Actually, I'm glad I don't have to make a decision right now. What I have fully covers my needs as they stand, and I can afford to wait to see (as you say) ... what the future is.
What's the next big step? If they're baby steps I can wait until they add up to something of real substance.
In the meantime, I keep eyeballing the Sinar back for my trusty 203FE and full range of lovely FE and CFE optics that I already own ... thank goodness ... another set of $5,000.+ ea. Hy6 lenses is a daunting deterent to any impulse buying.
Marc,
What you are saying is exactly why I had started that other thread a couple weeks ago, or whenever. If a person is coming to the game with pretty much a blank slate/empty gear closet, then the choices for delving into MF are both daunting and somewhat easy. O.K., that sounds crazy, but my logic for that statement is simple: daunting in that costs are going to be fairly high, unless entering with something used, or like the ZD; easy from the perspective that almost any system one chooses can deliver outstanding results. So it does come back to how somebody will be using the gear most to aid the selection process. Your choices for the Hasselblad system make a ton of sense to me, at least, and moving to something else might require more than some incremental improvement or option....has to be a pretty significant thing, or swapping stuff out would not be worth it, regardless if you have your clients paying stuff off one way or another.
David Klepacki (along with Thierry and others) makes a strong argument for the Hy6 system and all of its flexibility. Again, that really matters if one has needs for lots of back swapping and stuff. The rotatable back on the Hy6 is very nice, but it really matters more for folks using a WLF, or setting up for studio shooting. Not saying it is not valuable to others, as it is, but flipping the H3D II on its side, or even the Hy6 when using the prism finder, is not all that hard to do. Anybody that has shot with the bigger DSLRs gets very used to this. (I shoot the Canon 1-series bodies, and even though they have the "vertical grip" controls and stuff, I may have used that only a few times at most. The rest of the shooting with with a handstrap and just rotating the camera to the new position. It is probably totally second nature for most shooters, except those that only shoot WLF.)
The entire issue about "closed" versus open systems is an interesting discussion, but upon further reflection, it may not really matter all that much, except if one really wanted to shoot a specific back, and they are now locked out of doing the swapping with the H3DII. What does seem to matter, as was just starting to be discussed before, is readily available repair/replacement should something go haywire. Folks can argue which is best or better, but it really only matters for the shooter in their location when they need the service, and then rentals or something may come to the rescue in a pinch. For most enthusiasts or casual shooters, they would probably just grab their DSLR or M8 or something and continue their casual shooting, or come back another day. The working pro would need the replacement in hand ASAP to finish the job. As it stands, Hasselblad seems in very good position to meet those needs right now. I would guess Sinar will be also, and Mamiya is gearing up there too for the camera and lens stuff. So again, maybe not too big an issue.
The only other area that may or may not matter to some is the digital file stuff. Hasselblad clearly has a dedicated system approach, but it can and does deliver. The Sinar backs may provide the least adjusted files that can then be processed through one's choice of workflow. For Phase, they are closer to Hasselblad in how they are looking at processing, in a way, I think, but still open to options. I think this really matters most depending upon what is to be delivered. If one is shooting for personal pleasure, then processing a lot of files may not be as much an issue. If one has to hand off the processing to somebody else, either the more flexible system or the more dedicated system will work, as long as the process person is capable with it. If the shooting pro is doing all his/her own processing, it comes down to preferred workflows. Shooting the Hasselblad and using Phocus will deliver results rapidly. Shooting anything else and incorporating into some other workflow will also serve, but may require a bit more profiling, adjusting, etc. Once done, they are done and ready to rock.
So the decision process does come down to how much one needs and can spend, both in costs and time to learn the operations. At first, I was having my own reservations about the Hasselblad closed system, but am not sure I do anymore. From a professional trying to shoot for a living, there is a lot to be said for stuff that gets out of your way and just works quickly and predictably, without having to switch things (gear, software, workflow, etc.) constantly. Not saying the Hy6 or others are not great, as they are, and once somebody has their personal preferences and adjustments for processing figured out, they are just as good to go.
Back to Victor's questions.....best thing is exactly what you are planning to do.....hold them, shoot them, play with some files, all in the way you prefer to work and for your needs. You will probably not make any bad choices on which system to go with, as both seem more than capable of delivering. For my own choices, I am still torn. I can readily identify with Marc's work and use, and I can also appreciate David's arguments. Both are extremely valid to my way of thinking. Just comes down to how one works and what they need to take along and use. I could easily live with either, and make both do what I would need. As for the future and where things are headed.....since nobody really knows, it does not seem like something to make a decision on at this point. Buy and use what you need today. If something changes dramatically in a year or three, there will be plenty of time to re-evaluate. I would not buy a system based on some of the unknowns that folks are talking about, such as 48x48 or 56x56 sensors that do NOT exist at this time, and are not going to be cheap no matter what. Heck, the 22MP backs are still doing some incredible stuff, so would a 60MP change all that much except your bank account initially? If you are a shooting pro that could take advantage of that, you will, and most of this discussion is not as relevant.
Sorry for the long discourse. These are big ticket items for sure and nobody really wants to make a "mistake" in purchase. My point being that I do not really think there would be a mistake made either way. Just go handle and shoot them all to get comfortable with what realistically will fill your needs.
LJ