So, when you have a 33mp image sensor element, you'll have something that is starting to close in on the quality inherent in a 35mm image. Just don't expect to get comparable quality at smaller enlargement sizes like 16x20 if you're doing a side-by-side with a pro lab's Kodachrome (or Ektar 25, or Agfa APX25, etc.)
You gotta stop buying into the hype, man. It's not real. Yeah, you can get "35mm quality" -- but that's a qualified statement. Put my 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor put up against a five dollar one-use snapper and you'll have two examples of "35mm quality". That much is indisputable. You'll also have one example that "good" digital cameras can match, and likely exceed. That much is beyond dispute too.
The other thing that is indisputable that the two comparable images will not include one formed by my Micro Nikkor.
One thing is certain -- digital snapshots taken with a good camera and displayed on a 19" monitor are better than film snapshots taken with any camera and developed at the supermarket.
One of the things not being mentioned in the pixel debate is the contrast range (zones, if you will) that can be recorded and displayed. Video displays can support a much more realistic range than prints of any kind. There are digital backs for large format cameras that support 36 bit depth.
I think we can assume that prices and performance of digital imaging will follow Moore's law.
True...but we're not talking about $5 one-use snappers. Put your 55mm f3.5 Micro Nikkor on a D100 and then on a F5 and you'd be hard-pressed to tell the difference in image quality.
When I want to produce real professional quality silver halide based photographic work, I keep my 35mm cameras in the bag and break out my trusty old Rolleiflex TLR.