Forgive me, but I have an issue with this post.I have shot with medium format equipment, albeit film, not digital, so the "feel" of the "real camera" is familiar to me. There is no Zen like feeling in it for me. Cameras are tools, nothing more.
As far as interfaces and the simplicity are concerned, any camera is as simple as you want to make it. You can take any camera with manual exposure capability and use it as such. You can turn off autofocusing on any camera, you can turn off TTL flash, you can turn off the meter and use a hand hand incident meter. In other words, you can take ANY camera and break it down to its bare bones and use not just like a manual camera, but like a view camera.
Initially, I thought that the most compelling reason for getting MF was the ability to use tech cameras. However, given that there are offerings out there that accommodate not just mirrorless, but SLR bodies, even that point becomes moot (as are the lenses, since the same lenses are used on tech cameras regardless of the bodies)
Additionally, since the new generation of backs has embraced the Sony CMOS sensor, it seems to me that the ONLY truly compelling reason to get the MF equipment is resolution. If one needs resolution north of 50mp, then MF is the way to go, no question about it. The resolution difference is real, EASILY seen, and objective.
The rest... meh. At least, that's my own take on it. People buy all sorts of stuff for all sorts of reasons. That's not an indication of anything, other than marketing, perhaps.
I don't mean to beat up on people who like MF. Some of them really need it, I think most of them don't, but they're the ones spending their own money, so who am I to judge? In the end, having seen a number of RAW files and done a number of comparisons, *I* don't think the image quality difference justifies the price. Since I thought that having a digital back was the only way to use a tech camera, I entertained the idea, but since that's not the case either, I can't see a COMPELLING reason for ME to jump on the bandwagon.
Having said all that, I'm glad the MF equipment is out there. I definitely like these forums and the folks here tend to be more civilized and generally, better photographers.
There have been many people who have spent good time to try and describe how and why the use of MF gear matters to them. They have by and large been courteous enough to say if that doesn't matter to you, then it's probably not for you. And in general the discussion has accommodated different points of view.
You have said before that the tools don't matter, the "zen" is not a factor doesn't matter, and that the argument about slowing down doesn't work for you. Fair enough. No problem. I might disagree, even profoundly so, but to each their own. It's your experience.
But the statement in the above post that probably most users don't really need MF gear is a different matter. In saying that, you are projecting your view (that it doesn't really matter to the photog) on how the rest of us work and use our tools. I don't think that's right or in the spirit of this discussion.