I thought the original subject was whether one would see a difference between a MFDB and a DSLR, in a 'small' print. it is possible to argue about all sort of subtle differences, that might be important to someone, but not to somebody else. Erik suggested to, when considering going to digital medium format, download some files and print this at a size that one would normally print on.
I am an engineer and that perhaps makes one a bit funny. I like to break problems down in simple sub-problems and look at each of those individuality. for me it seems that resolution is a important part of the likely differences (I am aware there is lot more).
I already described before how I had, for myself, made a comparison between an 24Mp file and one with four time the linear resolution, by means of making a multi row stitch with a lens of four times the focal length. but this is unnecessarily complicated. for just examining whether resolution makes a big difference, one could make a picture of ones normal subject, a landscape, whatever, with say a 50mm lens. using a tripod. after that shot, just replace the lens, without moving the camera, say with a 105 or 135mm lens. the idea is just to roughly double the focal length. as a next step, crop the result of the shorter fl to the same field of view. The same crop as obtained with the longer lens . one now has two identical pictures (i hope), with one having over double the linear resolution (four times the pixels). print them both at half the linear size of a 'normal' print (so 10x12, would be the size if one normal prints 20x24). And now just look if it makes a significant difference. if not, resolution of a digital mf camera is not going to make a significant difference. other things might.