MtnBkr,
I've been carefully following the subject, waiting for the cost curve to cross my "available funds" curve. (I'm seeing an EOS 5D in my intermediate future
.) I've seen "actual pixels" images, compared with drum scans of film; I don't know if that counts as "firsthand."
There's a lot of info about various film
vs. digital comparisons at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/Understand that my response to the "film better than digital" statements is in terms of the best film
vs. the best digital. If that's not what one is comparing, you can always find some example of one that's better than some example of the other. Obviously, an EOS 1Ds digital camera is better than a grocery-store disposable film camera. And equally obviously, a Hasselblad is better than a $100, 1.5 MP digital camera with a plastic lens.
The digital cameras I'm talking about aren't cheap. A Canon EOS 1Ds MkII is around $7K-$8K, plus a few $K more for L series lenses. A system built around a Leaf or Phase One 39 MP back is around $50K. But for those $$$, you're getting image quality that is limited by the quality of the (very, very fine) lenses, not the sensor--If they made better lenses, you'd get even better images. (Possibly not possible in the case of the Rodenstock HR lenses, which are basically right at the diffraction limit right up to maximum aperture.)
For working pros, those numbers are within reach. If a pro is spending $100 a day on film and processing shooting a Hasselblad, he can recover the cost of an EOS 1Ds MkII in about 80 workdays. The Leaf/Phase One/etc. setup is a lot even for working pros, but still in the range that Leaf and Phase One are selling a lot of equipment.
When you get into the $1K-$2K, partial-frame cameras, yah, you just might be able to get better quality with film.