Yes, thanks, I have held a Pentax 645D. Though it's a bit insulting that you'd think I have not.
We could go back and forth on the details forever. For instance the live view on the *shipping* IQ250 is excellent, contrary to what "you've heard" (where did you hear this??). See our IQ250 Live View video as one example).
But my point was not that the Pentax 645D II isn't going to be a good camera. I assume it will be a very nice camera, like it's predecessor. I'd also be happy to agree there are some features the current Pentax 645D has over comparable Phase/Leaf/Hassy offerings, and the same will be likely true of the Pentax 645D II.
In other words I wasn't attacking your camera.
My point was only that the sky is not falling for Phase/Leaf/Hassy and that, as counter intuitive as it is, having a lower-end product enter a market segment often helps the dominant players. Phase/Leaf sold more The Mamiya ZD didn't kill Phase One's P25 sales; if anything, they improved them. Leica will still sell lots of M bodies even though you can buy a Sony FF rangefinder with arguably "more features" for less money. Phase One IQ140 and Credo 40 sales weren't crushed by the Pentax 645D (mark 1); to the contrary, sales were up over that period.
The theory, and in the last several years my practical experience has been, the more offerings they are for higher-end cameras the more people start researching all their options (they may hear about a ZD, or a Pentax, but they're going to spend at least a few hours checking out the relevant competition before they commit) and the more people start researching their options the more total people will end up finding a Phase One or Leaf is the best choice for them (some/many will also end up reaffirming their original plan to go with the ZD/Pentax/etc).
And re: "i think Phase One is great for studio" - working for the largest dealer in the US does provide some insight here: about 50% of our customers at this point spend little or no time in a studio.