Reply to post:

35mm film is an analogue medium, with an equivalent resolution of 87 million pixels, Because of that, nothing under at least 100Mpixels is going to compete,

That isn't true in my experience, which is that a good 12 Mp image is better than the vast majority of 35mm film. The simple grain size of analogue film is nothing like the effective resolution, I would guess because the grain shape means that the resolution is at best the longest dimension of each halide crystal, but then you've got the blurring effect between adjacent crystals. I've still got a range of 35mm enlargements to compare to, and I can see this very clearly. Even the best colour prints (usually reversals from slide film stock) exhibit not much better real world resolution than a good 12 Mp image. The randomising effect of grain gives the image a different and perhaps "more natural" perceptive quality, but the ability to properly resolve lines or point data is an order of magnitude different to a 100 Mp image.

and greater colour "versatility" (no Bayer patterns) with greater equivalent color depth.

Colour depth I agree, and versatility up to a point. There's no denying digital noise on very gradual colour gradients like clouds, and analogue film handles that far better. But then you need to factor in the various colour balances of film stock, which mean that (even before lighting and filters, processing and paper choice) analogue film is rarely a true to life colour balance.