Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: new phase/mamiya but what about Rollei Hy6  (Read 21044 times)
hcubell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 729


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2007, 09:32:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
HassleBlad gambled and Lost if you ask me..  
I never liked Hasssleblad apart from their optics which are great. But their recent decision to close out the other guys was a Bad marketing move. also going closed system was a bad move. Would not be surprised if the new HDIV went back some how...:+}
If Leica is the rumored lens company that will work with mamiya then Hassleblad is really going to be hating life...  
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What a complete non-sequitor. Who said anything at all about Hasselblad? What is your obsession with Hasselblad? Do all topics have to be redirected back to that, with a level or religious fervor? See if you can contribute to the topic at hand without the H word.
Logged

samuel_js
Guest
« Reply #41 on: November 24, 2007, 02:46:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What a complete non-sequitor. Who said anything at all about Hasselblad? What is your obsession with Hasselblad? Do all topics have to be redirected back to that, with a level or religious fervor? See if you can contribute to the topic at hand without the H word.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You just have to read yourself to see who's contributing to the topic.
Logged
j.miller
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 160


« Reply #42 on: November 24, 2007, 08:57:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Just to be clear, Hasselblad has made H3D bodies available, as of several months ago, to allow H3D/II users the options of having a backup body. They are priced at $3,557.00 MAP (Part #3013160) and require "joint calibration and adjustment" with an existing H3D/II system.

Also, Hasselblad CF-Series digital backs are compatible with the H2F. Just as PhaseOne, Leaf, and Sinar backs are compatible. However, all of them (including Hasselblad's) will require the use of a PC sync cord.

I believe it is obvious the majority of Hasselblad's "effort" is being focused on the products that are in demand, and generate appropriate profit margin (ie. digital). Analog products (bodies and lenses) do not provide adequate margin without digital products being tied to them. This is evident today, in every digital back on the market, including PhaseOne.

Regards,

Jordan Miller

Quote
Why would anyone want to design a back that is compatible with the H3D body? It is the same as the H2(physically) which backs are currently designed for , but has special firmware only for Hasselblad digitalbacks. Even Hasselblads own brand digital backs(previous generations)don't work on the H3D unless they get upgraded for a fee.

Also you cannot buy a bare H3 body, the H3D is an "integrated" camera solution.

So where is the incentive to put a "foreign" back on it?Huh

I do feel there will be an incentive for someone to try to figure out the H2F. I wonder if the firmware can either be downgraded to regular H2 status, or if they are really going to disconnect a couple of wires to physically disable the camera not to be used by any other digital back manufacturers products.  It seems to me it is more effort to do what they are doing with the H2 then just letting it be and allowing their users to buy new product as their platform of choice (for db of choice) or for back-ups to the system that they currently have invested in.

I am curious if their announcements have really lead to more back and glass sales or just forced people to consider other platforms instead of being locked in.

Lance Schad 
Capture Integration - Miami
305-394-4196
lance@captureintegration.com
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155232\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: September 08, 2010, 10:10:18 AM by j.miller » Logged
free1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 400


WWW
« Reply #43 on: November 24, 2007, 09:00:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If Leica is the rumored lens company that will work with mamiya then Hassleblad is really going to be hating life...  
Snook
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Who rumoured this? You?

Its an interesting notion as Leica clearly have been looking at ways of leveraging their brand value, eg: with the Panasonics.

As a longtime Mamiya owner, and occasional Leica fetishist this would suit my very well. An AFDIII with a red dot on it. That would be weird.
Logged

@foliobook
Foliobook professional photography folio for iPad
www.foliobook.mobi
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #44 on: November 24, 2007, 09:21:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Also, Hasselblad CF-Series digital backs are compatible with the H2F. However, all of them (including Hasselblad's) will require the use of a PC sync cord.


Jordan Miller

Your and my definition of compatibility vary substantially!

Lets step over the sync cord for the moment even though it makes me truly laugh when that is mentioned. I cannot take that really serious, we are talking so-called state of the art equipment not stuff like view cameras or pinholes.

Another example. With my H2 I have DAC. Do I get DAC when I use a H2F?  No, I do not! Probably now somebody is going to say DAC wasn't so great to begin with?

Anyway, I am still waiting to see what Hasselblad means with future development for the CF. (see open letter to Hasselblad customers where this is mentioned.)
« Last Edit: November 24, 2007, 09:32:32 AM by Dustbak » Logged
EgillBjarki
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 152



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 24, 2007, 11:56:04 AM »
ReplyReply

As I understood it when Hy6 pronounced in the making, it was an open platform camera. From what I understand from reading this forum, Phase One has stated on theyre message forum theyre back will work on Hy6. Good news if so.

I am really looking forward to see the end resault of Mamiya and Phase One working together. My guess is that they will make a camera compatable with current mamiya optics, but I am hoping they will adress the sync issue. Then they will have to produce system with sutter in lens to up the sync speed right?

Could Mamiya and Phase One produce a camera that would take current Mamiya optics and a possible new line of Mamiya optics with an in lens leaf shutter system? Then they have time to produce a whole new lens line with leaf shutters?

I own a Hasselblad H2 and a Phase One P30+ back since january 2007 and love my setup. I am angry towards Hasselblad, and will not consider the Hasselblad back because of the long exposure (longest shutter time 32sec). Having a camera that no longer is produced I fear not getting proper service in the future and no new lenses made for my H2, possible tilt and shift that might only fit H3D.

Looking at the Hy6, I really have not made up my mind and will not consider it if Phase One does not fit it.

I there for look to Phase One and Mamiya's project with grate hope. I dont expect upgrading my setup soon, but who knows how the landscape of digital MF photography will be after two years?

I wanna be in a reliable system with top qualety that gives me few bounderies. I feel good now with my setup, but fear the future...
Logged

josayeruk
Guest
« Reply #46 on: November 24, 2007, 10:29:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Having a camera that no longer is produced I fear not getting proper service in the future and no new lenses made for my H2, possible tilt and shift that might only fit H3D.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://www.hasselblad.com/welcome.aspx]http://www.hasselblad.com/welcome.aspx[/url]

The last news lens was the 150mm (revamp) and was available to all models.

Jo S.x
Logged
PatrikR
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 25, 2007, 03:21:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Hasselblad made the H2F in order to avoid the EU competition officials. If they had closed the H system completely they would be in court. The same happened to Apple just a few days ago. Apple wanted to keep their iPhone system closed in Germany like it's in USA and was told NO by the court! Now they have to sell unlocked iPhones in Germany. The price went up to $1500 and T-Mobile has to unlock all iPhones they had already sold for free. Well whos going to buy one at $1500?

What's even the point of keeping a system closed? This is the stupidest thing for me. For example Linux would never have succeeded if it had been closed. All other UNIX systems are pretty much dead now. What happened to SGI's workstations? These few year old $120.000 3D desktops are available as refurbished units for less than $1000. It used to be a prestigious thing for design firms to have atleast one SGI seat but cheaper, more open systems took over (PC).

No patent, software copyright or intellectual property rights are going to keep anybody in business if their products are not selling. By closing a system down will only hurt its success in the long run. History has shown this many times. Better and more open systems will emerge.
Logged

Patrik Raski - Espoo, Finland
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2205


WWW
« Reply #48 on: November 25, 2007, 05:33:31 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No patent, software copyright or intellectual property rights are going to keep anybody in business if their products are not selling.

 By closing a system down will only hurt its success in the long run.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is an interesting concept

Currently there seems to be technical advantages to closed systems

The H seiries is a great product getting better

BUT

Thinking about the whole camera system there are (as yet unimagined) things that could happen that would make open the winner

Possible ideas..

A 16mp 3200ISO back at $5000

An af confirm back with proper live view and decent (5 inch) screen

a back with real time 'wireless' tethered shooting to a basestation with a 23'LCD

An IS back

IS MF lenses

Amazing software interaction - GPS google earth - 3d walkthrough imaging - whatever

Technologies developed by a third party software company

Now if that technology didnt work with a closed system but did with an open then it could be a probalem for the closed crowd

I for one would go for the system with the 16mp 3200 back

am going to start a crazy ideas thread..

S
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 05:34:36 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
thsinar
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2066


WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 25, 2007, 10:05:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I wish to intervene and add our information:

The Hy6 medium format camera system is in fact “owned” by Jenoptik (www.jenoptik-los.com), who commissioned Franke and Heidecke to co-develop and then manufacture their camera.

Franke and Heidecke, Leaf as well as Sinar are OEM suppliers of this Jenoptik camera system.
You can see the latest Jenoptik Press releases about the Hy6 (where it’s officially stated that Jenoptik designed the camera) here:

http://www.sinar.ch/file_uploads/bibliothe...ssrelease_e.pdf

and here:

http://www.jenoptik-los.com/cms.php?NEWSID...id=67〈=1


Franke & Heidecke is doing mainly the physical and mechanical production as well as the assembling of the Hy6 camera. Electronic developements are mainly done at Jenoptik and in Switzerland in cooperation with an engineering company.

Best regards,
Thierry

Quote
Jenoptik has indeed financed most of the development of the Hy6 in return for the rights to the new patents and the firmware. Additionally a number of Rollei owned patents went into the camera. So there is also a significant investment (mostly intellectual/labour-wise) from F&H's side in this new camera. That has lead to the right to sell the body with film backs, while the exclusive right to control the firmware has gone to Jenoptik. Jenoptik is the only company that can license the use of the firmware to DB-makers. But if someone else wants to work around that firmware there isn't much Jenoptik can do. (I think they should be happy selling cameras and lenses anyway. That will also bring in money, although maybe not as much as selling DB's. A well represented platform is in anybody's interest, except that of the competition.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 10:06:15 AM by thsinar » Logged

Thierry Hagenauer
thasia_cn@yahoo.com
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #50 on: November 25, 2007, 11:42:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hasselblad made the H2F in order to avoid the EU competition officials. If they had closed the H system completely they would be in court. The same happened to Apple just a few days ago. Apple wanted to keep their iPhone system closed in Germany like it's in USA and was told NO by the court! Now they have to sell unlocked iPhones in Germany. The price went up to $1500 and T-Mobile has to unlock all iPhones they had already sold for free. Well whos going to buy one at $1500?

What's even the point of keeping a system closed? This is the stupidest thing for me. For example Linux would never have succeeded if it had been closed. All other UNIX systems are pretty much dead now. What happened to SGI's workstations? These few year old $120.000 3D desktops are available as refurbished units for less than $1000. It used to be a prestigious thing for design firms to have atleast one SGI seat but cheaper, more open systems took over (PC).

No patent, software copyright or intellectual property rights are going to keep anybody in business if their products are not selling. By closing a system down will only hurt its success in the long run. History has shown this many times. Better and more open systems will emerge.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. Isn't a shame that Hasselblad and Imacon merged–saving Hasselblad from being the next medium-format camera maker to go out of business.

The three camera makers that managed to survive (Hasselblad, Rollei and Mamiya) should all be dragged into court, forced to follow your business plan, forced to sell cameras that lose money, forced to stay in the generic camera body market (so that Phase One and others can catch a free ride on any camera that they choose, at no cost to them–but at a loss to the camera maker), forced to keep doing what caused the death of their former competitiors and nearly drove the remaining three out of business as well.

Yes. Thats sounds like by far the wisest and fairest plan. But, what camera are you going to use when they are all out of business?
Logged
Dustbak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2359


« Reply #51 on: November 25, 2007, 11:54:12 AM »
ReplyReply

You are for some reason assuming that keeping an open system, a system where you let others develop based on pre-defined standards, will always lead to bankruptcy.  This has never been proven by anyone, on the contrary more than one party has become very big because of widespread usage that way.

The way you put it, seems to be; close your system, make everything proprietary or go bust.

A fairly short-sighted vision.

There is a reason the EU is fairly anxious for developments like this. It is not only protection for a vendor but acts like this eventually lead to lesser incentive to develop and innovation besides the much more often heard hindering of competition.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 11:55:59 AM by Dustbak » Logged
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #52 on: November 25, 2007, 03:59:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You are for some reason assuming that keeping an open system, a system where you let others develop based on pre-defined standards, will always lead to bankruptcy.  This has never been proven by anyone, on the contrary more than one party has become very big because of widespread usage that way.

The way you put it, seems to be; close your system, make everything proprietary or go bust.

A fairly short-sighted vision.

There is a reason the EU is fairly anxious for developments like this. It is not only protection for a vendor but acts like this eventually lead to lesser incentive to develop and innovation besides the much more often heard hindering of competition.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
On the contrary, I'm saying that not all markets function or develop in the same way. Financial and market forces, along with technology developments, will dictate what allows a company (or entire market segments) to survive or remain profitable. There is not a single path that companies and products must follow, but multiple paths.

The way that the medium-format camera market has developed, over the last several years, came close to forcing all of the camera makers out of business. Three managed to hang on despite the very severe financial loses they suffered. The inability for any company to make a profit selling generic medium-format cameras is clear, undeniable and self evident. This is why they are all now tied to support from the profits of digital backs. This is not the result of any one company's actions, but the consequence of changes that effected the entire medium-format market during the transition from film to digital.

How did the medium-format market get to this point? Why did the medium-format camera business become unprofitable and unsustainable? Every market has a balance point that requires a certain volume to break even and be sustainable. That volume does not exist, and has not existed for some years, in the medium-format camera market. During the transition from film to digital,  MF camera makers continued with their traditional business model of making cameras and lenses, absent any digital capture device. During this transition, digital back makers were like hitchhikers–catching a free ride on whatever camera vehicle was available, without paying for the gas, the vehicle cost, tires, maintenance, etc.. They rode along for free until the vehicle ran out of gas and crashed on the side of the road–then hopped on board remaining available camera body vehicles until they ran out of money and fuel to continue. The financial condition, of the few vehicles left to ride on, made this no longer a sustainable plan for anyone.

In order to survive, refuel, change the tires and maintain the engine–Hasselblad merged with Imacon. What had been a freeloading passenger, started to pay for the cost of the vehicle and took the driver's seat. They provided a map that put the combined company on the right road–one that was profitable. The profits were invested in upgrading the ride (DAC automatic lens corrections, GPS, a better display, better viewfinder, a complete software overhaul, pattern detection moire removal, integrated camera/back controls, etc,). They decided to withdraw from the segment of the market that almost caused their demise, that was costing more money than it brought in, that diverted limited financial and production resources away from developing integrated technology products to compete with rapidly increasing capabilities from the integrated systems that Nikon and Canon are developing–and chose a no-more-hitchhikers path.

Jenoptik (Sinar) and Leaf decided, for the present and near term, to share a taxi. In the future, one of them could make an offer to buy the entire taxi business. Time will tell.

Phase One (whose CEO predicted in 2005 that Hasselblad and Contax would continue to be available to give them free rides into the future, while other camera platforms perhaps faded away [a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/video_journal/vj13-phase-ceo.shtml]See Link[/url]) protested these logical changes in the market on moral and philosophical grounds (as have a portion of the consumers of these products) as if they were unaware of the financial issues involved and held on to their profits and purse strings as long as possible. Finally,realizing the free rides were over, they decided to invest some of their profits in the last vehicle available, Mamiya, to help drag them out of the financial ditch in which they have been stuck. How that will develop in the long term also remains to be seen.

People are free to tear their hair, wring their hands and scream as loudly as they like about "open", "closed", integration, common standards, proprietary functionality and more. But freedom to make choices and decisions in a market is not always limited to consumers only and denied to manufacturers that need to have free choice in deciding what products best insure their ability to survive, advance technologically and profit in the years ahead. People can take all of the rigid moral and philosophical positions they like, but it will not change the financial or market realities that exist.

The reality is that manufacturers are looking for return on investment and technological advantages in the market that aid their competitive position and long term survival. Whether that is achieved by designing products that are proprietary and integrated or by making component parts based on a common standard is based on financial, technological and market considerations–not moral and philosophical grounds.

I think that the "short-sighted vision" is to deny consumers, manufacturers and the market place the freedom to choose whether they want to invest in proprietary integrated solutions or mix-and-match component solutions. Both approaches will have merits, advantages and disadvantages. Why a manufacturer should be demonized for choosing the single-source integrated product path and offering consumers that as an alternative choice to mix-and-match solutions from multiple sources defies logic to me. How does denying consumers integrated solutions or coercing manufacturers to produce products they consider no longer sustainable provide a benefit to anyone?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 08:16:18 PM by TechTalk » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2205


WWW
« Reply #53 on: November 25, 2007, 04:36:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
market forces,
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155892\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

A very eloquent argument but I would question would users not just pay for the body they wanted even if the price had to be hiked to make the product profitable

Alpa for example does this

I know they may not be a great example because thier product is just simple enginerring (done well)

Come to think of it I would be very happy with a mirror ALPA, stuff the AE, AF, TTL flash etc - it doesnt work anyway on the current generation of electronic bodies

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #54 on: November 25, 2007, 05:11:26 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
A very eloquent argument but I would question would users not just pay for the body they wanted even if the price had to be hiked to make the product profitable

Alpa for example does this

I know they may not be a great example because thier product is just simple enginerring (done well)

Come to think of it I would be very happy with a mirror ALPA, stuff the AE, AF, TTL flash etc - it doesnt work anyway on the current generation of electronic bodies

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Simply raising the price, to make an unprofitable product market a profitable one, works only if the price increase does not further reduce the volume of that market. At some point, the market for any product can reach a volume that is so low there is no longer a balance of price and volume that can achieve profitabilty, break even or sustainability. In this case the market either ceases to exist or is supported and subsidized by profits from other products to which it is connected. This is where the medium-format camera market is today and where it has been headed for some years.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2205


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 25, 2007, 05:35:00 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Simply raising the price, to make an unprofitable product market a profitable one, works only if the price increase does not further reduce the volume of that market. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Quite true.

My own experience of buying an H1 is that I wanted decent AF and leaf shutters - I wanted out of my mamiya daylight flash shooting hell

I cant even remember asking the price

If I was price sensitive I would have a D80   and do

But with a climate where some products are subsidised it makes sense that maybe they all need to be

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #56 on: November 25, 2007, 06:45:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
But with a climate where some products are subsidised it makes sense that maybe they all need to be

S
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The only products that need to be subsidized are ones that are not financially viable on their own, like medium-format cameras. Of the several makes and models that are or were (many didn't survive) on the market, none managed to do anything other than lose vast amounts of money for years.
Logged
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #57 on: November 25, 2007, 09:02:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
What's even the point of keeping a system closed? This is the stupidest thing for me. For example Linux would never have succeeded if it had been closed. All other UNIX systems are pretty much dead now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155711\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All other UNIX systems are not "pretty much dead now". Apple's OS X is a UNIX system that is enjoying great success. Yes, it is also a closed proprietary system that only works with computers made by Apple, but they are quite profitable and successful. In fact, their computer sales are growing at more than twice the industry average. It seems when offered a choice, some segements of the market, and some consumers, prefer a proprietary single-source computer and operating system. Some do not. There is room in the market for both options–and having both options extends consumer choices by offering different system solutions with each having unique advantages.
Logged
Graham Mitchell
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2282



WWW
« Reply #58 on: November 25, 2007, 09:08:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
All other UNIX systems are not "pretty much dead now". Apple's OS X is a UNIX system that is enjoying great success. Yes, it is also a closed proprietary system that only works with computers made by Apple, but they are quite profitable and successful.

Actually, OSX runs on PCs too so it's the most open OS they have ever had.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
Logged

Graham Mitchell - www.graham-mitchell.com
TechTalk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 295


« Reply #59 on: November 25, 2007, 09:22:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Actually, OSX runs on PCs too so it's the most open OS they have ever had.
http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It is an option for the adventurous with time on their hands. Since it involves getting the OS to  operate with some hardware and protocols that are not designed into the system, it may involve time consuming work arounds, installations, terminal command line efforts and still may or may not fully function or may not boot at all. It isn't really gathering much interest among users.  [a href=\"http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Technical_FAQ]x86 Technical FAQ Link[/url]
« Last Edit: November 25, 2007, 11:06:20 PM by TechTalk » Logged
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad