There is much discussion and interest in the new Hybrid y 6 --that is what the H stands for, but not a lot of the posters question the basic architecture of the system. For example, is this new platform attempting -- by being hybrid-- to be the system for the future while maintaining a foot in the past at the same time?. Or in other words, wanting to do too many things while condemning the performance of all ?
When the designers and architects decided to make this system a 6 x 6 format, -- when 100% of digital backs is 6 x 4.5 or smaller -- what where they thinking about?.
The disadvantage is very real: the mirror on a 6 x 6 format is larger than that of, say, H3, AFD or Contax 645, so the lens mount has to be placed further away from the film plane than all other platforms.
The practical complication of having a larger film-plane-to-lens-mount distance is that formulation of wideangle lenses gets more complicated.
The Hy6 will come to market with no 35mm (one will be produced later), and not even a planned 28mm.
With Hasselblad opting to market their 28mm as a closed architecture exclusive to the H3 owner club members, the importance of a 28mm is vital for a large majority of MF photographers -- not for all -- is clear.
Making wide angle lenses for MF is not an easy task. That is why the H3 28mm needs software correction, and Mamiyas 28mm costs five thousand dollars.
If making such lens is so hard for Hasselblad an Mamiya, that have the smaller format size, imagine how it will be to make one when the same lens has to also work for a film plane of 6 x 6 when you want to shoot film.
What you have here is a system that will work well in all applications where the shot calls for zoom in, and not when the art director ask you to "zoom out"
As a photographer you will have to consider if shooting 6 x 6 transparencies is more important than to get the wide view while working with a digital back.