Yes I'm serious--I'm just putting the question out there, as it seems to have been missed in the discussion. FWIW, I happen to agree with your answer.
So boiling it down (and blatantly putting words in your mouth - sorry)
- If an equivalent post production (e.g. sharpening) was applied to the MF picture, there is a good chance that it would have been lost in the downsampling.
- It seems that there are two ways the pictures has been evaluated 1. The prettiest picture with the highest impact which favors Canon 2. The most natural picture that preserves tonality and fine low contrast detail which favors Hasselblad
The argument, that MF files leave more room for manipulation doesn't really count for me. My shooting environment is very controlled, it just can't happen that I blow my highlights or kill the black.
If you don't need to adjust you pictures that much and the resolution from the Canon is good enough then I agree that MF is overkill. But being able to shot straight into the sun and still get something meaningful out of the rest of the picture makes it fun to shoot MF
Maybe I should disclose my workflow for these files:
Hasselblad: shot into Phocus, edited there to get the look I liked, exported to 16bit tiff, into lightroom.
Canon: shot into eos capture, edited in lightroom.
then I tweaked the colors to equalise them. I only used global adjustment and very little of that. downsampling and color space conversion by lightroom.
I think it would be more fair to let Lightroom do all the processing as it can read Hasselblad 3fr and Canon raw files