I'll chime in here with a subjective opinion. For most of my photo trek through life, a good old Hasselblad V was part of my kit ... that, and a good old Leica M. Other stuff came and went, but those were the staples. However, that trek came to a fork in the road and I had to make a choice.
When digital started becoming a compelling innovation for commercial photography I tried to keep pace. "Compelling" because film increasingly became too expensive ... not for the shooter, for the clients who had to pay for scans on top of film and processing costs because all commercial printing shifted to digital. Plus, with digital there were less reshoots ... clients saw the results immediately.
This is what initially, and primarily, fueled the Medium Format shift to digital. At first is was very small sensors, then small square sensors in backs that were breathtakingly expensive. To some degree, Kodak broke that price barrier with the Proback ... which only worked on limited V cameras at first.
The limited size of the sensors at the time meant the lens coverage eliminated full use of the legacy lens systems, and the photographer lost at the wide end due to the crop factors.
This is what fueled the shift to 645. That, and the innovations in 645 systems like the
still capable Contax 645 with its Zeiss AF lens system. With 645, wider angle coverage became a little better (Contax 35mm) , and the sensors grew to a rectangle more suitable to 645 with up to a whopping 22 meg.
Through all these innovations I kept up. Adding a 645 Contax to my Hassey V kit. However, the digital MF innovations kept on coming. More megs, smaller pixel pitch to mitigate moiré. Older systems kept updating backs and lenses at a stunning cost for both (Zeiss 40IF for example). Some camera systems evaporated (Bronica & Contax ... right up to Rollei).
At some point one cannot justify maintaining two separate systems with all the exponentially increasing costs involved. In my case one had to go to feed the other. I divested myself of a lifetime's worth of V gear ... including a beloved 203FE system
Here is why:
I tested the crap out of the V and H lens' "practical use" performance using a 39 meg H camera. I had a CF adapter to allow this. In some cases it was a wash. With lenses like to 100 and 40IF the Zeiss lenses kept up or did a little better. IMO, the very important HC 120/4 Macro outperformed the Zeiss version, and was much easier to use. Now Hassey has updated that macro (remains to be seen if it's that much better than the existing one).
More importantly, the old lens coverage reared it's head again. The HC series provided 28mm and 35-90 D lenses with stunning performance. The widest V lens was 40mm with a 1.1X crop factor = 45mm widest coverage on the then existing sensors. The H lenses had a higher sync speed and were AF ... making them more versatile for more applications. Then there was the HTS/1.5 which added even more versatility to the H system. With the H4D camera, the need for maintaining a separate full 35mm system is becoming less necessary.
It was a little sad to lose the tactile feel of the Vs and some the character of a few V lenses, especially some FE versions ... but the HC did a respectable job of filling that gap with the 100/2.2 and updated 150/3.2 ... and I've used a H for so long, and am so familiar with the ergonomics, that it has become second nature ... and I like things that deliver in the end ... that colors my opinion of the system, and how I feel about it.
When the Hy6 went bye-bye ... I saw the handwriting on the wall. IMO, there simply wasn't enough 6X6 potential to fuel development of a 56 X 56 sensor or even a 48 X 48 one ... at least in what is left of my lifetime. Logic prevailed and so did my bank account. For me the V was dead ... long live the V!
With the launch of the Leica M9, the other "Staple" has kept up, and remains an important part of the gear box.
-Marc
