Is MF good value? That's not so easy to answer. The issue of value raises something else, namely return on investment. If you are looking for the most effective way to make a picture with the least $, then a cel phone or point and shoot gets you (say) 70% of the image, for a fraction of the cost. I'm not suggesting this to get rid of high-end photog gear, but rather to point out the complexities of looking for "good value".
There is also the law of diminishing returns - that the last 5% costs much much more. Is it good value? Not really, unless you need it.
In the case of photo gear, decisions about gear are complicated by use factors (what each person likes to use), and then there is the artistic "feedback" loop - some folks get inspiration and pleasure from using certain gear. This may or may not be rational behavior.
Also consider the "outlier" - an 8x10 view camera gives very high quality at reasonably low cost. It (and 4x5 as well) give really good value. Shouldn't they be big winners in the value sweepstakes? Of course, view cameras don't win the title for convenience. How does that issue come into the mix?
Alls to say that efforts to rationalize equipment selection based on "value" are fraught with difficulty, and perhaps are best undertaken in very limited doses. Another way to think about this is that each person sets their own priorities, often combining aspiration, pleasure, a bit of gear lust, and an awareness of what works for them, and then makes their own selection by filtering through the possible "compromises" offered by the market, balanced by cost and convenience. There are patterns to this behavior, groups that form around certain shared sets of decisions, and even trends. Value plays a part, to be sure, but its not the only factor.
Poll
