I shoot MFDB in studio with controlable light.
I use ISO 50.
My strobes limit me to 1 image per 2 seconds, which I found almost enough for photographing children.
If you shoot fast and/or in low light you need a DSLR, I don't. I not tried D3x, cannot compare it to MFDB, I think it can succed your needs, but you will want to upgrade every n-years.
I not look back at DSLR since I started shot with Sinar and Aptus backs mounted to Contax 645. My MF/DB images are superb comparing to anything I did before with my old Nikon D/SLRs.
Alright, I confess as well!!!! I did not shoot with the D3X, and I do not wish to touch it! I got serious into photography with a Nikon F100, it was a superb camera to do so with, and Fuji Velvia. And! It did not have the multitude of high tech buttons that DSLRs have and that do not make you take quality photos, only a large number of photos.
Around 2005 the forums raved of the exciting Nikon D200, saying it was a blessed device and surpassing slide film with all the details from those pixels... and indeed there were lots of folks pixel peeping same as now is argued for 24mp dslrs being equals to mfdb. Anyways, I was convinced by the forums for the D200 back in 2005, simply I was not clever enough to listen to posts not raving for it. I am sorry, but I really found the D200 horrible tool. Colors were a pain to get pleasing and decent, and although details were rendered with pixels it was of far less value than my Minolta DiMage SE 5400 scans from Velvia 50. Perhaps it is something wrong with my eye... perhaps they are too sensitive or trained???
Albeit, many are photographers who wished of and have guilt of claiming the latest carnations from Canoikon land was beating film ;-http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...s/d30/d30.shtmlhttp://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=5003
Yup, those two threads were the 6MP and 3MP days... Hm, what has changed on LL??? And , if you read the one about the 3MP it also justify the cost for digital. How many of you folks posting here are sure digital has been financially justifiable? As an amateur my reply is that it has been far more expensive than if I would have stayed film. Yet, we have all been caught by the media and internet, to upgrade, upgrade, latest better, latest better...
Anyways, I was near strangled over on dpreview when I posted that I sold my D200 and bought a ZD. Even Thom Hogan posted and suggested I would be better off spending money on Photoshop classes. Regrettably the ZD was designed with problems, as I posted of it early last year. That is when I bought the Aptus, either that or I would have been back to FILM. The Aptus 65 rocks, so does the M8, albeit they are complete different tools. Now, back to subject... and you were arguing that dslr be the equal to MFDB???
All it takes is a trained eye.