Your are a very fine photographer and I very much admire your work. However it seems in somewhat repeat your posts contain incorrect information, works by others, and argue of dslr over mfdb. It begs to puzzle...
The point that I was making is that 35mm is improving at a faster pace. Looking at past improvements
of MF and 35mm it is likely that 35mm will catch up in all areas other than sensor area.
Above is very incorrect to say the least. Here;
Aug 1998 LEAF showed their 6MP Volare
Jun 1999 NIKON announced their 2.7MP D1
What has changed?
D800E was announced same long after Aptus-II 12
Leaf; 36x24 sensor -> 645 80MP
Nikon; 24x17 sensor -> 36x24 36MP
Interesting to note from above is
D1/Volare = 2.7/6 = 45%
D800E/Aptus-II 12 = 36/80 = 45%
= NO CHANGE
Life goes on...
You quote people that have both. (I had both and used both).... well here is an interesting test done
by the owner of an IQ180:
Both lab tests and field tests seem to confirm the same thing.
In frankness I did not bother to read that article because the costant debate is tiring. The images in the article however bear already witness of what seems two gents having done the test and not taken time to wait out a photogrphic light, and much worse appear to not have processed the images to get the very most out of the files. The images mere have a look of having been opened at defaults... Thus I fail to comprehend what solid conclusions they could draw and I fail to see that the comparison has any value. Result is that they seem to miss what extra MFDB brings and are simply better off with a DSLR. Then what is that comparison compared to the posts above by folks who use both D800 and MFDBs for making real imagery and assumably to push the files to get there??
I believe it is simple, a D800 and MFDB are tools. For someone who find need and/or can make use of MFDB then it is worthwhile, else it is not. In that respect it seems nothing has changed since film days...