I do not get this endless debate about MF verses Canon and the constant negative comments to Canon lenses. They are two different formats and do different things, as it has always been. As always, if you want speed of handling, wider lens range, faster apertures, easier backpacking, the most responsive AF systems, etc then one picks a 35mm based system. If squeezing out maximum quality for larger reproduction needs is your requirement then you will put up with the limitations, cost, slower handling, generally bulkier nature of larger formats. There is nothing new here.
As image capture is now a function of proprietary electronics rather than film, the traditional gap may ebb and flow over time. What may have an advantage today may be less so tomorrow.
My one and only digital camera is a DsII with a DsIII on order. The extensive L series lens collection I have has never been better and is constantly evolving to new levels with new introductions. I get so much more detail now, with much greater ease, than I did hauling my 50lbs of Blad V-series around with 7 lenses and Velvia film. I would not consider a MF back for my current Blad system given the considerable chromatic aberrations these outdated lenses deliver. The 40mm CF can be a dog and the 500 CF "APO" is definitely a dog. Only the 250 super-achromat gives a clean aberration free result. if if I can see all these faults so clearly on film, I can only imagine how bad it would be on digital.
Unless the new H-series Blad, Mamiya, Contax, etc and vastly better than these classic V-series lenses, I just do not get it. I only see this MF thing working really well on a technical camera with process quality lenses.