Ok. Some impressions.
The files are sensational. Deep and pliable. They absorb endless abuse in post and come out smiling. (For example when I do grayscale conversions sometimes I push the blue slider to the left to darken the sky polarizer-like; if you overdo it the sky turns grainy and white fringes appear where the sky meets whatever; pushing the slider all the way to the left resulted in no fringing and only slight noise with the 60 - and almost totally black skies.) Not that you have to push the files around a lot. I liked the color straight out of my H3D 39. The look is pretty much the same with the h4D 60 and I still like it. I could go on and on about the files and will at some point. This is why we bother with MF.
I test lenses by shooting out of our dining room window in NY. There are about a billion bricks in the scene - all on parallel walls because of the city's grid. It's clear from brickwall testing that at infinity the back oversamples the Hasselblad lenses. I own them all, except nothing in the 35 to 90 range except the zoom and I don't own the 50-110 (kind of redundant for me), the macro or the 210. I've now tested all that I own. In general terms wide open the last 3 or 4mm of image toward the edges exhibit a bit of that oatmeal-like brand of fuzziness. I shoot bookcases as a torture test at closer distances. The outer zones of images generally looked good to perfect in the 4 - 10 feet range, suggesting how these lenses are optimized (or suggesting that the bookcase test is defective). Obviously no CA, linear distortion, etc. - these are all taken care of in Phocus.
A couple of thoughts on the foregoing. I believe that all MF systems have roughly the same issue in terms of the imager oversampling the lenses. Otherwise people wouldn't go to all the trouble that it takes to put a digitar in front of one of these backs. One conclusion from the foregoing is that I won't pay anything, not a single dollar, to trade up to 80 megs.
Now, on the 50 vs. 60 issue. This is important to me because the HCD lenses are my favorites. Phocus lets you convert without cropping. That last 5mm is indeed pretty funky. It's more evident on the left and right (in landscape orientation) - obviously because that's further out in the image circle. If your crop to a 4 x 5 aspect ratio you get rid of the funky parts with far less pixel waste than trimming off the entire outer 5mm. I actually like 4x5 but haven't used it much in the past because of pixel waste issues - I'll use it much more in the future.
More importantly for me is that I often crop a bit in post, and very often apply perspective controls in post. This means that I throw the funky region of the image away anyway.
On high ISO - I haven't done a lot of this. 800 looks fine at short exposure times. At 4 seconds iso 800 looks like hell. I haven't explored where the margin is or what the alternatives are.
I've worked at bit with the HTS 1.5 and the new camera. Since the 60meg sensor reaches the edge of the good part of the image circle (or beyond) there's not much room to shift. On tilt, the issue is focus. It's hard for our technical camera friends to achieve focus on a ground glass that's accurate enough for these demanding backs; the same applies to using the HTS 1.5. I need to work on this a bit - I really do like having tilt capacity.
In actual use this camera is a dream. It's been observed before that these systems outperform their brick wall tests in actual use - that's true in spades with the H4D 60. I don't know why this is. Perhaps because you achieve accurate focus in a large percentage of images; because the lenses have really good micro contrast and flare control; or because oversampling the lenses produces a natural, non-digital look. I don't really know why, but it's there. I've had no issues shooting the 35-90 wide open. The larger sensor doesn't change how this camera works handheld - it works very well.
I now have a week's experience walking around with this camera, generally with the 35-90 which is amazingly flexible and produces terrific images in actual use, shooting iso 100 or 200. I'm delighted with what I'm getting from it. This is fairly deep water - the benefits of file size are subtle but evident - it's really going to take a lot more time to fully come to grips with what's possible.
There are some minor issues with firmware that come into play if you reassign button functions. Hasselblad has been very good about updates so this doesn't concern me.
A final note. This whole Hasselbad vs. Phase thing is crap. In the same way that the Nikon vs. Canon thing is crap. I've owned both Nikon and Canon systems and they are both excellent and about evenly matched in strengths and weaknesses. I'm certain that that's the case in Hasselblad vs. Phase.
I'll update this with images and more mature reactions when I get the chance.