1) You get considerably more accurate colour from a P65+ than any form of scanned film, including 8x10.
2) You also get considerably less dynamic range (at the highlight end) than scanned colour negative (but significantly more than scanned colour transparency).
3) The P65+ will generate unpleasant moire under relevant conditions, it can also render neon and some other subjects in strange bad ways that are hard to correct.
I concur that the above post #60 by Steve Hendrix speaks very well indeed. Else it is remarkable that any post on MFDB appear to take turn in posts comparing to DSLR. Those tools are completely different, and not merely in image quality. It has been stated in film days already that stepping up from SLR to medium format causes an immediate improvement in ones photography. I believe the reason is that we see better and slow down more with medium format. It lends to a more deliberate and planned approach.
In contrast to medium format cameras, DSLRs are seemingly being stuffed with more and more wizbang and buttons by each new iteration. Personally I prefer more analog interface by medium format and am keen on technical camera with even more such. Simple and manual makes me focus more on photography rather than the interface. We are all different. While technological advancement is great, I for one hand the TV remote to my wife because it has many buttons! Simply my mind is more analogue. That is one advantage with MDFB and associated cameras that is worthy to mention as a great strength. Some people like all the electronic features and interface, while others like me much prefer an analogue interface.
The above list 1-3 is actually exact contrary to the list of where I would like to see MFDB improve:
1) Colors may be accurate with MFDB and more so than DSLR, however as a landscape shooter I do not want accurate colors. What I want is colors that pleasingly render nature and light in same manner or better as Velvia 50 do. No digital today enables you to reach that objective with any means of ease. And no, it is not possible today to replicate the beauty of Fuji Velvia 50. This is why I still also shoot film.
2) DR on MFDB is great and exceeds DSLR, however the problem with digital is that it is a linear capture and does not have the nature of film at highlights. That is one of the weaknesses with digital today. What happened to Fuji's patent of a new type of sensor? We need a new type of sensors with a response similar to film.
3) I use Aptus 65 28MP MFDB and have not encountered much worthy of problem with moire. With higher resolution the problem becomes smaller, unless I am mistaken. However, there are tools to deal with it, e.g. in Capture One. Thus it is nil issue for MFDB.
In regards to resolution, also my 28MP digital back is suffice for portraits. However, for landscapes I would prefer around 80MP for landscapes, both to get high resolution single captures in 4x5 proportions, but also single crops in decent size of 617 proportions. I think more than 80MP in FF 645 sensors would be around what todays sharpest lenses can resolve from Bayer type sensors and in order not not make more problem with tolerances on equipment. After that, yes... would be great with larger sensors instead of having to buy $$$ set of new higher resolving lenses. The question is perhaps if the industry will choose such path instead of trying make us buy new lenses and cameras?
And frankly why stick to 645 proportioned sensors (1.33:1) instead of 4x5 proportioned (1.25:1)? With same image circle, a 4x5 proportioned sensor will yield a larger area, as of course... by many considered a far more pleasant proportion of frame.