One of the points that everyone is missing when comparing a very high MP FF camera to MF, is that the latter uses a longer focal length to achieve the same field of view. This is even more pronounced on a LF camera.
Ever wondered why a landscape shot on a 10x8 has a certain je ne sais quoi ? It's not just the resolution.
The reason 8x10 images are so distinctive has nothing to do with the lenses, which are comparatively poor performers when compared to good 135 format lenses, or resolution, or indeed format size, it is because people only ever shoot black and white images of rocks, dead trees, and swamps with them.
Equivalence takes care of all the rest. The difference in magnification is taken care of by a larger coc that is needed by the poor lenses. At 350mm for a standard lens you need heaps more aperture to achieve the same dof, a fast lens that is totally unusable wide open is an f6.5. 8X10 cameras and lenses were designed for contact prints, not scanning and enlarging, you need to do a lot of work on a scanned 8X10 sheet to make it look good enlarged.
Now find me one person that can tell the difference between an 8x10 contact sheet print from an 8X10 camera and a 24mm TS-E image from a 5D MkIII shot for equivalence, and I will show you somebody who understands the zone system and tonal gradation. Your "je ne sais quoi"
has nothing to do with the lenses or format, it has everything to do with sensors and film.