It's fun to read the bradaggio, as if cameras were dates "I wouldn't shoot with her even if she threw herself at me...". But I don't think that it does much to address your real world questions of which MF system to go with.
I read that you've pretty much decided to make the jump to MF and you shoot editorial. I hope you are excited.
As someone who also shoots editorial and worked (every day) for years with the RZ and the Fuji 680, I now shoot two systems; D3X and Phase P65+/Contax, so I have some personal experience with your decision.
Maybe it's because a lot of us start out with more utilitarian gear, maybe its as simple as it's exciting to get the next-and-better-version of our camera but regardless we seem to be weaned on the upgrade path (be honest it's fun) as a way to improve our work. Sometimes buying new gear is that simple to improve the work, but then that stops... oh-oh.
I can appreciate that if you haven't had a lot of experience with MF it can seem like that's "what the big-boys use", it can seem like the next logical next step in evolution from DSLR. As much as I love my P65+, the MF jump is not necessarily the answer for you
if editorial is a big part of what you do. My personal approach (in editorial) is to use two systems interchangeably (watch Annie on YouTube and she will show you this approach better then I ever could), both are tethered and I switch back and forth (when I feel like it). I realize that if your budget or preference is to run with one system then you won't shoot this way, but the result of me shooting like this, is I get to see which tools perform best in different situations then work the files like dough on my 30" Eizo - two systems are hugely advantageous as an empirical comparison.
Tethered is faster then I can advantage on the Phase, I wait a bit for the Nikon in C1, especially if it gets backed-up. I'd say you want to consider weaning yourself from monitoritis if you are evaluating every capture after you dial-in in an editorial shoot anyways.
If you want to explore MF I say pass-Go, collect $200., go for it.
You may end up going back to DSLR, or you may find the MF platform works super-well for your style of shooting and the images you make, I can't get a sense of that because you are not sharing them.
If you don't like the gear you can always sell it. To be blunt, who the hell is anyone to tell you what tools to use, you'll discover this for yourself, as you should. Invest the time, grow, get excited.
Editorially I have photographed 20ish cover features in the last 20 months, mostly people-based imagery. In other words I have a fair amount of practical experience in the genre, my tools are not not just decided based on model tests or some motionless vista - as special as the position and sharpness of branches or water may be in determining the merits of a system. In my world Art Directors and Photo Editors have the final word.
Since I also shoot other things such as high production-value advertising, industrial landscapes and fashion I'm right in the middle of the whole format debate. Shutter sync, depth of field and iso aside - and these should be a big part of your personal evaluation, shooting is a physical skill, it's athletic to some extent and if you are prepared to push the MF it is capable of producing amazing SLRish results in shooting movement, etc.
As example take a look at Avedon who often created LF images which the new pups can't seem to replicate with auto focus. In fact I'm surprised at how little time is devoted to that aspect of the shooting chain, but perhaps that's due to the (understandable) emphasis on field and fauna on this site.
In my experience the challenges of editorial; strobes and their f-stop output, limited time, varying shutter speed, flash sync, iso, depth of field, movement, etc can all very quickly become tricky with MF. On the other hand; aspect ratio, increased crop flexibility, higher bit rate, better colour, etc all make a strong case for MF. This is probably not what you want to hear, but only from your own testing will you know if the mix of qualities from either system works for you.
I know what editorial pays, I know what MF costs to implement including the computer upgrade. The system you describe as your current setup is not really the top. If I were in your position, I would seriously consider pushing, I mean really pushing the limits of DSLR.
I know you are a Canon guy, my experience with the D3X next to my Phase is very, very impressive. If I compose carefully DPS's are remarkable out of that camera. Canon's answer to the D3X while quite not as good in my tests, would still improve on what you have especially if you evolve into best wide (zeiss?) glass.
Lastly, I read that you expect retouching to take less time with MF, forget what the shrub-shooters tell you, in my experience retouching takes more time whenever there's skin involved, due to the greater resolving power.
BTW IF cameras were dates, I'd be all over the S2, after all she is sexy, German, modern, curvy but not too big.... and expensive
Good Luck
DC
www.dermotcleary.com