Is it just me or is this not a good price?  I always thought the medium format Hasselblad cameras cost like $30,000 or $40,000. But this one costs $12,000.  For a camera that is almost $10,000 it is getting in competition range of the 1Ds Mark III

I suppose I would still say the 5D Mark II is the ultimate microstock camera, but I have to admit I still dream of a medium sized sensor from time to time.

edit:  oh wait, it gets even cheaper.  The first one I linked to was including an 80mm lens.  the camera alone 'only' costs just under $10,000.  Hasselblad H3DII-31

In addition to the fact that this isn't there latest model (the H4D is), each lens will cost you ~2K-3K.
Might as well wait for the Canon 5d mk-III, unless your name is Yuri and you get them for free...

I do mostly studio work and am very seriously considering the Pentax ATM. I shot with a Mamiya 645 for years - definitely a cut above 35mm.

Like all electronics, the price keeps falling. Presumably Hasselblad is about to launch something else. The sensor is less than half the size of a 58x58mm negative and only 1.7 times the size of a 5D. Doesn't that mean the pixel density is about the same as the 5D Mk2 which is from about the same time?

I don't believe you can say that medium format always beats 35mm any longer. That was true for film because the "sensor quality" (the film) was identical for the two formats so having a negative almost four times the size (on 6x6) was effectively increasing the resolution of the camera. With digital, all sorts of things come into play, such as pixel size and quality, and your resolution comes from the pixel count not the sensor size.

I don't know how it all pans out but I don't think you can simply transfer the film era thinking over to digital equipment. Obviously a 'blad is a great camera but I doubt if the images it makes are vastly superior to a Canon 5D Mk2 unless you want to plaster the side of a building with them.

I don't believe you can say that medium format always beats 35mm any longer. That was true for film because the "sensor quality" (the film) was identical for the two formats so having a negative almost four times the size (on 6x6) was effectively increasing the resolution of the camera. With digital, all sorts of things come into play, such as pixel size and quality, and your resolution comes from the pixel count not the sensor size.

I have to disagree with you (at least a little)
I think especially in current situation medium format beats 35mm, because best (20+ megapixels) 35mm cameras are already outresolving many lenses. At least my 5D mk II is "better" than any cheap zoom at any setting,  or any lens with biggest aperture.

There is not going to be a miraculous breaktrough in lens quality -> the only way to get more detail is to get a bigger sensor.

A medium format camera would suit my photographic needs perfectly, I would definitely get myself one if it weren't for the... er... money issue...

I have to disagree with you (at least a little)
I think especially in current situation medium format beats 35mm, because best (20+ megapixels) 35mm cameras are already outresolving many lenses. At least my 5D mk II is "better" than any cheap zoom at any setting,  or any lens with biggest aperture.

There is not going to be a miraculous breaktrough in lens quality -> the only way to get more detail is to get a bigger sensor.

That's technically not correct. The sensor on a 5D Mk2 only has a theoretical resolution of 70lp/mm (it's actual resolution will be a bit less) giving it one of the lowest resolutions of the EOS line-up, http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/canon_eos_5D_mkii_review_4.html . The resolution on the "cheap" Hasselblad is 73lp/mm so if modern lenses are being outresolved by the 5D MkII then the same applies to the Blad. The pixel pitch is almost identical - but, of course, if you display images from the two cameras at the same size there will be more detail in the Blad because the original "negative" is larger.

There are plenty of wide-aperture lenses capable of outresolving any digital sensor, though the cheap zooms may not be among them - but if you spend $3,000 on the camera, why don't you get glass to match? And there aren't any cheap zooms for a Blad!! The Canon 100-300f5.6 L resolves at about 70lp/mm, the 70-200 f2.8L is similar. The EF 50 1.8 II "plastic fantastic" is recorded resolving 75lp/mm at the centre wide open and over 95 lp/mm stopped down a bit, the macro primes must be much better than that.

I recently saw that an in-house test of one of the best production lenses from a big maker (I can't remember if it was a Zeiss or a Nikkor) demonstrated that it could resolve around 300lp/mm, so the finest lenses can go way beyond any sensor.... all that extra resolution is quite useless, of course.

So one way to get more detail is to pack more pixels onto the sensor. When they produce a 30MP 1Ds MkIV it will resolve more if you use good lenses.

Not many uses require that much resolution, though.