Multishot technologie's biggest disadvantage, is a marketing one rather than one of performance. If a pro can't improve further on the results he gets with an old Sinarback 54H + his view camera + a Sinar LC shutter (for dead accurate LV focusing), then why upgrade? It's not a sensible to do so...
Surely one can now "jump" to double the resolution up to 200mp from 88mp that was the limit until the Sinarback eXact was announced, but many pros think of the reduced size of pixel as more of a problem than an advantage they may benefit with and maybe they are correct too in thinking so... 9 μm pixels are 115% larger than 6μm ones and this makes the process easy and accurate even if the environmental circumstances are not ideal. OTOH, Hasselblad's 6x method does oversample as to add rows and columns of pixels, but it makes the quadrupled resolution result almost as easy and accurate as with 4X (but less trustful than 16x - still nothing to compare with single shot though).
Thus, the pros stick with their trustful Imacon 528c, Hasselblad CF-22MS and Sinarback 54H backs, the results they get have nothing to compare with respect to the ultra high res single shot backs, they rarely have to repeat a sequence that failed (because of the high experience they have gained over the years), the backs become rarer with the time to find in the S/H market (although the existing base is extremely wide) and makers have problems to convince the customers as to replace them because the newer offerings can be convincing only as far as the single shot part of the back is concerned...
There are some that think of resolution as the only advantage of the multishot process or others that think that the continuous improvement of single shot will equal the quality, well... let them think so... There are subjects that the difference won't be exposed to the full potential, this is true... but then again there are subjects that the difference between an i-phone and an MFDB won't be exposed to the full potential... As with all technologies the existing difference can only be appreciated to the most demanding of circumstances
that do expose the maximum of difference... In other words... if one thinks that he won't see the difference between a single shot 100mp shot with a Bayer pattern filter and the interpolated colour it is created (along with the shortcomings with the technology) and another (again)
single shot capture, but on a 100x75mm sensor with
true colour pixels of 9μm of size each (i.e. pixels that record colour - like foveon) and no interpolation or any artefacts involved... then I'm an astronaut... There is a tendency from marketing (inc.Hasselblad) to hide the benefits of true colour capturing and direct the marketing towards single shot capturing systems, this policy is enforced by the circumstances because, as I said before, multishot users are
very slow to upgrade on modern equipment thus causing loss of sales, but truth is truth and marketing is marketing.
That said,
I feel there is a real danger for MF future penetration in the studios that specialize with still life photography... What if Sony (or another maker) decides (which is very possible to happen) to introduce a multishot version of the mirrorles α7 camera? Which pro will be naive enough then as not to use a (multishot) a7 on the rear standard of his view camera, add a shutter and great LV and in addition have the image circle of his lenses widen considerably? Only the multishot back users will then retain their backs, but I'm sure that even them will add the mirrorless to have as a back up or for the projects that the MFDB will be an overkill...
