All hi resolution scans of film do is give you lots of detail of the grain structure. A 21MP FF digital sensor has far more subject detail than a 50MP scanned 135 format film image.
Hmm...that simply has not been my experience. You mean your 4000px digital image at 100% has more detail than my 8000px film scan at 50%? At that size, I'm really not sure if it matters! The truth is a well-shot, well-scanned film negative offers a phenomenal level of detail, provided you've done your job behind the lens.
As for the grain structure, that's only an issue for people who think images have to be perfectly noise-free to be great. (I don't happen to be one of those folks.)
As for noise, my eyes see no noise, my digital camera records effectively zero noise at the iso's I use (sub 400, the same as the film I shot), why should I accept the compromise of noise/grain in film prints? Noise and grain are not "natural" looking, they are defects that we became accustomed to due to technological inadequacies, those inadequacies are no longer there so why accept them?
I am in the camp that firmly believes noise and grain do not add detail, as so many seem to misunderstand, they are comparatively crude devices that can be used to some stylish effect, if that is what is desired. Further, it is a lot easier to add the effect than take it away, I'll take the time and skill to shoot noise/grain free whenever possible and add in post if I want the style.
Have you checked corners or periphery of your eyes recently, I'm pretty much sure you don't get that much blur and lack of sharpness with any of the lens you might be using on that 1Dsmk3? Also the flare, when was the last time you were looking at the sun? Flare, blurry corners and other abberations are quite natural things yet most of the photogs try to avoid them.. Sorry, that 'natural' talk was the most invalid argument I heard recently.
People should just stick with their own preferences without giving any further explanations otherwise when someone writes a nonsense like the mentioned one it just gives a ground for suspicion other arguments in their posts might be corrupted as well.
I have yet to see architecture/landscape print shot with MF/35mm DSLR which could rival depth and DR most of the stuff shot on 120s or bigger.