> 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.
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.
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.
I work with post production for tv/movies. Current digital sensors are much better than film in clarity, noise, dynamic range, etc. Film is still, arguably, superior in look.
The noise inherent to film. Aka film grain is more irregular than digital sensor noise and can be more pleasing to people. People have argued that part of this is familiarity. People who grew up watching film have a large base of memories and associations with their favorite movies and the 'film look'
IN vfx work we use a large library of film-stock grain patterns to add noise to cg elements.
Large and medium format completely blow the best digital sensors out there. Dynamic range (unless you have a 3000 USD DSLR), contrast in black and white... and the rendering of colors. With a DLSR you are stuck with one sensor, with film every new roll is a different experience.
And as long as you have the negs, you can keep your pictures almost forever. Try reading that fancy RAW, proprietary format from your 2010's camera in 2050.
Technically that's a limitation of the price point, though. There is no physical reason medium- and large-format DSLR's couldn't be made with higher resolution and sensitivity than film.
Price is a big deal though. You can buy a 4x5 camera and some sheet film for a few hundred bucks online and get started making some amazing photographs right now. To buy a medium format digital back with comparable resolution you're looking at prices rivalling an entry level luxury car.
You can take that 15 year old photo, scan it and upscale it to meter width and keep sharp edges and so on. Try doing this with that fancy iPhone picture.
An early-2000s consumer film camera, addressing roughly the same market as a modern iPhone camera, is not going to have nearly the lens quality, nor will the mass-market film stock have the grain resolution, nor will the 1-hour photo print have the transfer sharpness to survive a scan enlargement to a 1-meter-wide print. The result will look grainy and blurry compared to an enlargement from a recent iPhone.
An early-2000s 35mm SLR with professional film and a high-end darkroom print will look great enlarged, but then an iPhone is no longer an appropriate point of comparison.
