While I've now got a years worth of experience with medium format (by way of my trusty Mamiya RZ 67 Pro II), I can't image what the workflow is like compared to that of a DSLR. It seems, at least if you were working with a camera like the RZ 67, that it'd be substantially slower due to focus time, the ergonomics of it as well as the overall speed of the camera. Don't get me wrong... While I am looking forward to the Nikon D800 due to its high resolution, a big part of me is still thinking of some point (sooner rather than later) going the medium format digital route and purchasing a back for my Mamiya, though it's prohibitively expensive for me at present. Price aside, I've always been drawn to the images made by the systems I dream of (Hasselblad's, Contax's, etc.).
So what I'm hoping to gain is some knowledge regarding the workflow and overall speed of using MFD over DSLR. Obviously DSLR's are much more convenient and meant to do it all with their fast lenses, high ISO ranges, weather proofing, super fast AF, a million frames a second, etc., etc., but I don't think I'd be too far off when saying that when it comes down to the quality the medium format digital (just as with 35mm vs 120 film) has got it down right beat... but is the workflow speed substantially slower?
Looking forward to the replies!
P.S. Can anyone recommend me a nice digital back for my RZ 67 around the $5k mark? Something with 22+ megapixels hopefully.