A lot of good points here. Yes I do sense an anti-hasselblad bias, maybe from some issues at the H1 system's start, or whatever. But so many rental houses use the H2 system with Phase backs that it's obvious the Hasselblad lenses and camera bodies are well proven.
A lot of on the street talk about digital backs is from the past, or the stuff of urban legends.
I believe Leaf got the reputation for being more film like because early on V-8 was limited to the basics in processing, v10 was unstable and had a whole slew of problems so most Leaf files were processed in early CS1 and CS2 which gave a grain effect to .mos files, hence the reputation for film like.
Hasselblad early on had that tethered tank thing and the Imacon/hasselblad backs were usually one stop and one step behind phase so they got passed by.
Phase with version 3 software was the most stable of the medium format systems (at the time) and became more of the standard, though 90% of all professional images shot with Phase backs were shot with H series bodies. I think some of that stability equity has been given up with the issues of V4, it may return with V5 though only time will tell.
I find the testing, buying process of medium format interesting because few photographers I know have actually taken a Canon, a Leaf, a Phase and a Blad and actually compared them in their real world shooting styles.
Most just shoot a few dozen frames at a dealer or of some assistant in their studio, write the check and then try to find a way to make the system work for them. I've done it both ways, buying blind and buying through testing and I can promise you that the "film like look" of any digital camera has as much to do with subject, lighting, choice of processor as it does anything that relates to hardware. That was in the Phase/Hasselblad Kodak sensor, Leaf/Sinar Dalsa sensor days and now that everyone seems to mix and match everything I guess there is not that much difference.
I do know that the time I briefly tested the blad file in Flexcolor, compared to the Phase and Leaf, using HMI's the hasselblad file had the prettiest skin tones, though I didn't go the Hasselblad route because the file would only work (at the time) in flexcolor and the pre production 39 mpx back I tested was slow, though later versions were faster.
In fact under certain conditions the Leaf can be very film like, but shooting translucent skin can be a magenta nightmare, but issues can and do happen with every digital back because they all behave differently under different conditions. The Phase P30+ is very nice under tungsten light, the Aptus 22 good under most strobes, though the A-22 I owned was a moire machine. Once again they all have their plus and minuses, though Hasselblad has one thing no other maker can match and that's a autofocus 100mm F 2.2 fast lens. For a lot of money work, this is a magic focal length and 2.2 is fast and offers a lot of artistic options.
Doing it again, or starting fresh, I would probably go with Hasselblad, if only because it takes one battery to run the whole system and I think their contribution to the industry is strong, especially in the way they market and feature their photographers.
They have a respectful way of presenting the work of their clientele and that goes a long way with me.