I don't think we need to get into the cheaper v expensive camera debate, we had enough of that not long ago! I was of course jesting on that..
On the 35mm v, well that is an interesting one, and I simply feel differently to some others. It also appears that many of the testers are unable to reach the same conclusions as each other. We have results from 6mp to 15mp and over..rather interesting to say the least. And as there are a good variety of films out there, blanket statements simply won't do for that either..
I looked at some of the G10 shots, and they look good to me, have to say that. Looks like a decent camera.
However, I would like to raise one point. I tend to find many articles such as this one, have an unhealthy fixation with "resolution""resolution" "resolution", and little else appears to matter.
I have been consistently disappointed with the dynamic range of smaller sensors, even for scenes I would not consider to be that difficult. Now I have no experience of the G10, maybe it's better. But this highlights an important, and often overlooked aspect of image quality. To be honest I am not really satisfied with the DR/Tonal response of some of the DSLR's I have tried. No question technology gets better, but simply hammering megapixels, is not enough IMO. This is one area that has bothered me the most, makers seem mostly geared to resolution, and not a lot else. I think it's high time we looked beyond that.