Without sounding patronising I think some people both reviewing and buying a MF digital camera lack an understanding of MF because they have never use MF film.
When I was shooting MF film, mostly Hasselblad, I owned 3 lenses, plus a SWC. That's all I needed because of the amazing 'cropability' of the much larger negative. Today, I own the 23mm, 45mm, 32-64mm and 120mm for the 50S. In fact, I could easily do without either the 45mm or the 32-64, I only keep both because they are both excellent lenses and I can't yet decide which one to part with but honestly, I don't need both. In the future, I might trade in the 120mm for 100-200mm. Again, for all practical purposes you wouldn't need both.
Most of my work in film was on a tripod although it was possible to shoot handheld with decent results.
MF is inherently slower in use than smaller formats. Even though the 50R is much more transportable than MF digital has been to date you can't treat it like a D850, imho.
When I read reviews it is quite obvious the reviewer just thinks this is a camera with a bigger sensor. It's not just that. It is a whole different tool for a different way of photographing.
Like Doug says, if you want a do-it-all camera with the same useability as a DSLR then you should really consider a D850, Z7 or 5Dmk-whatever before a digital MF camera, imho.
Just my two cents.
LouisB