That impressive seriously.
B&G is Bride and Groom, sorry I'm used to wedding forums and forgot that not everyone speaks our strange language
Not having a DSLR vs MFDB fight here but would like to address a few issues so that those interested in wedding photography may have some balance.
Here are 4 setups from a total of 19 from a recent wedding. Seriously humid, I couldn't see much through my glasses, was kinda shooting based on experience cause I couldn't see much
. The first photograph of the session has a metadata time of 9:31pm and the last at 9:45pm and the wedding planner was hurrying us the entire time, no kidding! All shot at iso 1600 and f2.8 (I think) using Canon Wireless ETTL and a 1:8 ratio within the ETTL system using two speedlites in a brolly off camera held by an assistant and on camera fill. No time for manual flash, test shots, tripod, multiple strobes, etc. Couldn't have begun to do this with our DF, heck it wouldn't have managed the focus, the aperture, the handheld shutter speeds, the high ISO or the wireless TTL flash with ratios. Did I mention that I was using a canon 5Dc bought 7 years ago?
For this kind of photography medium format digital is just not at all possible. If you have time and the ability to use the necessary lighting and most of all clients who buy into the static portraiture look then you could use MFDB's but then I would seriously question whether the MFDB could possibly be economically viable for all the very highest end shooters. The difference in IQ is unlikely in 99.9% of the cases to bring in a difference in income equal not only the cost difference of the MF gear but also the need for working in a MF way, the higher end lighting, etc, etc. I would also seriously question whether most clients would be able to see said difference in IQ, from ten years of shooting weddings I highly doubt it.
I'm also rather nervous about putting all the horses into the 'kill ambient with heavy flash' look for weddings. From what I can see in the market that ship has already sailed and the look like so very many others is now something that many consider passée. It's still big in the advertising/fashion world but far less so now for the wedding market. Whether I am right or wrong re the market, I have little doubt that in time it will be passée leaving couples with a style which is no longer in fashion. IMO a very dangerous type of photographic style for a wedding photographer to invest an entire career into which is what they would be doing if they invest to this extent.
I'm now out of the wedding game, my legs have given up on me for good, however I'm wary of photographers marrying a look to the extent of having to invest these kind of amounts, I'm extremely wary of a look which may require extrememly questionable business investments and I know that for most photographers MF is not going to be fluid or broad enough as a tool and that for most clients it would be a waste of money.
For those who can and do make it work I have the utmost respect. I do believe however that it is so niche a requirement that the number of said people will never be more than a very few. All the photographers I know using MFDB for weddings did not buy the camera for wedding work, it's a commercial shooting rig that they are bringing along to the gig.