I have to learn equipment that I can't afford because I assist, and in those, I like some and don't like very much others. Leica S2 handling for example is not for me but I'd like to learn RED.
This is an entirely different issue. If it's your job to assist people who are using equipment you neither like nor can afford, then it's perfectly understandable you should learn about such equipment.
However, when selecting a camera for your own needs, is there not a list of priorities that you use in selecting the best equipment?
For example, if camera A has 1/2 a stop better DR at ISO 3200 than camera B, and a full stop better DR at ISO 200, that in itself might not be significant. However, if camera A is also compatible with a particularly fine lens, such as the Nikkor 14-24/2.8 for example, then such performance features can add up to make a compelling case for purchasing camera A.
In order to discover such attributes, one has to not only listen to opinions but examine the reports from laboratory tests, or at least examine comparison images taken by people who are thorough and meticulous.
To a practical point of view, the Hassy sync is much more important than if the D3 has an 1/2 DR point more than Phase in laboratory, wich means nothing because they don't take the software into the equation as it's been mentionned in this thread and over and over again in Lu-La.
Of course. If a high sync speed is important for your work and you need to get a sharp image of a bullet leaving the barrel of a gun, then a 35mm DSLR probably won't do. The best tool for the job applies.
If a 1/2 stop DR advantage means little to you, then the fact that C1 software may be able to extract a 1/2 stop more DR out of a P65+ file, than Nikon or Adobe software can, simply means that DR is out of the equation. It's not an issue.
I've also heard it mentioned many times on this forum, that the DR of the Phase DBs is better than the DXO results would indicate, but I've never seen comparison images, so I don't know how much better. Maybe such claims are largely defensive bluster, for all I know.
What does seem clear to me is, if it were not for organisations like DXO doing serious laboratory tests, some people would still be claiming that DBs have up to 6 stops better DR than any 35mm DSLR in existence. Thankfully that myth has been exploded.
If you are really serious about subtle files, precision, like in fine arts for example, MF is almost an obliged path if you can afford it. The ones who try to demostrate the opposite don't know what they are talking about. I never condamned MF except for its computer dependence and few other things that could be fixed.
I would not deny that there are situations in which the MFDB is clearly the best tool for the job. Such situations, it appears to me (correct me if I'm wrong) tend to be when high resolution images are required of slowly moving subjects in good natural lighting, or fast moving subjects in good artificial lighting (at high sync speed), when only a single shot is possible to catch the moment and freeze the subject.
For most other situations, such as fast action in natural lighting, acceptable results in poor lighting at high ISO, long telephoto reach for wildlife, extensive DoF for landscapes, stationery subjects where stitching is possible to increase resolution, and exposure bracketing is possible to increase DR, the 35mm DSLR seems at least as good and often better than the MFDB, wouldn't you say?