Folks, thanks for your feedback, but I am not looking for software analysis. I am looking for your practical findings. I personally can't think of too many places where I would need extra dynamic range in my professional photography work. That is why I posted a practical scenario, namely interior photography with light source in the frame. I was just carious if others found MF better in such setting for example.
Furthermore, I am not interested in buying a MF camera. Unless my work requires it I see no reason of making the investment. So far I have been asked about MF by only one advertising agency. That being said I was just interested to know if people saw any practical difference in a real shooting scenario.
There are a few areas where I feel MF outperforms DSLRs in any situation, and since you so wisely asked for *practical* experience over bloated scientific analysis, I'll share a few of my thoughts based on my own experience.
First off, for what you do -- interiors with controlled lighting -- I would probably be hard pressed to recommend anything more than a high-end Canon body coupled to the 17 and 24 TSE II lenses. That combo has certainly proven itself in a very short time, and as a huge plus, it's very convenient and easy to use. It's also relatively inexpensive compared to a MF back, tech camera and digital lenses! Bottom line is if what you're currently using works for you and your customers are not complaining, then you are probably set.
That out of the way, the areas where I find MF will outperform the high-end Canon include: higher resolution, expanded DR, more accurate color, better tonality, better inter-pixel contrast. All of these factors allow you to push things around more aggressively in post to get to a desired result, including additional perspective corrections and selective pixel editing. So IMO the real question you need to ask yourself is if you need that ability, how often will you need it, and is it going to be worth the added investment (significant) for the MF solution?
As respects your uses, I think if you used one of the latest 60MP MF backs on a good tech camera with the best lenses, and processed both files optimally* and printed them out to 24x32, the MF print would show clear advantages; at 40x50 print sizes, the 60MP advantage will be patently clear and no contest. Of course you'll only be able to see the advantages if you compare the prints side-by-side -- and for at least in the 24x32, most folks would be entirely satisfied with the Canon print if they didn't see the MF print. Moreover, you aren't likely to see the color or tonal advantages in an online jpeg.
*The other issue is that not all MF shooters take the time to learn the back's software to process their files optimally, so we often see "comparable" results generated in online comparisons where the final files were not fully optimized -- usually these come from a DSLR shooter that borrowed or rented an MF back for a day. Sometimes we even see similar comparisons come from folks who have only read other analyses and then extrapolate their own hard scientific conclusion without ever picking up the cameras in question!
Hope this helps,