This site is clearly biased towards high-end digital image capture...so it cracks me up how often these discussions about film vs digital come up. Resolution is only one factor, of many, which inform "quality" images.
Mr. Roversi seems to think the allure of LF film is not in its sharpness, but in its overall smoothness and softness. I agree. Perfect square pixels can't match what unique grain clumps offer in terms of how the entire image/print gels - and vice versa.
So let's stop this conversation please and just go take some pictures.
There's a peculiar need for the digital crowd to justify their gear and their price. In my experience us (partly) analog guys have mostly dropped that conversation years ago, and use it for various reasons rarely to do with resolving power, DR, or other narrow definition of IQ - if IQ has even any weight in the equation.
For the record I'm not saying there's no place or justification for an MFDB kit costing more than two-three good new cars - there is in many cases, and in many cases there's no need for justification (mostly affluent amateurs who don't get paid to photograph). Just like often there is a place and justification in spending low four figures in an LF kit, and five figures per year on film, developing and scanning.
Cameras are tools, and should be treated as such: right tool for the right application.