A different perspective:This is very trite.
In many studios, the asset base runs to multiple backs and multiple bodies, all of which need to be interchangeable. I won't even start on the need to run backs on multiple camera types......
I once ran a business which had 39 MF backs across our studios. No way I could consider Blad in that mix.
I can't help but wonder what the major rental studios' equipment managers are thinking as H2 stocks dry up. If you have 20 backs sitting on your shelf and each one has to be paired to a single body, that's a pretty hairy logistical nightmare. Oh, that's right, you want them to order 2 bodies with each back....
Even in a small single-photographer business like mine, there are 3 backs capable of running on the 5 camera platforms (Alpa, Arca, Fuji, Horseman and Phase) that populate my equipment cupboard.
Yes, it's pretty cool what Blad is doing re: the fine focus adjustment where the camera/lens/back integration is essential.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, tens of thousands of photographers are producing razor sharp images every day with cameras from Mamiya, Rollei, Contax, Phase One and lots more, all of which can mount their back of choice.
No matter how you spin it, the loss of choice which is the price of buying into the Hasselblad closed system is too high for the purported benefits. In relation to the AF benefits so loudly touted, they are in the eyes of many, a fantastic solution to a non-existant problem.
I think you missed the point, and perhaps then spun off into anecdotal triteness yourself. The 2nd matched body answer was intended for those individual photographers who have ONE MFD system in a versatile mix of various formats, and want a back-up body. IMO, nothing less or more implied other than it is available to those who feel the need for one tight system of camera/back/body/lenses, not 30 interchangeable MFD cameras.
As to the commercial place MFD occupies, which in the isolation of forums like this seems to imply a growing need for such gear ... that is the opposite of the real world you are fond of quoting. With the enormous shift in media type and placements, and use of CGI, on a global scale, the general need for MFD in the general commercial world is shrinking exponentially.
I can quote a number of major studios that no longer have multiple MF platforms and/or various MFD backs because it is a flat out waste of money for a majority of today's end use ... if any, they have one MFD for the times they need it, usually bought with a hot-swap warranty ... or they rent if located in a major metro area. NOT saying there are no studios running multiple MFD cameras/backs, just that they are swiftly going the way of the Dodo as the media shifts more and more each year. In my city, a city where major studios with multiple MFD systems were once on every street corner, NONE are here today. Zero. Large, high volume production studios still exist here, but the need/use of MFD is getting more and more rare.
If today's studios or institutions need MFD it tends to be with an eye to highly specialized digital capture that, more often than not, is done on a specialized camera system, a view camera tethered to a computer, or a tethered MFD camera manually focused ... so in the case of view cameras, the MFD body isn't even part of the equation, and if a MFD camera, neither is AF and all the other amenities. Generally, for this application, ANY digital back works, whether it came with an integrated body or not.
On the other hand, those looking for a more versatility, speed, and cross-over double duty compared to today's 35mm DSLRs, which does include AF abilities, the MFD makers have offered solutions ... and IMO, Hasselblad's is by far the best AF solution to date. Every poll, discussion of improvements we'd like to see, or question on forums related to expanding the versatile use of MFD, has brought up the poor AF performance of MFD choices ... so your implication that such an improvement delivers "a purported benefit" flies in the face of what the new breed of users seem to be demanding from a more versatile use MFD system.
IMO, the only TRUE open system available today is offered by Hasselblad and Sinar. I can mount my CF/39MS on every MF camera platform made ... by myself in minutes. And the H2F camera I use with it offers most of the features and software corrections of a HD camera ... and I could buy 30 of them if I so choose, or 30 H1s or H2s ... or 30 Contax 645s or Mamiya 645s, or RZs. That these obvious Open Application backs are not more popular is testimony to the fact that more and more studios and individual users no longer desire to support multiple camera systems and all the expense of costly lens systems and accessories that go with it.
My 2¢ about mega cost gear and the state of the real world now, not yesterday.
-Marc
BTW, as unpopular as I may be for saying it, but mark my words ... I'd speculate that should a maker such as Canon decide to enter the fray with a larger coverage 36 X 36 sensor, what is left of the general commercial application for MFD will evaporate overnight. MFD will be relegated to institutions with highly specialized needs, a few high-end studios, and well heeled iconoclastic enthusiasts such as those on this forum.