Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: H3D Concerns  (Read 28703 times)
Quentin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1123



WWW
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2006, 12:32:25 PM »
ReplyReply

I already think Hassy pricing is difficult to justify before you even get to talk about the new H3.  Buy in to the H3 system and your investment in H3 only compatable equipment becomes so large you can't easily afford to move to another brand.  Why take that risk?  If Mamiya get their act together, there will be several lower risk alternatives.  What Hassy have done is increase the risk of investing in their equipment to a point where it might be foolish to consider doing so, unless you have already done so.

Quentin
Logged

Quentin Bargate, ARPS, Author, photographer entrepreneur and senior partner of Bargate Murray, Law Firm of the Year 2013
Kenneth Sky
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 422


WWW
« Reply #21 on: October 01, 2006, 01:18:16 PM »
ReplyReply

I've been following this discussion and am starting to feel like a voyeur. Most of us can't or won't invest the cost of a luxury car in our photo equipment especially when the product cycles seem to be speeding up (compared to the old analog days). Some of this sorry state of affairs needs to be assessed to photographers' constant demands for improvements so that digital has now exceeded film in almost every way. At the same time professionals have raised expectations in their clients which can only be met by newer and ever more expensive equipment which manufacturers can only provide by marketing strategies such as Hasselblad has made. This in no way exculpates Hasselblad. There is a saying: "Never ask for something you don't really want because you may get it" Perhaps we photographers have fallen into this trap.
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 01:18:57 PM by Kenneth Sky » Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 632


WWW
« Reply #22 on: October 01, 2006, 01:20:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I am a photographic artist, not a software engineer and this is probably a less than intelligent question, but if the H3d back is detatchable (meaning another back can be attached), then why can't Phase, Leaf and other companies hack into the Hassy software on the camera and  make their respective backs compatable with the h3d system (or is this illegal??).  i know, sounds over simplified(maybe wishful thinking) but i too have a substantial investment i don't want to loose. Eleanor
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #23 on: October 01, 2006, 01:33:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Really?

There were in fact quite a number of third party lenses for the V series Hasselblads over the decades. Have you also forgotten Polaroid backs?

Several different companies currently make digital backs for H Hasselblads. Those photographers who currently have a substantial investment in one of these are now prevented from moving forward with that company's latest bodies and lenses, and those that may wish to step up to Hasselblad's latest bodies and lenses are forced to choose just one brand, rather than having several choices. Why is this not an issues that's easier to appreciate? The free market is about choice.

And just to rebut the obvious rejoinder, of course I have the choice of not continuing to use Hasselblad. But with a $50,000 captial investment in the brand, my real-world options are not as clear cut.

As for it not being a problem for you, well that's fortunate. But try to see the world though a less narrow filter. People who prefer alternatives, or who have substantial equipment investments which are now rendered restricted, or who wish to sell alternatives, or who wish to manufacture alternatives, may think otherwise.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Michael

Third-party lenses for Hasselblad 500 camera bodies. Well, I certainly didn't get to hear about them,  I didn't live in a cell and was a fully paid up member of the profession from '60 onwards! So, who made them and why would anyone buy them?

Polaroid backs: okay, you can call them alternative backs if you choose to push semantics to the extreme, but for me they were a very seldom used accessory that did not, in fact, prove all that valuable over all those years. In fact, the over-use of Polaroid proofing is perhaps what has led to the easy acceptance of digital screen watching as a way to go; further, I think that much of the navel gazing which pixel peeping seems to be about is a wholely unwelcome new twist to the saga of  photography.

Why so? Well, I have, as mentioned previously, but a single digital camera, a D200. Previously, all my work was governed by readings from generations of Westons and then finally a Minolta; now, with this D200, I can rely, for the very first time, on a camera's sense of exposure being good. I put it onto matrix and that's all I need to do (I do set everything by hand - I have no a/f optics and never felt the need - and have never used a priority setting of any kind) in order to get a very nice exposure which gives me a print as good as I feel is possible in the real world.  I gave up looking at the large screen on the back almost within the first two or three days of using the camera and have not felt the need to change that course of action other than from the aspect of keying in different lenses of the no-chip variety.

Clearly this flies right in the face of beliefs of most of the theorists in the current photographic chattering circles that seem to be around - well, that's okay too and you are all welcome to your ideas which are, probably if not certainly, mathematically correct. However, photograpahy is not about maths, regardless of how much the latter may attract you as a discipline.

You mention the free market  being about choice: for everyone except the manufacturer then? If you are already into one of the digital H systems then that does not mean your device is no longer of use because a new geegaw has been invented; it only means that there are more different ways to cook the goose and, importantly, the magic you can or can not weave with the first camera does not desert you because of the new kid on the block.

But then perhaps all this is really more to do with equipment as jewellery than as tool.

Cheers and don't get indigestion - Rob C
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 01:42:17 PM by Rob C » Logged

Photomangreg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #24 on: October 01, 2006, 01:45:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
To my mind a regurgitated corporate press release is not a "review".

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


And skewing the information is?  Michael didn't test the camera.
Logged
Smack
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 14


WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2006, 01:54:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The point: at no time did my 500C or 500CM accept lenses other than Hasselblad/Zeiss and I can't recall anyone else marketing backs for them either. Was that a problem for me? I don't think it was. With Nikon, why would I have looked at other maker's lenses?

Ciao - Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78551\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm not sure that medium format film backs are an appropriate analog for digital backs.  Perhaps film would be a better, but not perfect, analogy.  Imagine in 1973 that Hasselblad decided that for all future Hasselblad cameras you could only use Hasselblad "Victorchrome" film loaded on a proprietary reel that could only be used in their new proprietary back.  Then imagine that any new lenses (for only god knows what reason) could only be used with this new film.

Of course Hasselblad would never have done this then.  In the 70s the medium format camera market was robust.  Now however, there are very few players left and those that remain are near dead.  Hasselblad obviously sees an opportunity to deliver the coupe de grace to the remaining players.

Should Hasselblad allow choice of recording media?  It's their prerogative.  Up to now they have - and by "up to now" I mean from the beginning of their existence to today.  It looks like they're taking that choice away.  They're going to piss a lot of people off (well a lot relative to the size of the medium format market).  I suppose they've calculated the costs of that.  The market will show how accurate their calculatations are.  Perhaps the new Rollei offering, which at first glance appears to be the antithesis of the H3D, is a variable they didn't consider.

As I don't own and likely won't own a medium format digital back any time in the near future, this issue is somewhat academic for me.  In general, though,  as a consumer, I greatly prefer open systems to closed ones.  On the other hand, I can't choose the sensor manufacturer for my 5D and I didn't complain about that.  Would be nice if I could though.  Perhaps if I had a choice I'd choose a Nikon D200 body with a  Canon 5D sensor

Steve
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 02:02:54 PM by Smack » Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4924



« Reply #26 on: October 01, 2006, 02:07:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
And skewing the information is?  Michael didn't test the camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Please let me know what information i "skewed". I'll be pleased to respond.

Neither did I ever claim to have "tested" the camera. Why would you imply that I had?

I have been commenting on Hasselblad's business and marketing approach, not the H3D itself as a product. There'll be time enough for that.

Michael
Logged
izaack
Guest
« Reply #27 on: October 01, 2006, 02:15:52 PM »
ReplyReply

That is a great reply, Rob C.
Logged
Photomangreg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #28 on: October 01, 2006, 02:18:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please let me know what information i "skewed". I'll be pleased to respond.

Neither did I ever claim to have "tested" the camera. Why would you imply that I had?

I have been commenting on Hasselblad's business and marketing approach, not the H3D itself as a product. There'll be time enough for that.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


"reporting" only what fits in your agenda is the same as skewing the information.
Logged
Photomangreg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2006, 02:34:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I already think Hassy pricing is difficult to justify before you even get to talk about the new H3.  Buy in to the H3 system and your investment in H3 only compatable equipment becomes so large you can't easily afford to move to another brand.  Why take that risk?  If Mamiya get their act together, there will be several lower risk alternatives.  What Hassy have done is increase the risk of investing in their equipment to a point where it might be foolish to consider doing so, unless you have already done so.

Quentin
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78609\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I buy a phantom Mamiya ZD system, is my investment safe?  Will I bhe able to use a third party back on it?  Can I use other lenses?  Other software?  How is the risk in buying a brand new, unproven system a lower risk?  They announced this camera over two years ago, I've lost a little confidence in them!
Logged
stemc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6


« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2006, 02:54:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"reporting" only what fits in your agenda is the same as skewing the information.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78639\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photomangreg - why not tell us about your agenda? You joined the site yesterday to respond to this thread only. Do you work for Hasselblad or something?

Stephen
Logged
Photomangreg
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


« Reply #31 on: October 01, 2006, 03:19:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Photomangreg - why not tell us about your agenda? You joined the site yesterday to respond to this thread only. Do you work for Hasselblad or something?

Stephen
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78648\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


My Agenda is to find an avenue with honest information.  I can't trust the manufacturers, I can't trust the marketing, I can't trust the dealers, I can't trust the publications, heck,  I'm not even sure I can trust my own eyes sometimes.  Where can one go to find honest, yet accurate comnparrisons of the benefits and features of MFD backs, MF DSLR's, and 35mm DSLR's?  It get's very tiring always listening to one sided information where it is more than obvious that someone has an agenda.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1260


« Reply #32 on: October 01, 2006, 03:50:29 PM »
ReplyReply

There doesn't seem to be much of an "agenda" if a guy who owns $50,000 worth of Hasselblad gear suddenly finds he can't move up to the next camera without also buying into the extremely expensive back, which he doesn't need, because he's already got one. Reichmann wasn't talking about the camera per se; he was talking about the system and how Hasselblad has left him, and many people like him, high and dry.

Hmmm...how do you say "boycott" in German?

By the way, do people still read Pop Photo? If they do, for what?

JC
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 03:51:00 PM by John Camp » Logged
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12213


« Reply #33 on: October 01, 2006, 04:04:39 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
My Agenda is to find an avenue with honest information. I can't trust the manufacturers, I can't trust the marketing, I can't trust the dealers, I can't trust the publications, heck, I'm not even sure I can trust my own eyes sometimes. Where can one go to find honest, yet accurate comnparrisons of the benefits and features of MFD backs, MF DSLR's, and 35mm DSLR's? It get's very tiring always listening to one sided information where it is more than obvious that someone has an agenda.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78652\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Photomangreg

You have a valid point where you complain about the problems associated with finding realistic, valuable information. I do not for a moment subscribe to the oft-aired notion that Michael is totally Canon hooked; he did at one time use Nikon and has his own reasons for doing otherwise now. But, as he uses Canon in its particular format and it seems to give him images every bit as good as does his larger equipment (in aesthetic terms, at least as can be seen on-screen) I understand how he might be misinterpreted.

But the problems with finding information are not new, not of the digital age alone. Time was, when I lived in Scotland, that I had a local Hasselblad dealer - I go back here to the mid-sixties to early seventies - who was able to show me, to let me actually TOUCH the cameras before purchase. One fine day I went to see him to discover that he no longer carried the range. Why, I asked in dismay. The answer revolved around the number of units he could shift. The sums worked out in a manner that showed that he was unable to buy, from the supplier, at the price which the mega-dealers down in London and Leeds could sell!

Later, when other independent dealers had been squeezed out of the Scottish market, the professional photographer was left the option of two and then one pro dealership and even here, you could order what you wanted but, more often than not, like hell could you see it!

So, even in the days of film, choice was there but hardly to hand if you didn't live in the capital. And information, for many of us, was had by reviews in The British Journal of Photography, reviews by that great man Geoffrey Crawley, upon whose advice I bought more than one Nikkor and never regretted the trust placed in his word.

Will it get easier? Nope, I think not, and more and more will depend on the opinion makers of the web (in the amateur market, at least) with the professional buyer (as in photographer)  becoming ever smaller as the industry shrinks.

Cheers - Rob C
« Last Edit: October 01, 2006, 04:06:49 PM by Rob C » Logged

Nick Rains
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 704



WWW
« Reply #34 on: October 01, 2006, 05:33:48 PM »
ReplyReply

1. Canon cameras 'force' you to use their chip, as do all DSLRs. You can buy their lenses, or 3rd party ones - do we know for a fact that there can be no 3rd party lenses for the new 'blad?

2. Is it possible that to allow future lenses like 28mm and TS, the current camera/mount cannot be used? To throw off the design shackles to allow new and exciting lens designs may well be a brave move. Whether it is successful time will tell.

3. As someone pointed out Canon caused a stir in the late 80s when the EOS mount was brought out. I weathered that, and replaced my FD lenses eventually, and now I am reaping the benefits of the EOS mount being so superior to the older FD mount. Nikon have struggled by insisting on backwards compatibility and have lost to Canon as the No1 brand as a consequence. As in 2 above, maybe this is the gamble 'blad are taking - but in a much less robust sector of the market.

Just questions, I have no intention to agree with or disagree with any of the indignant positions taken at this point...
Logged

Nick Rains
Australian Photographer
Leica Akademie Instructor
www.nickrains.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8388



WWW
« Reply #35 on: October 01, 2006, 06:24:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am a software engineer and I suspect we face the same issues as the camera engineers. If we upgrade software, we have to ensure that data created by old software versions is readable by new versions ( backward compatibility ). Also there is a demand to publish specifications (APIs) so that third party software can be integrated. What I can tell you, is that these demands are expensive to meet and can make product development uneconomic. It may be that the engineers at Hasselblad are calling the shots here, not the marketing people - they don't have the resources to develop new products and still keep compatibility with everything else.

Iain West
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78600\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Iain,

The H system isn't that old, besides engineers don't call the shot in succesful corporations, they strive to meet directions defined based on actual market needs.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8388



WWW
« Reply #36 on: October 01, 2006, 07:07:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
1. Canon cameras 'force' you to use their chip, as do all DSLRs. You can buy their lenses, or 3rd party ones - do we know for a fact that there can be no 3rd party lenses for the new 'blad?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not sure whether some other brand could produce lenses for the H system, but the fact is that nobody has over the course of 5-6 years. Besides, the problem we - Hassy H1/H2 - users have been facing with these new developements is more our inability to use the new H lenses with our existing bodies, isn't it?

We don't know yet for sure at this point of time why Hassy has seemingly decided to make the 28 mm unusable on older bodies, but if it is only because of image circle being optimized for digital, then they could have called the lens DX. Period.

A large part of H users use it with digital backs whose image sensors are all the same size as the Imacon backs. These people would have had no image circle size issue when using the 28 mm. Hassy could have prevented the usage of the 28 mm when the H1/H2 use a film back, and allowed it with digital backs.

Regarding the T/S, we are probably seeing one more impact of the problems with the kodak sensor. My guess is that Hassy considered that the color shift problems they are seeing with Kodak sensor when shift/tilting the lens need to be corrected transparently by the system.

Quote
2. Is it possible that to allow future lenses like 28mm and TS, the current camera/mount cannot be used? To throw off the design shackles to allow new and exciting lens designs may well be a brave move. Whether it is successful time will tell.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, there is no stopping progress, but it is reasonnable to hope that a brand like Blad thinks sufficiently ahead when it develops a new lens mount. The H system is only a 6 years old system. They knew about 28 mm and T/S lenses 6 years ago, and if it turns out that they were unable to design their mount according to the needs of 28 mm/T/S lenses, I feel entitled as an engineer to speak of critical lack of technical competence on their part.

Quote
3. As someone pointed out Canon caused a stir in the late 80s when the EOS mount was brought out. I weathered that, and replaced my FD lenses eventually, and now I am reaping the benefits of the EOS mount being so superior to the older FD mount. Nikon have struggled by insisting on backwards compatibility and have lost to Canon as the No1 brand as a consequence. As in 2 above, maybe this is the gamble 'blad are taking - but in a much less robust sector of the market.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78666\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Nick, agreed that a switch of lens mount can be a good move in the long term (EOS is indeed a good example), but Hassy has already done this switch when introducing the H system. Nobody would have forgiven Canon if they had introduced a non compatible EOS2 in 1996.

As far as Nikon goes, I see zero evidence that there is a relationship between the supposed demised of Nikon and their willingness to stick to the F mount. Some people have said that the F mount isn't compatible with FF sensors, but the Kodak SLR/n has clearly proven otherwise (I know, I used to own one).

Nikon has IMHO decided not to release a FF sensor yet because their feel that the current technology isn't mature enough to provide suitable image quality in the corner of images with wide angle lenses.

They are IMHO right from a technology standpoint, and obviously wrong from a marketing standpoint judging from how many Canon shooters are extremely happy with their FF bodies - even if image quality isn't that great in the corner of wide angle images.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
MarkKay
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 587


WWW
« Reply #37 on: October 01, 2006, 11:58:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Is there any chance that Hassy will change its plan?  Should we start a letter writing campaign?  Will it be helpful?
Logged
Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1913



WWW
« Reply #38 on: October 02, 2006, 06:47:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there any chance that Hassy will change its plan?  Should we start a letter writing campaign?  Will it be helpful?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78707\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
No.
&
No.

Nup - Hassy would not have announced it if they had doubts.
Nup - Would be a waste of time
Nup - See above.

Whilst Hassy's move severley sux for those owners of phase or leaf backs... it really is indiferent news for new owners of H3's. I mean... bottom line Hassy is saying... 'Buy our H3 camera and we will suport you - 'look here is a new lens to prove it!' ohh.. we're sorry for all you H2 owners.. maybee you could try e-bay? and then buy a H3!

Its just a fact of marketing life... Hassy holds the medium format market in their hands... by locking out phase and leaf they only strengthen their own position. I mean what are you going to do... run out and buy a phase or leaf camera?

We see this sort of stuff daily in the electronic market across the board.. no reason to expect the niche medium format market to be any different.  A sad fact of life....
Logged

Ed Jack
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 225


« Reply #39 on: October 02, 2006, 11:07:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Please let me know what information i "skewed". I'll be pleased to respond.

Neither did I ever claim to have "tested" the camera. Why would you imply that I had?

I have been commenting on Hasselblad's business and marketing approach, not the H3D itself as a product. There'll be time enough for that.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78635\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

 I was shocked to learn that as a H1 user of well over 2 years, that not only the new 28mm lens will be exclusive to the new product, but ALL future lenses - implying that there is something wrong with my H1 system - which cost me a pretty penny. Now I am quite happy to use a 24mm on the new horsemann SW-DII I intend to buy, but then I shouldn't have to - end of story.

Michael... have you had your P45 less than one year ? If so, then I think you get a free adaptor plate change don't you ? I'm just thinking that you could "vote with your wallet" and go back to using your Contax kit (if you still have it).

Maybe its time all digital backs had an adaptor plate system  a la Sinar/imacon (as was), such that companies are not tempted to such mischief. As Michael says, I suspect that there is a legal argument that could bring Hasselblad back into line.

Ed
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad