I'm sure live view is not the real hurdle that makes many people choose the DSLR -- it is the cost.
I don't know the science behind these cameras, but I can see the results.
Personally I see a slight to major difference in color detail between ccd and cmos.
I don't or really care if it comes from format size, sensor, filter or lenses, I just see it.
Medium format seems less global in color that my 35mm colors, but that's not always good, depends on what you shoot, depends on the brand, depends on the post production.
If I'm going to dive deep into a file from my ccd cameras I will see every bit of slight discoloration in a face or skin, or even the whole scene.
That's the downside, but the upside is if I need all the colors to work a file deep then the ccd is easier for me to get there than cmos.
Not to go of topic but . . .
Man if you could just get the best of both formats, medium format and 35mm you'd probably really have something.
I tried the one camera fits all routine, for stills and for video and I don't think it's there.
Still cameras that really go to high speed like the Canon 1dx are much different in operation than a Nikon d800, much, much different than a digital back and much different than a dedicated digital video camera.
The bottom line to me is you can do just about everything with a 35mm cmos, camera, you just can't do everything perfectly.
When the Pentax came out, I thought finally medium format kind of woke up to the new realities professional photographers faced.
Cost close to the 1 series Canons, big viewfinder for manual focus, in camera jpegs for better lcd viewing, quick web galleries, 4:3 vertical crop, reasonably priced lenses.
I've gone into a store to buy that camera 5 times and always walked off. Just two slow on write speeds and the new lenses are very expensive and there is no professional tethering option.
For some the write times won't matter, but next week we shoot for an apparel client on three locations, 29 set ups per day. Not 29 shots, 29 setups.
Given that this project is sunlight dependent, so 8 hours of shooting, if everything goes smooth. That's 17 minutes a session. Seriously 17 minutes.
Now add in the wait time on a Pentax previews along with the difficulty in tethering and if you lose 90 seconds to 2 minutes a session, that is 3 shots that don't get done.
Add the fact that almost every project we do requires some video and the compression of time is evident.
Add the cost of starting up with a new platform like the pentax and 4 new lenses and one body is slightly under 20 grand. With backup body add another 9.
Going to a new Phase back is nearly $40,000 using my current contax platform, and though the improvements of the IQ are attractive, $40,000 in todays world of every shrinking budgets is a lot and in my case, that doesn't improve my camera platform.
It doesn't take a genius to see why the d800 is attractive. I'd buy a d800 because I own all the new Nikon glass and the camera body compared to the costs I've just mentioned is virtually free. The problem I have is I don't think the look of the Nikon glass is very pretty.
(That's just a personal opinion).
To me the company that could rock the world is Pentax, if they up their game. I don't think they need a wholesale change, just a one step improvement in write speed, slightly better 800 to 1600 iso processing and a tethering solution that's robust.
Or maybe Leaf. If Leaf plays off the Phase tech and can come in at a better price point with the mamiya and Leaf all in one combination they have an opening.
Or, maybe Hasselblad if they take their 40mpx camera, amortize the price down to compete at Pentax levels, they could be a solution.