Curt Geiger: Fuji do a nice job making this body and the lenses look nice, but the changes are all cosmetic. :-( Battery life is still rubbish. Weighs a ton, Sensors are noisy even at lowish ISO's, costs a fortune... You'd need to be one wave short of a shipwreck to buy one of these, what with the advances Nikon and Sony are making with 35mm sensors. ;-)
If you shoot the D800E and the Hasselblad next to each other as I have done you will see that although the Nikon performs well between f2.8 - f10 any smaller an aperture and the Nikon looses definition and sharpness due to the problem of airy disks caused by having such small pixels on the sensor The 35mm DSLR's have reached the limit of basic optical physics and as Canon found out with their G10 and G11 models, the more pixels does not mean better quality unless you start to increase the physical sensor size. In comparison the Hasselblad's, PhaseOne's and Leica S2 Medium format cameras perform consistently well throughout. Yes ISO range is not as good as the 35mm size DSLR's but its a trade off. Both formats have their benefits and most medium format owners will have a 35mm DSLR for hand held low light work. For many pro's the ISO limit is not such a problem as its simply overcome by using either studio flash or a good tripod as we all did in the film days.
You are wrong on so many levels. Firstly the basic facts. The Hasselblad body is made in Sweden The digital back is made in Denmark and the prism and the lens optics and housing are made in Japan by Fuji with the leaf shutter and aperture units being made again in Sweden by Hasselblad. The next point is your lack of understanding on how sensors work. If you want the best dynamic range and the most accurate colour reprodustion then the best choice is the medium format CCD sensor with the 16bit colour information providing around 65,000 variations of colour instead of the 14bit nikon or sony providing only 16,000 variations.