This post is off topic so I apologize in advance:
There are only four rational gains from using MFD:
...
No one is able to tell a MFD image from one shot on lowly Canon/Nikon gear anymore if good technique and light are used.
...
More statements that demonstrate I have no idea what I am talking about.
These statements remind me of a post on LL in which a guy had similar rants. He posted an image of his Nikon rep from both a D3x and Leaf back with similar resolutions and said he couldn't tell the difference. The Leaf image was so much better in clarity, color, realism and 3d appearance that they made the case themselves. It is beyond me that the guy posting it could even make the statements that he could not tell the difference. (In his defense, there was a moire issue in the leaf image.)
Don't get me wrong, the current high end offerings in 35mm digital are all wonderful cameras and the glass keeps getting better. The jump in image quality from the previous generation of these cameras and optics is incredible. World class photographers use these systems with superb results and most MF shooters own a 35mm kit and use them where they are most appropriate.
That said, don't think for a minute that they compare to the current technology in MF digital. Unless you have used them, worked with the files and compared prints side-by-side you simply cannot make a judgement call.
Testing labs don't necessarily quantify them in scientific terms but the viewing experience is worlds apart. The larger the print and more detailed the subject the better things get.
Surely you don't think hundreds of the most gifted photographers in the world would spend $60,000+ on a camera system if it didn't provide a substantial improvement in quality over a $10k-$15k 35mm kit.