In looking at the lower cost (relatively) end of the MFD spectrum, the Pentax 645D looks the most cost-effective solution (or would be if there was a tilt solution - HartBlei SR is too wide for product photography). However, I am put off by the review by David Kilpatrick in (UK) Freelance Photographer and, I think, repeated in the British Journal of Photography, where he is basically saying that the image pipeline is a derivative of the K-series, "....giving 14 bit processing and a fuzzy, soft effect to the raw files, presumably as a result of the demosaicing effect....." Elswhere he says that the Raw files "...show a similiar loss of 3D separation to the K-series, something very apparent when compared to the crisp output from the Phase one, Leica and Hasselblad systems....". In other words, this is DSLR, not MFD quality, but with larger file size.
I haven't seem comments like this in any other review, so I wonder if this is DK being a bid idiosyncratic, or is everyone else being too polite?
Oh, and I thought "demosaicing" is what the raw converter does, not the camera - could he be describing a problem with raw conversion in ACR or Capture One.
Also a bit idiosyncratic, I thought, was the statement that "...where Pentax has really delivered an edge,though, is in the lens technology - a lesson Hasselblad should be considering right now...." I think he was thinking of the the new weathersealed 55mm, which others have poured cold water on, and the 25MM, which so far as I know, doesn't exist.