I started a thread, some time ago, regarding technical cameras and whether Live View was available on MF backs. The discussion veered off a bit, there were some side comments and after a while, it occurred to me that there may not be a compelling reason to go to MF from an image quality perspective. After digging a bit further, I realized that there are technical cameras that can accommodate 35mm DSLRs and Mirrorless systems. Further investigation revealed that the new generation of digital backs are based on pretty much the same sensor technology as those in Nikon and Sony systems.
Granted, given that the MF sensor is bigger, especially the Full Format MF, we can get higher resolution at the same pixel pitch as the 35mm format.
So, if we set resolution aside, is there a compelling reason from an image quality perspective to go with MF at what winds up being a considerable price premium? Granted that some, if not most MF backs are CCD and that may give the MF a certain look. However, CCD has a number of very real limitations and the trend is towards CMOS, which is what most 35mm digital cameras use. I can see that it's somewhat easier to work the tech cameras with a back, rather than a 35mm camera and there are more options available, but that seems to be an extremely niche market. Those who need movements can find them in 35mm ranging from TSE lenses to tech cameras accommodating the 35mm cameras.
So, what is a compelling reason for you, those of you who have made the jump to have done so at such a high cost? What compelled you? Would you do it again? If you had your 35mm kit today, would you still change it for MF?