (which one depends on your budget), fixing the file in PS, and printing on a home color printe, or taking the memory chip to the Kodak storer...
cheers ... denny (been destroying cameras for over 50 years)