Hi Simon
Many thanks for your detailed reply, appreciated.
Firstly, I have to say that I wouldn't make any judgements about anything based on JPEGs displayed on the web.
Having now seen many files from the CFV and P20 plus others from 22MP backs I've come to the conclusion that the processing of the files and the software/workflow are all important. I've seen files from the CFV/P20 that display all the negative attributes that you mention and yet have seen files from those same backs that are really very good.
Secondly, the two capture methods are completely different and I see this as a positive not a negative. Generally speaking the digital files display a far more accurate representation, are far cleaner and the RAW files are just so flexible. Remember, I'm not comparing scans made on a flatbed or prosumer CCD scanners here but top quality drumscans.
You might wonder given the comments above why I'm still using film. The fact is I'm a square shooter, it's the main reason I use 500 series cameras. Unfortunately the only square sensor back available is the CFV with the inherent wide angle limitations, I need that true 38 or 40mm lens. The CFV files are also far too small for my needs. The 22MP backs *are* 16MP backs when cropped square and therefore have no advantage for me. I'm currently looking at other solutions but have to accept any solution is likely to mean that I'll be using one format and cropping to another, not something that really appeals.
From what I've seen I'd certainly recommend use of the CFV as long as you can live with the limitations and the fact that the files really *aren't* very film like ;-)
Take care
Keith
IMO, these last couple of posts are pretty accurate in their assessments and opinions.
Personally, I'd clarify Keith's statement " ...
of all the MFD files I've now seen not one of them had a quality anything like film," ... I take that as meaning: digital doesn't have the "Qualities" of film. Both deliver image "Quality", but their "Qualities" differ.
Let's face it, for the most part the touchstone has been the look of film for many of us because most of us who've worked with Medium Format for any length of time, (especially the ubiquitous 6X6 Hasselblad or Rollei cameras) are steeped in the aesthetic of film ... it's how and where we formed our tastes as to what we do like and don't like.
Many younger photographers haven't that long experience, if any at all, with film. They see the drudgery, lack of immediacy, and apparent uncertainty of the film process more than the results ... and their end evaluations are often based on viewing sub one meg jpgs on internet sites like this, not analog prints. I know for a fact that film suffers more than digital in this viewing environment ... if for nothing more than the obvious reason that film must be digitized to be viewed, and translates random sized grain into regimented, uniform pixels ... that are in turn viewed on a computer screen that accents the grain that's usually diffused in the analog enlargement process ... not to mention the whole on-screen "Pixel Peeping" phenomena that really gives film grain a bad rap.
Believe me, film images scanned on my Imacon 949 and printed on my Epson 3800 bark with my big dog H3D-II/39, because it is one of the few scanners that employs a diffused light source ... (another being the discontinued MF Minolta Pro with a modified light source.) For this reason, I prefer 949 printed scans even over drum scans, or Imacon 848 scans, I've gotten in the past.
In fact, similar to Keith's evaluation, I've yet to produce any digital image with any piece of gear that aesthetically pleases my eye as much as a well scanned film image. It's all so subjective that it is an impossible argument to engage in with digital mavens. It just "is what it is" on a personal level.
As a note, I just returned from a short Holiday. Since I was driving I could take anything I wanted with me. I took my M8, Nikon D300 with Zeiss glass, and a H kit. In that H kit I took my new H2F film camera and a pouch of B&W film. It was so much fun shooting that film camera that I hardly touched the 35mm digital cameras. I shot about 50 frames of film with the H2F, and about 200 with the H3D. I'm more excited about the H2F stuff than the H3D and I haven't even seen the film stuff yet ... LOL. I feel that way because I have confidence in film from shooting it for so many years.
I think the commercial photographer has little or no choice in the matter. It's digital. For everyone else there is still a choice. The only bug-a-boo with film is the disappearing resources that make it even more inconvienient to use in an age where we want it our way, and we want it now!
For example, here are a few vacation snaps from the H3D-II/39 that I can show you now, not 2 weeks from now : -) One low light interior of an old country store shot @ ISO 400, f/3.2, 1/25th hand-held with a HC/50 ... and one outdoors of an Historic Lighthouse in Northern Michigan ISO 200 with the HC 28/4 @ f/9, 1/160th (using a 95mm B+W Polarizer If I recall correctly.)
Gee and if I eventually add a 203FE to my kit, that will make it 3 digital cameras!! 
