Yep, I do ... although not directly with a H3D-II/22 which is a relatively rare bird.
I used a H2D/22 for a time, which was also a odd duck for it's time because it shot DNG files straight from the camera. One advantage of the H2 camera is that it could use film backs as well as many other backs from different manufacturers ... which the H3D-II cannot.
The advantage of the H3D-II is more integrated abilities than any previous models. Any of the DAC corrections available to the H3D-II/31, 39, & 50 are available to the H3D-II/22. IMO, this is a significant advantage considering that many new products like the HC28 and HCT/S are designed using those software adjustments.
All H cameras can use the HC lenses or all the C,CF,CFi and CFE Zeiss "Legacy" lenses from the Hasselblad 500 series. The CF Adapter allows full automatic aperture use.
The differences between the 31 and 22 are: pixel count, pixel pitch, ISO range, use of micro-lenses, and crop factor.
The 22 offers ISOs from 50 to 400, the 31 goes from 100 to 800. Both will jump 1 stop when Hasselblad finally delivers the promised software/firmware upgrade. ISO 50 is an advantage in bright conditions due to the H camera's top shutter speed of 1/800th. The 31's ISO 800 is an advantage in lower light (and is very good BTW.)
The 31 has a 1.3X crop factor, the 22 has a 1.1X crop factor. Wide angles are wider on a 22.
The 22 has a 9 micron pixel pitch, where the 31 pixels are the same as a 39 meg back and are smaller than the 22. The 31 offers a bit more resolution of detail. However, many people are advocates of larger pixel pitch verses more but smaller pixels. IMO, based on direct experience, I've found legacy Zeiss V lenses fair better with the 22 meg backs.
The 31 uses micro-lenses on sensor to increase sensitivity, but that increase comes at a cost ... when using the back on a technical camera with tilts and shifts, it causes color cast issues. The 22 is the better choice if you intend using the back on a view camera.
In case you are wondering if a MF 22 meg back might be challenged by recent 20+ meg 35mm DSLRs, I can assure that they are not even close ... anymore than 35mm Kodak Portra 160 film challenged 120 Porta 160 film.
IMHO, GRAB that H3D-II/22 ... and if you don't ... tell me where it is