I want to thank everyone for the excellent discussion. I'm very glad I asked. Erik, thank for the images.
I myself am not hung up at this point on the film vs. digital "look" question, I do agree they are different, and you'll definitely get certain looks, particularly if you go for a grainy image, with film you won't match as easily with digital. Since I shoot mostly landscapes it is detail I am most interested in, so based upon your input, I'll probably mess a bit more with my v700 scanner to see if film holder adjustments help in any way. It may be my sharpening settings in PS could also use some fine tuning. I have to admit though, I can post process a lot of digital images a lot faster than scanning, cleaning and post processing from film, even when I'm very careful about pre-cleaning to eliminate as much dust from my film, my work area and my scanner as possible. One thing I do hate abou the V700 is the glass is not readily removable. Even in a clean no-smoking house, mine picks up a cloudy film pretty quickly and its a pain to take the unit apart to clean the inside of the glass, thus part of the reason I'm interested in input on the Hasselblad or other scanners. But, I do worry about making too much more investment in film based work, as the population of film products continues to decline (assuming you don't count the eastern european films that are becoming available).
Someone raised the question regarding why I was straying away from DSLR's. I have a d90 and I'm happy with the camera, its some of the Nikon lenses I'm not so thrilled with. Most of my primes are probably 10-20 years old, and the 50 and the 28mm are two I really hate -- their images always look soft to me, compared to the sharpness and 3-d like quality I can easily extract from a Mamiya 645 AF or a Hassy (all tripod mounted). Hassy's (V series) though, hate the desert south west. Fine dust is always jamming up the gear mechanism on the film backs. Just too open of a design, the same reason I'm very hesitant to consider a Leaf Aptus back. Newer Nikon zooms are big step up in sharpness, but you sacrifice aperture and distortion. I'm much happier with the results of MF primes, though I agree that some 35mm primes (like Leica, Zeiss) will have resolution values higher than their MF cousins.
The image, if I've posted this right, is about the limit of what I've managed to get from scanning 6x7 (note this is ress'ed down to 1024 pxls wide at 72 ppi).