Film is not dead. At least not for landscape photographers who print big. Fuji just put back the Velvia RVP 50 back to the market, upon heavy demands from guys like me.
For portrait/commercial work, digital beats film with no arguments. For landscape it is totally different. Upon your eyes as well -- we saw some large prints from digital backs that are full of un-natural looking artifacts, over denoising/smoothing especially over the smooth surface, and over sharpening everywhere, but many other viewers say they are just fantastic. If you're in the old school or a darkroom teacher you would say the new generation is lossing their tastes, or have never really witnessed master prints up close and personal.
We did a very careful test between Mamiya and Contax 645 RVP 50 film and the top Canon/Nikon DSLRs. DSLRs produced much better dynamic rang (recoverable details in the shadows when the highlight is under control) and better SNRs, but only attains around 70% of the 645 film resolution. The difference in our tests we judged everything upsampling the DSLR RAW files to ~200% to compare to the drum scanned film at 4000dpi, not at just 100% with the film scans downsampled, with converters such as ACR (not good with landscapes), Raw Deverloper, DxO, and Raw Magick. This is only to people who love grain and actually add film grain to the printing files (with DxO Film Pack Photoshop plug-in), who don't care much about noise, and stick with static subjects using always the lowest ISO available.
Also, for landscape, the Nikon D2x produces much better per pixel resolution than the Canons off the RAW file. The Canons use stronger anti-aliasing filters and heavier on-chip denoising. This makes the 16.7 vs 12.4 MP difference irrelavent and D2x a much better tool at least to me, even I also shoot Canons and having spent more on Canon glass. In Japan and China there is a special word for the "Canon looking" -- "Rou", roughly translatted as "timid", "soft", and "meaty". Exactly a wedding photographer would prefer, maybe.
4x5 offers around 170% linear resolution than 6x7, or 220% than 645. A 39MP back only offers 133% than a 22MP. So personally I would not expect the P45 back surpass the 4x5 film for lanscape work, and to me it is shown in the prints from masters who shoot the both. Remember, almost everyone can shoot a P45 with AF lens "right" while there a millions of ways to shoot a 4x5 wrong, including careful film holder flatness/shiming adjustments and skillful focusing. People can easily get crappy 4x5 chromes/negatives and scans and to claim it is inferrier to a 5D shot. However, I am seriously thinking about the ZD back and expect it to equal the 645 film resolution.
And this is only from the technical point of view (resolution), not things such as the "film looking", etc. to which Nikon is also ahead of Canon.