I never said that MFDB are better than DSLR. Its only my personal experience that for my work MF is better and even when I tried to explain it to students I was not really able to find a scientific reasons. The best way to improve architectural photography in my opinion is to learn more about architecture. I wrote a book for students and there is about 90% relation between architecture and photography and only the other 10% about techniques.
In my opinion this is the correct relation.
i.m.o. good architecture photography has much to do with an understanding of the relation object and room, means perspective and image composition.
therefor real estate photography often has not much to do with architecture photography as i understand it, cause the motifs often are overloaded with chairs, plants, toys, people. the intent in this is to create atmosphere, not to show space or architecture, at least not construction aspects of it.
nowadays, with the existence of the new 17 and 24tse lenses from canon, it might be possible to use these lenses in a similar way than shift cameras as the alpas, artecs, cambos and s on ... but before architecture wide angle photography with 35m lenses was a very abstract way to get good images.
one had to stitch with 645 lenses and shift adapters or to correct electronically in ps. i.m.o. all ( except the olymus 24 ) the older shift lenses from schneider/canon/nikon in the wide end have been simply unusable for distortion and for sharpness decrease if shifted, so this was either a very complicate and abstract way to get good shots, or a way which implicated very lo quality. i personaly have made some of my best shots with 35m cameras, but i had experience to see and visualize motifs even without camera, this way to work i learned in the 4x5 film days. i would suggest this to everyone who wants to start in arcitecture photography, work with 4x5" to get a feel for the speed of shooting, which should be a very lo one if the desire is to get great shots.
i would not say that the budgets are higher with mf, because no one cares usually with wich camera the shots are done, people care about the results.
my workflow is faster and more intuitive with the artec and the emotion back together with exposure and lightroom, than with the canon,
thats why i prefer to work with mf.
but still about 50% of my shots are taken with the canon, either because i want to shoot details with very long lenses or i use the canon as "problem resolver"
if i dont go wide enough with the rodenstock 23mm.