I am reluctant to say this but feel I need to. And please, I have tremendous respect for the skills and artistic abilities of everyone involved with the MF revolution. So I don't mean this to be a comment about your talent in that regard.
What I'm leading up to is simply this. I just don't see it. I regularly follow the threads here that involve discussion of MF and with a very few exceptions, I do not see an advantage that's worth the price.
The exceptions are almost exclusively those captures (shown elsewhere in this forum) made with artificial lighting. Studio shots, fashion, product photography, etc. Aside from those examples (that are breathtaking in every way), the samples where someone carries an MF camera around and shoots similar subjects that one might shoot with a DSLR, are not really convincing me of the merits of a MF system for that kind of shooting.
I'm sure that MF could yield some excellent results on a tripod in a landscape setting. In fact I have seen some amazing examples of just that out there floating around. But for walking around and casual "observational shooting" (don't wanna get into the whole "Street Photography" debate) I'm guessing that the camera system is working against a fluid and natural style.
30 years ago I used Hassies and they had a special and important role. As did a view camera and an SLR. There was no one system that met every requirement in a professional environment. I can certainly see how a pro would require everything a larger sensor can provide. But as a replacement for a fine DSLR or M8 for out-and-about shooting? I just don't see it.
Just my opinion of course. And as I finish this final sentence, I fully anticipate that someone will have posted a few samples that completely prove me wrong.