" ... why would a professional not want to keep his V-System gear going?"
We'll I would for one ... which is what I did. But realistically, the market is flooded with V gear because most professionals didn't keep the system. They have or are in the process of moving on ... despite the fact that you can use all of the 16, 22, 33 & 39 meg backs on the 500 series cameras.
"A basic Hasselblad V-System kit wasn't cheap either, yet millions of amateurs bought one."
$3000. is a long way from $30,000. don't you think Q.G.? Besides, if your theory were true, then the CFV and Phase One sub $10,000. backs would be flying off the the shelves in record numbers ... which they are not.
"And, just maybe they realize that they have a somewhat untapped legacy customer base in V series products."
From your lips to Hasselblad's ears Simon. Nothing would please me more than a larger sensor in a CFV back at around $10,000. ... with the 16 meg CFV at around $6,500.
I just don't think there is enough volume to support this desire.
Hasselblad is focused on the high end professional market that has the business base to invest in these tools. As Willy Sutton said when asked why he robbed banks, "It's where the money is".
Much of our musings on this subject is backward aimed ... to be able to use our hard earned V gear collected over the years that we've come to love. However, as the digital juggernaut has advanced, it's become apparent that the media used has come to dominate the decision process ... mostly due to the cost. Where the modular portion that holds the film (A12 & A24 film backs) was once a minor cost factor, a digital back now costs more than the entire system combined.
As far as 1.1X verses full frame 645 backs: this is not an issue for most working pros. Few would incur the expense to upgrade for full frame alone. IMO, at 8.5 X11.33 the aspect ratio of the current 645 backs is very close to real world practical applications with less wasted capture area for most publications including bleed, and loses about 1.5" off the bottom when producing a double truck spread. And as I have discovered, almost exactly fills a standard 17X22 print for art display work.
"Perhaps a new Canon-Nikon may kill the H market."
Any MF killing by these cameras has been done already I think. The wedding/event industry already moved to DSLRs. The battlefield array has drastically changed by shifting to MF digital capture for professional photographers who know the 35mm format is restrictive no matter how many megs they pack into the space. A 16 meg CFV outperforms a 16 meg 1DsMKII now, and that won't change when Canon packs 22 or 24 meg into the 1DsMKIII verses a 645 sized 22 meg back, let alone a 31 or 39 meg version or better yet a 39 meg multi-shot.
You guys are speculating out of thin air. I'm using all this stuff on a daily basis, and working with other pros I hire to shoot my ad agency's work. Like with film, for critical image quality and versatile applications ( view camera for ex&le), high resolution MF digital is STILL the standard, not 35mm. The reason is that the files produced are plastic in their multiple application abilities. Clients now expect a key shot to be used in myriad ways, from internet to billboards ... and this includes the ability to severely crop an image to use a portion in ads or other printed materials.
