Frankly, above three posts appear to indicate you do not at all understand MFD.
I have been shooting medium format digital since 2007; 20, 28 and now 80MP. As example, you want to make us believe you can read WHAT from a posted jpg of the raw file???
Both DSLR and MFDB are tools and there have been some frank interesting posts of other folks in above that actually have shot both.
Just my make of it...
I have been working with digital compression long before still photography even became digital. As well as photography I work with motion picture also as a visual effects supervisor. In visual effects access to data beyond what is readily visible in files is used very often.
I find it funny how when anyone brings up the limitations of MFD they are accused of not owning it, having used it and then personal attacks are made.
To tell you the truth I do not care that much what use of my posts are made by owners and die hard fans of MF make. For me it's more about
informing those considering what cameras to buy and sharing my experience that spans 30 years, most formats from film to digital. I have been working with very high end digital from the early days when a high end still digital suit like the scitex systems was $1,000 and hour. Clients include L'Oreal, Wella, Monteil, Revlon... clients where color is a very big deal and where budgets are not tight.
Anyway... while more and more tests show a closing gap the very MF manufacturers do not publish comparisons to back up their marketing claims.
While many here have a knee jerk reaction to DXO Marks results discrediting them and finding them even laughable
it is interesting to note that Phase One.. the maker of the best MFDB proudly posted the results of DXO Mark's testing of the IQ180
where it was awarded best sensor. Phase One did not question any of the results, yet fan boys do....
I have also stated repeatedly that there are still situations where MFD will produce a better result.
It is when reproduction of the image is with very high end inkjet printing to very large sizes and exhibited in a manner that
allows the viewer to view portions of the image very close up. Like landscape where the print is 5 foot across and you go up to it to view
portions of the image. Now i'm not disparaging this or trying to lower it to the level of pixel peeping. This is a very legitimate use..
As for fine art reproduction... if it is not a moving subject and 4x5 scanning digital back will produce better results, massive files even with oversampling.... though it will
be serious overkill for most uses.