with film, colour or black and white, one can use emulsions that on paper are very similar, like fuji acros 100 and kodak t-max 100, for example, or fuji 160 and kodak portra. conducting the print optically (darkroom), even when the photograph is done in controled light, there is still a significant signature, vibe, character to each of these films. their tactility is distinguishable, the tactility of the object, like metal, skin, or fabric have slightly different feel even when the luminosity (and contrast) is very similar.
in digital however, the stream from capture to conversion (up to the appearance of the file in the software) are the determinative elements. then, the software (Lightroom, C1, Phocus etc) allow a great measure of further manipulation to achieve the desired "look".
there is no anti-aliasing filter, like in common dslrs, which is a significant element altering the potential "look" of the photograph even under extensive manipulations in the software.
i suppose at an extent, the polarity of CCD and CMOS is traced back to that difference and what derived from that.
but now, with the same lens, with no anti-aliasing filter, with great extent to which the file can be manipulated after the conversion, should there be an issue ? like it is with film, no matter how one manipulates it within the possibilities given in optical printing.
and most importantly, considering that the main and intended advantage of medium format is for print, how the CCD/CMOS difference comes out eventually ?
what i mean is not the technical aspects (like live-view, or issues with tech-cameras, iso, battery etc) but the look and the feel, which might be subjective, nevertheless they might be there.
for example, how hasselbald 40 (33x44), 50c (33x44) and the bigger sensor 50 differ ? same about P1 and leafs etc? does it come out significantly different after the conversion ? is it possible to bring them to desired "look" more fluently with one or the other ?
i see the hasselbald 40 and 60, and they look slightly different (mainly for the size and resolution), but aesthetically and inherently, not as different in "feel" as tmax100 or acros100 (both equally refined films without the more authentic characteristics of traditional films). same about colour films like fuji/kodak 160.