Yes, except here the 50 may effectively be a dead product in 3 months, and the 100 is not exactly ready for prime time. Last not least, Sony may need the production lines for its new pro camera sensors, so the 100Mp may go to the back of the line until they have their own production batch finished.
If Hassy were smarter they would lower the price of the 50 to $8K right now, and get some cash and new customers while they regroup. There is going to be blood in the water at Photokina with new releases from Sony and Pentax, and few will be buying over the summer.
Historically speaking, MF backs with fewer pixels than the 35mm top have sold badly.
Edmund
I totally disagree with your POV... The megapixel war seems to be long over, resolution is about the last thing that concerns photographers that consume top end products, the past experience about high resolution DSLRs affecting negatively MF sales, has more to do with CCD vs. Cmos and the shortcomings related with CCD, not with resolution as such... There is no evidence that Canon's 5DS or Sony's α7RII success had any negative impact for MF sales, nor that people want (even) higher resolution offerings than they are offered today.
To the contradict, Hollywood's recent direction for MF size sensors over the past years, has widely created a mass opinion that "sensor size matters" and Hasselblad's decision to promote the convergence of technology as a prime factor in their H6D introduction, seems to be in line with the widely spread culture.
Don't forget Hasselblad's claim about "phenomenal market appreciation" for the H6D release... and yet they come up with a more attractive proposal. It seems to me that their aim is to "clean the cards off the table" with respect to competition... they don't seem to worry at all about what the case is with higher offerings from smaller formats...
If you remember the chairman's interviews, he thinks of the higher end FF Dslr market as being beneficial for the MF market the more it develops, it is a very sensible conclusion as like he said "one can then really appreciate the quality behind advancing to MF"... What is traditional with image areas in photography, is that "size does matter" and this can't change, whatever problem has caused smaller image areas to replace larger ones for being the "top-end" in the past, has to do more with the "quality with respect to investment needed" ratio being poor than the quality advancement itself. If the investment is kept reasonable, larger image areas can even expand their market (IMO).
