thats quite true
I think it does come down to more of a personal preference
usually what I do is I shoot with both a MF camera and the Nikon D3
as I do mostly portraits, the combination is usually a mid-tele on the MF, like 150mm, for most of the shots
then the D3 with a 200mm f2 for the tight shots, and have a wide like 14-24mm in case I need it
the D3 with the 200mm is sharp as hell, but the IQ of MF is beyong reach for any 135 system
one of the major thing that I love about MF is the DR, which is why I kept asking
to me, who knows nothing about the technical stuff(I know a bit more now thanks to this forum), always thought that the DR was because of the larger sensor (and larger pixel)
and the Pentax 645D is only marginally larger than the 135 system at 44x33mm
so I have always questioned if the 645D is truly a MF, and if it has the same DR which I concern most
kinda like the ASP system, which wasnt really an 135 system in the beginning, I remember it was a different film roll(thought I was kinda young back then so I could be wrong), somehow it is considered 135 now in the digital world
if the DR is indeed from the physical size of the sensor, then 1.1x crop is a lot larger than 1.3x crop
up to now I dont think anyone can firmly say the H3D/H4D-50 has better IQ than the Pentax 645D
(not just talking about sharpness, D3X with 200mm f2 could well be the sharpest image taking machine currently in production)
I dont know, anyone?
Your question is near impossible to answer, because it is founded on a lot of very personal choices.
For outside shooting portability is a great issue. If you go out for a tour of 6-9 hours you will feel
every gram of gear, especially in the mountains.
Maybe a DSLR like the D3X and a good carbon fiber tripod and a pano head will do.
A stitch of 9 images from a D3X with 1/3 overlap would give you 72 good megapixels
(as if you'd ever need more than the 24 Mpix...), if I'm not mistaken ...
How large do you really want to print?
A DSLR system also has the great versatility advantage - e.g. if on the Nikon side you could
use all your lenses on a different body, like the D3S and instantly have a great low-light system.
But even then: Nothing beats MF IQ-wise.
I also am convinced, that postprocessing has a very huge impact on the final image and it may make more sense
to invest in good software, a good monitor, a good printer and not sink ten-thousands of money into the capturing device alone.
Investing in some good workshops might also be a better investment than wasting the money for gear.
That all said from the perspective of an enthusiastic amateur - for a pro who needs to make money things might look different.
Just my 0.02 ...