Nikon f3 what is the picture quality?

I got my hands on a old school camera, that isn't digital. Just wondering in comparison to my canon power shot 20 mp. Which takes better quality pictures for clarity, like what we now call mp? Please super complex answers, i'm bad at that stuff. Like if I want to blow up the pic and still have it be sharp which is higher 20 mp or 35 mm?

Obviously, the photographer has a lot to do with the quality of the image for both film and digital.

Looking at just tools:
The F3 is a good body. It has nothing to do with quality of the images. For the F3, the lens and film, and development process determine quality.

In digital cameras, the sensor size, lens, and how the camera processes the images affects quality.
The power shot comes in many sensor sizes, thus hard to say which has better resolving power.

There are specialty B&W films that have very fine grain structure that rival full-frame digital cameras.
Modern full frame DSLRs and decent film are pretty close in resolving power from what I have read. Perhaps, digital has the edge now.

The picture quality available from any SLR is what the photographer, the film, and the lens make it.

The Nikon F3 was an excellent 35mm film camera in its day. I used the F3 as part of my work for some years - sometimes in very unpleasant physical conditions (smoke, dirt, etc) and it never failed. Its primary limitation was the flash sync speed, at 1/80th second - slow even by the standards of its day. But it was the camera supplied by the organisation I was working for, so I just got on with the jobs with its help. Nikon as a brand was always up there at the top of the tree, often alongside Canon and possibly a few others.

It is impossible to give direct comparisons between a film-based camera used well and a digital camera used well. The nature of the recording medium (and the subsequent image processing/treatment, etc) is so different, and that is far more important than the actual model of film or digital camera.

"Super complex answers" might impress nerds, but will not give the whole picture.

Film SLR cameras can't have any effect on image quality because there's literally nothing but air between the rear element of the lens and the surface of the film. Because of this, when using the same lens it is literally impossible for there to be any difference in image quality between an F3 or an EM (arguably one of the worst SLRs that Nikon ever made with the exception of the N4004). The image quality therefore is entirely in the lens and the film. If you want to get the ultimate resolution you must use slow film emulsions such as the Kodak Extar 100 which is a color print film or Fujifilm Velvia 50 which is color slide film (a.k.a. Color reversal film).

Color slide film is totally different than print film in that slide film has 2x more resolving power than color negative film. One of the best color slide films is the iconic Fujifilm Velvia. If you've never used Velvia, then you're in for a treat.

So how does one compare an image from ISO 50 slide film to digital. Well, I think I remember reading something about it being equivalent to about 26MP IF, and only if, you were using a professional quality lens. If you were to use a low-end lens like the Nikon 35-70mm kit lens from the 80s and 90s, then the number would be significantly lower. Just understand that this number will drastically fall as you use higher and higher ISO film, too.

Then there's color and contrast to contend with. Color slide film not only has twice the resolution of print film, but it also has twice the color pallet as well. Downside is that slide film has a dynamic range of only 5 stops. And if you under/over expose slide film by more than about 1/2 stops, you may have an unusable image. This is especially true in the highlights. When you overexpose slide film, it becomes more and more clear. This makes it impossible to get any information in the highlights because the film is literally clear. For this reason, you want to intentionally underexpose slide film by about 1/3 ~ 1/2 stop. And you ALWAYS want to meter for the most important highlight, too. Meter off the most important highlight and then adjust the exposure to ensure that it's not being recorded brighter than about Zone VII or two stops above indicated exposure. Let the shadows fall where they may and never let the highlights go above Zone VII unless you're talking about super bright areas like the Sun or clouds backlit by the Sun.

If you want even higher resolution, then skip 35mm format all together and get a medium format camera instead. The image quality with medium format is equivalent to about 50MP with a pro-quality lens. Much more silver which provides vastly greater tonality than what's possible with 35mm format.

Here's a link to B&H's store showing currently available 35mm film

MP or megapixels is not clarity. MP only tells picture size. The more MP your camera has, the bigger the picture will be, the larger your blowups can be made.

On the other hand, picture quality, which includes clarity and all, is most dependent on the photographer's skill. That means, whatever camera you use, whether film or digital, you get basically the same picture. If the old camera uses film, you don't need to worry about how big your blowup can be made as long as you're not printing to bus-sizes.

The F3 was a pro level camera. I have the F3-HP.
Some purists believe 35mm has a better feel to it.
Buy some 100 ISO film and take take shots with it.
Shoot the same with your D-SLR.
Print out 4'X 6' s, you probably won't see any difference.