[datenwolf]

- higher resolution (with fine grain sized stock)

- higher dynamic range

- gracefull saturation behavior

and IMHO the absolute killer feature:

- a "fresh" sensor for each and every frame captured (no worries about scratches in the optical lowpass coating, no hassle with dust on the sensor).

Also absolutely no dependency on charged batteries if one uses a purely mechanical camera.

[bicubic]

35mm film is considered to be roughly equivalent to 20 megapixels. A modern digital camera has 42, more than double that.

35mm film is considered to have a dynamic range around 13 stops. A modern digital camera will do about 13.9

Film has a few advantages and pleasant quirks over digital, but sensitivity and resolution aren't amongst them.

[datenwolf]

> but sensitivity and resolution aren't amongst them.

Digital cameras have been more sensitive than chemical film for some time now, hence I didn't mention sensitivity (film is clearly inferior).

Regarding dynamic range and resolution, it really depends on what kinds of stock you compare to digital. If you take a low sensitivity ISO 50 fine grain stock, that one will easily outperform current generation electronic sensors – except for low-ish resolution high dynamic range sensors with large charge collecting capabilities¹. But you get this at the expense of having to use slow shutter speeds or a fast aperture.

You're right that in the "usual" ballpark of operational parameters (ISO 400 to ISO 2000, ~30MP resolution) modern electronic image sensors are getting close or are on-par with standard application chemical film stock.

----

1: Ironically chemical film stock resolution and dynamic range increase "in the same direction": Smaller grain → higher DR, higher resolution, but lower sensitivity. It's exactly opposite for electronic sensors since pixel size determines charge collection capacity and therefore saturation levels.

[ekianjo]

if you enlarge a film the traditional way for printing it goes way beyond 20M pixels. Probably closer to 50M pixela at least. Try enlarging a current 20M pixels digital picture to A2 format you will see a huge difference and film clearly wins.

[bicubic]

I based my numbers on http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/30745/what-is-the-e...

Their breakdown is based around top of the line equipment. If you think 50mp can be pulled from film, I'd like to see how.

[ekianjo]

when you enlaRge film you dont get pixels. Enlarge a digital picture and you only get a mosaic of squares.

[mizaru]

The Sony A6300 offers 13.7 stops of dynamic range (according to DxOMark, so not entirely uncontroversial). The slightly more expensive Nikon D810 goes up to 14.8 stops. It's hard to find definitive numbers for film, though.