Based on my experience and some calculations on MTF models, low ISO slide and BW film in 6x7 or 6x9 format are still a match for 20-24 Megas full frame digital SLRs. Full frame 36 Megas bodies however will best 6x9 most of the times, particularly in low contrast scenarios.
Color separation is definetely better for film, dynamic range and color accuracy for digital.
Personally I don't care for accuracy: I miss the Velvia 50 palette every time I shoot digital.
However dynamic range is a big pro.
That is for one-shot situations or macro scenarios; a pano head setup with DSLR will allow for much better performance even for single row panos in landscape use.
Mamiya 7 II body/lenses are capable of stunning performance on 6x7, but it only matters for apertures larger than F11; for most of the other 6x7 or 6x9 brands, film transport precision and consequent film bulge will limit performance.
Typical 0,2 mm bulge in the film channel will limit performance to 60-70 lp/mm even with the best BW film; excellent lenses like Pentax 45mm F4 or 55mm F4 or Fujinon 65mm F.6 are limited by film positioning precision.
Mamiya 6/7, Contax and Hasselblad bodies are generally built with better precision and thus produce better results wide open.
In the F16-F22 range, differences are flattened and performance is still up to 50-70 lp/mm, depending on film and scene contrast.
Considering the DOF requirements for the 6x7 or 6x9 format, I end up shooting in that range anyway and forget about lens performance.
3000dpi (effective optical) scans, processed with radius 2 sharpening, will let you recover most of the info from film without delving too much into grain; 4000dpi for the very best BW shots.
I can have a single 6x9 scan with Flextight X5 @ 3200dpi for 4€ /5$: not cheap but acceptable considering I choose only my best shots to be scanned.
A drum scan, provided you can still find a skilled and careful operator, is always better for slides; for negs a Nikon Coolscan 9000 (imho considerably better than the 8000) is on par and easier to operate.
On the long term digital is cheaper and delivers consistently better results in difficult scenarios.
Still for me, digital does not match the sporadic thrill of that planned, ponderated, slow film shot that turns out to be perfect once in a while.