I think with medium format its more than just MPs its also a host of other things just like the advantages of MF in film. I use to always get from 35mm photographers that unless the client goes 30 X 40 why medium format. Stu you know theres a difference even in smaller prints you've shot both.
I guess if someone has the $$$ and wants the gear its really his business. How many photographers have 1DsMkIII that really don't need that much camera?
I know a guy that has every Leica made in the M series. And he has some pretty rare ones. He's a great guy and the only reason he has these cameras is he has money. He didn't rob a bank or cheat anyone to get the money to buy these cameras. He's not a great photographer. But if he can afford it and it don't hurt nobody why not?
If this camera brings joy to the OP and he has the money its certainly his business and to those that haven't shot with a blad that don't get it well its something you should experience. MF is a different approach to photography than the one you take with smaller formats. Ansel Adams called Hasselblads small cameras. Its all what perspective you look at things from.
Tareq if this camera brings you joy and you use it who cares what anyone else thinks. The only argument you should have is I LIKE IT end of story. I wish I still had just one of my 500 C/Ms. I guess its good in a way because I would probably have dropped $$$ on a digital back and we all know how expensive those puppies are.


.
