Upload & Sell: Off
That is still one of the reasons of existence of medium format digital backs. Too many amateur photographers believe digital backs are here for megapixels, bit depth or whatever, but the image rendering in an image circle that covers 6X6 or 6X7 is very much different from (35mm) full frame. Just like the 35 mm renders different from APS-C and smaller.
BTW, some good samples that show that DOF and bokeh are not the same. I particularly like the Pentax 67 shots. THX for sharing!
I love my Hasselblads, but you can get something pretty similar to the 80/2.8 wide open with a 35 f1.2-1.4 cropped square on 35mm. It really comes down to which specific lens that you're using on each system, and how big the prints are.
It is more difficult to get a 35mm look with aps-c, because you'd need an f 0.9 lens on aps-c to get a similar look as f1.4 on 35mm, but there aren't any f 0.9 lenses out there designed for aps-c, and the ones that are close don't preform spectacularly wide open. If someone made an f 0.9 lens for aps-c that was pretty sharp wide open, you'd get a pretty similar look to both f1.4 on 35mm and f3-4 on medium format, at least up until a particular print size. A sharp wide open, fast 35mm lens on 35mm, like the 35 Summilux-M, can look pretty similar to medium format.
Medium format is still mostly about large print size. To be honest, the professional photographers that I've been involved with who use medium format don't really obsess much about shallow depth of field. It's usually all about resolution and tonality at large print sizes.
Anyways, great pics, everyone. Keep them coming!