I don't think the experiment proved anything one way or the other. Sarah Moon was shooting very fast film just to create atmosphere and grain decades ago; she was still utilising Nikons, though, and you could corrupt the argument to say she should have used a box Brownie. Except that it wouldn't have worked out. You can't ignore the aesthetics of focal length.
In the first video (I thought I'd said all this yesterday, but I must have done something dumb and not sent the post properly - moi?) there is a shot with three bright lights showing. It is fantastic, but that's all because of the framing, the model and the 'look' and would have lost something, IMO, with MFD. The Sarah Moon thing, if you will: atmosphere. No, it would not have lost something, it would have died in its shoes.
You have to understand the mindset of the young wannabe shooter. He is amost by definition obliged to start his journey from the position of thinking himself at least as good as the guys he envies. Where do they differ? They have the expensive stuff and he just the dream. Ergo, its the stuff that makes them successful: Q.E.D. He thinks.
But where does it live in the real world? I did a calendar shoot for a UK brewery in Provence and, prior to the trip the client told me he was looking for a "painterly" effect, it being Vincent country and all of that. So, what did I do, I took a copy of the Moon Pirelli to his office. He almost died in his chair. Good Lord, you wouldn't be able to read the labels on the products! So much for what people say, think that they mean and actually do expect, and probably as much for what you imagine them to mean. We ended up with Kodachrome as usual, and yes, you could read the logos where they did occur.
Rob C