Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Hasselblad in trouble?  (Read 7738 times)
iluvmycam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 353


WWW
« Reply #20 on: May 12, 2014, 06:00:27 PM »
ReplyReply

These goofy cams Hassy came out with are made by camera fondlers and marketed to camera fondlers.

Leica perfected what is needed in a good street cam eons ago. Although it looks like Leica is headed off-track with some of its new offerings.
Logged
BobDavid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1102


« Reply #21 on: May 12, 2014, 06:35:56 PM »
ReplyReply

...survival of the fittest. If Hasselblad sinks, so be it. I will say that in many situations, a 36MP 35mm CMOS matches the capabilities of a 40 MP 36 X 48 CCD, while in many instances a CMOS lags behind.

The Nikon 14-24mm is a miracle of science. One of the best, if not the best, ultra wide angle lenses available. A Digitar 72mm mounted onto a pancake camera with a mulit-shot back provides the best repro files I've seen--micro contrast, sharpness, color accuracy, etc. The Olympus EM1 with fast primes is the best walk around camera I've used.

What it all boils down to is whether or not a piece of equipment or a system pays the bills and justifies its cost. Otherwise, any of the above items, excepting the Oly, are tools for pros or hobbyists with disposable income.

I am not sure $35K cameras have a bright future. Apple's first GUI computer, Lisa, cost $10K--it failed to find a market. Mainframe computers are not as common today as they were 20 years ago. As time marches on Moore's law proves itself again and again.
Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 13, 2014, 04:33:53 AM »
ReplyReply



I dislike these type of rumors.  It flies in the face of journalistic standards, where multiple sources are verified before publishing.

This type of rumor is hurtful and honestly who would like this type of comment directed towards them or their business?

There is not a single brand made that I haven't heard a negative rumor, sometimes the guy behind the camera counter, sometimes on the web, but most of those rumors were wrong.

I've heard Canon medium format rumors for 8 years.

I think we all tend to forget that behind a brand name are the people that work.     It's not the brand, or the venture capitalists that concern me, but it is the human capital that gets damaged when these rumors grow.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion,but it's just that . . . an opinion.  

I have my own opinion about equipment and if I honestly reflect back, more than 1/2 of my views change with time.  

This section of the forum has developed a strange tone.  About 1/3 of the participants complain mightily about the cost of specialty cameras, though most of the same people haven't purchased, or used  one in 5 or more years, some never.

I don't get it, because buying any camera is an elective.  No client, no person I know forces anyone into purchasing one brand, or format.

The advanced amateur or professional uses what they think is best and I've never heard of anyone buying a camera with the thought it would be worse that what they currently use, or a wasteful purchase.

IMO

BC



But if it wasn't for rumours then all the half brained techno bloggers would have nothing to write about, or even worse, that might have to resort to addressing themselves to issues of real life rather than preening themselves in front of an adoring, and totally imaginary audience.
Logged

bpepz
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 204


« Reply #23 on: May 13, 2014, 08:40:32 AM »
ReplyReply

...survival of the fittest. If Hasselblad sinks, so be it. I will say that in many situations, a 36MP 35mm CMOS matches the capabilities of a 40 MP 36 X 48 CCD, while in many instances a CMOS lags behind.

The Nikon 14-24mm is a miracle of science. One of the best, if not the best, ultra wide angle lenses available. A Digitar 72mm mounted onto a pancake camera with a mulit-shot back provides the best repro files I've seen--micro contrast, sharpness, color accuracy, etc. The Olympus EM1 with fast primes is the best walk around camera I've used.

What it all boils down to is whether or not a piece of equipment or a system pays the bills and justifies its cost. Otherwise, any of the above items, excepting the Oly, are tools for pros or hobbyists with disposable income.

I am not sure $35K cameras have a bright future. Apple's first GUI computer, Lisa, cost $10K--it failed to find a market. Mainframe computers are not as common today as they were 20 years ago. As time marches on Moore's law proves itself again and again.


Gotta correct you there, the $300 Samyang 14mm 2.8 is even better then the Nikon, somehow. I don't know how they did it.
Logged
Ken R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553


WWW
« Reply #24 on: May 13, 2014, 12:21:08 PM »
ReplyReply

Gotta correct you there, the $300 Samyang 14mm 2.8 is even better then the Nikon, somehow. I don't know how they did it.

Thats bullcrud. I tested it with a Nikon D800E and the 14-24 and the Zeiss 15mm. The Samyang was only "better" in situations where you want to use f2.8 and do not want to do any distortion correction (which is absolutely severe on the Samyang). Hence, the Samyang is great for shooting stars at night wide open. It is also good for landscape applications where you do not mind the heavy distortion and can control the nasty flare.

The lowest distortion 14mm lenses I tested were the Canon 14mm L II and the Zeiss 15mm. The Zeiss is stunning. Basically no CA to speak of (which is high on the Canon) and also almost as much low distortion as the Canon (which had the lowest). The Nikon 14-24 @ 14mm was also superb.

So the Samyang was made good (sharpness) by just forgetting about correcting it for distortion. The flare can get very nasty too.

As it is usual in photography, if you want improvements in all aspects of image quality you have to pay a LOT more for it. Nothing new there.
Logged
Gel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 161


Excuse me while I bust a cap


« Reply #25 on: May 13, 2014, 01:08:14 PM »
ReplyReply

I hate wide angle, but love the Canon 14mm 2.8 II
Logged

Chris Giles Photography
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #26 on: May 13, 2014, 01:11:20 PM »
ReplyReply

But if it wasn't for rumours then all the half brained techno bloggers would have nothing to write about, or even worse, that might have to resort to addressing themselves to issues of real life rather than preening themselves in front of an adoring, and totally imaginary audience.

It's complicated. I used to be paid very good money to write a rumors column for a trade magazine. So I would go to a press conference or schedule an interview, and while I'd be having a quiet chat with this or that CEO, he'd call me by my name, feed me some info on a competitor, I'd confirm it with someone else, and then it would get run as a "rumor". Of course it would be about as related to unsourced information as a photograph of Kim Kardashian sitting in the first row of a movie première is a paparazzo unplanned image.

Another standard trick is that you have embargoed or off the record information, you feed it to a rumors site, and then suddenly the bare facts are public knowledge and you can run your detailed and carefully prepared long piece and scoop the competition. This latest tactic is a standard resource for mainstream journalists who want to run a story about a corrupt politician (they do exist), but don't have the balls to take the story public. An interesting variant is the leak by the cops to a rumors page, with an off the record  briefing to the mainstream press, allowing them to build the momentum to take down a "protected" criminal.

Edmund
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 01:19:40 PM by eronald » Logged
Justinr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1042


WWW
« Reply #27 on: May 13, 2014, 02:21:23 PM »
ReplyReply

It's complicated. I used to be paid very good money to write a rumors column for a trade magazine. So I would go to a press conference or schedule an interview, and while I'd be having a quiet chat with this or that CEO, he'd call me by my name, feed me some info on a competitor, I'd confirm it with someone else, and then it would get run as a "rumor". Of course it would be about as related to unsourced information as a photograph of Kim Kardashian sitting in the first row of a movie première is a paparazzo unplanned image.

Another standard trick is that you have embargoed or off the record information, you feed it to a rumors site, and then suddenly the bare facts are public knowledge and you can run your detailed and carefully prepared long piece and scoop the competition. This latest tactic is a standard resource for mainstream journalists who want to run a story about a corrupt politician (they do exist), but don't have the balls to take the story public. An interesting variant is the leak by the cops to a rumors page, with an off the record  briefing to the mainstream press, allowing them to build the momentum to take down a "protected" criminal.

Edmund

Point taken and I was probably being a bit simplistic, I even write for a magazine or two myself but they are of the non boat rocking type that have no wish to stem their advertising revenue stream. Yet I think there is a difference between magazines and web blogs with the former carrying some authority if only because if it was not read then it wouldn't exist. Any of us can set up a blog for peanuts and pontificate to the world without any form of peer review (be it the editor or market) and it is a great tonic for the ego, but they carry little weight and are so numerous as to be meaningless.

I know all this because I am as guilty as the next man! -Latest blog re travel.

  Smiley

 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 02:30:07 PM by Justinr » Logged

Joe Towner
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


« Reply #28 on: May 13, 2014, 07:26:24 PM »
ReplyReply

It's really interesting to see how many people expect the world for $2.59.  Before the 33x44 50mp Sony sensor, dmf was just expensive.  Now everyone expects 35mm pricing.  Watching the comments on a few other blogs, people have unreal expectations.  Hasselblad has done a horrible job marketing the H system.  PhaseOne did their IQ260 World Tour last year, and from what I saw, it got a fairly good turn out for folks.  Locally, Glazers did a presentation with John Keatley on the H5 and it sold a couple of kits.  The interest is out there, but I don't see Hasselblad doing what it needs to in order to get sales. 

In some ways, I would like the H4x to be cheaper, sold in a kit with a 120 back and the 80mm lens.  But then since Hasselblad doesn't make an open system digital back to offer as a 'next step', they'd need to.
Logged
david distefano
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 125


« Reply #29 on: May 13, 2014, 07:52:50 PM »
ReplyReply

It's really interesting to see how many people expect the world for $2.59.  Before the 33x44 50mp Sony sensor, dmf was just expensive.  Now everyone expects 35mm pricing.  Watching the comments on a few other blogs, people have unreal expectations.  Hasselblad has done a horrible job marketing the H system.  PhaseOne did their IQ260 World Tour last year, and from what I saw, it got a fairly good turn out for folks.  Locally, Glazers did a presentation with John Keatley on the H5 and it sold a couple of kits.  The interest is out there, but I don't see Hasselblad doing what it needs to in order to get sales. 

In some ways, I would like the H4x to be cheaper, sold in a kit with a 120 back and the 80mm lens.  But then since Hasselblad doesn't make an open system digital back to offer as a 'next step', they'd need to.

nobody is asking for a db for 2.49. what people are asking for is db that really reflects the cost of manufacturing as pentax has done. pentax showed that a well made body with a 50 mp sensor has no reason to sell in the $30k price range. hasselblad and phase one, with their 50 mp cmos sensor which is the same as the pentax, cannot show why their iteration should cost 3 times the price of the pentax. the sensor is 1.5 times the surface area of the nikon and sony 36mp sensors. so lets for the sake of argument triple the sensor cost and the electronics and body over the 2 36mp dslr's. what a shock, we have the pentax 645z camera. if hasselblad was smart they would compete with the pentax price point.
Logged
Paul2660
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2015


WWW
« Reply #30 on: May 13, 2014, 10:06:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Thats bullcrud. I tested it with a Nikon D800E and the 14-24 and the Zeiss 15mm. The Samyang was only "better" in situations where you want to use f2.8 and do not want to do any distortion correction (which is absolutely severe on the Samyang). Hence, the Samyang is great for shooting stars at night wide open. It is also good for landscape applications where you do not mind the heavy distortion and can control the nasty flare.

The lowest distortion 14mm lenses I tested were the Canon 14mm L II and the Zeiss 15mm. The Zeiss is stunning. Basically no CA to speak of (which is high on the Canon) and also almost as much low distortion as the Canon (which had the lowest). The Nikon 14-24 @ 14mm was also superb.

So the Samyang was made good (sharpness) by just forgetting about correcting it for distortion. The flare can get very nasty too.

As it is usual in photography, if you want improvements in all aspects of image quality you have to pay a LOT more for it. Nothing new there.

Based on my usage, 2 years with the 14-24 on a D800E, it still amazes me how good the 14-24 can be.  At night, even F2.8 can work unless you are after foregrounds closer than around 12 feet.  Coma aberration is non-existent especially @ F2.8, which is where I want it to shoot night shots mainly the Milky Way or Star Freezes.  I have a couple of friends that shoot with me, both use Canon and both have the Samyang, Rokinon, Bower 14mm F 2.8 and I have to agree for the price it's a very good lens.  The images I have seen at 20MP from 6D's still show considerable corner softness wide open and coma aberration (butterfly wings on stars towards the edge). 

Flare can be a killer on both, but I would give the considerable edge to the Samyang here.  The 14-24, seems to look for flare and when it gets it, the shot is ruined.  14-24 flare especially at night is totally destructive.  You have to watch the moon movement to make sure the lens doesn't pick up any moon and start to flare during a night stack shoot. 

Boy this got off track from the OP.

Paul
Logged

Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
Photography > http://photosofarkansas.com
Blog> http://paulcaldwellphotography.com
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8023


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 13, 2014, 11:02:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

We had the Pentax 645D for a long time, priced just a little bit above Nikon D4 and Canon DX. Now the 645Z is almost here with an even lower price tag. The old 645D was a very good camera and the 645Z will also be avery good camera.

It is very obvious that the sensor cannot be very expensive if it is offered for around 8K with a complete camera. Keep in mind that Pentax still with all certainty makes a profit. So it is quite probable that the sensor cannot cost more than 2k$. Also most of the R&D has done by Sony.

So very clearly MFD prices are not motivated by cost of technology. It is in a sense similar to the Hasselbling products, Hasselblad takes perfectly good Sony cameras (NEX 7, RX100 and Alpha 99) add some cosmetic changes and sellt at 3-7 times the original Sony price. Better camera?

Now, there is an other side of the coin. A company like Hasselblad or Phase One need to feed a lot of people.

They could, with certainty, produce at much lower prices and sales would be much higher at those prices. But, to do that they would need to expand production, which would be very expensive. Without expanding production they cannot make ends meet with much lower prices.

Very obviously, a digital back could be made for as little as 4-5K. A digital back is essentially just a sensor mounted into a metal box, a display on the back and some electronics to integrate with the different MF systems. So anyone could make a low price MFD, and sell a lot of them, but the only backs we can buy come from Phase One (including Leaf and Mamiya) or Hasselblad. I don't know if there are still Sinar backs and backs from Jenoptik. It may be that MFD is not lucrative enough for competition to develop.

Best regards
Erik

It's really interesting to see how many people expect the world for $2.59.  Before the 33x44 50mp Sony sensor, dmf was just expensive.  Now everyone expects 35mm pricing.  Watching the comments on a few other blogs, people have unreal expectations.  Hasselblad has done a horrible job marketing the H system.  PhaseOne did their IQ260 World Tour last year, and from what I saw, it got a fairly good turn out for folks.  Locally, Glazers did a presentation with John Keatley on the H5 and it sold a couple of kits.  The interest is out there, but I don't see Hasselblad doing what it needs to in order to get sales.  

In some ways, I would like the H4x to be cheaper, sold in a kit with a 120 back and the 80mm lens.  But then since Hasselblad doesn't make an open system digital back to offer as a 'next step', they'd need to.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2014, 11:49:39 PM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



WWW
« Reply #32 on: May 14, 2014, 01:55:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The complete lack of understanding of how businesses work, shown in some posts here is astounding.

Has any of you taken a look at Ricoh's financials? Cameras are bundled under "Other". It is such an insignificant business that they can afford to take parts form existing DSLRs, slap on an outsourced sensor and sell it below cost without affecting their bottomline even a little bit.

Companies like Phase and Hasselblad have ONE main revenue stream. Selling cameras. They aren't even remotely capable of engaging in similar sales tactics.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
BobShaw
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 14, 2014, 03:39:20 AM »
ReplyReply

I remember being told not to buy Apple shares when they were $17 because they were in financial trouble. Those guys knew nothing also.
Are there any companies that aren't in financial trouble? Consumers may buy new cameras every year but I certainly don't.

I am only recently getting into Hasselblad and also use Canon. Even though the Blad is 8 years old the images are incredible compared to 35mm.
I am looking forward to further upgrades as everyone races to sell their kit.
Logged

Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Blog - http://AspirationImages.com/blog
Photography, Custom Framing and Printing, Sydney Australia
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4260



« Reply #34 on: May 14, 2014, 03:55:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Synn,

 Take a breath. Close your eyes.
 You were having a bad day. Happens to all of us. Hope you feel calmer now.
 You do make an interesting point: Ricoh have a degree of freedom because for some reason their corporate structure allows them to run the camera division as a hobby.
 But I have been told that Kyocera was doing the same, their president was a photo fan so he indulged in a photo hobby called Contax which folded when he died.
 Maybe some successful business people enjoy photography as a hobby.
 
Edmund

The complete lack of understanding of how businesses work, shown in some posts here is astounding.

Has any of you taken a look at Ricoh's financials? Cameras are bundled under "Other". It is such an insignificant business that they can afford to take parts form existing DSLRs, slap on an outsourced sensor and sell it below cost without affecting their bottomline even a little bit.

Companies like Phase and Hasselblad have ONE main revenue stream. Selling cameras. They aren't even remotely capable of engaging in similar sales tactics.
Logged
synn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 655



WWW
« Reply #35 on: May 14, 2014, 06:49:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Synn,

 Take a breath. Close your eyes.
 You were having a bad day. Happens to all of us. Hope you feel calmer now.
 You do make an interesting point: Ricoh have a degree of freedom because for some reason their corporate structure allows them to run the camera division as a hobby.
 But I have been told that Kyocera was doing the same, their president was a photo fan so he indulged in a photo hobby called Contax which folded when he died.
 Maybe some successful business people enjoy photography as a hobby.
 
Edmund


I am having a wonderful day, thank you. My post was factual and a warm summer's day compared to the usual grumpy posts that you make.

If you can spare the personal advise and stick to only the latter part of your post, which is factual and valid, that would be wonderful.
Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8387



WWW
« Reply #36 on: May 14, 2014, 07:38:34 AM »
ReplyReply

The complete lack of understanding of how businesses work, shown in some posts here is astounding.

Has any of you taken a look at Ricoh's financials? Cameras are bundled under "Other". It is such an insignificant business that they can afford to take parts form existing DSLRs, slap on an outsourced sensor and sell it below cost without affecting their bottomline even a little bit.

Companies like Phase and Hasselblad have ONE main revenue stream. Selling cameras. They aren't even remotely capable of engaging in similar sales tactics.

Knowing Japanese companies, it is certain that Ricoh is making a profit from every body they sell. The actual manufacturing cost of a 645z, including sensor and all, must not be much higher than 2,500 US$.

I'd be surprised if the sensor cost more than 1,000 US$ in large quantities.

So yes, Ricoh can achieve this thanks to the smart leveraging of their existing IP assets, but why as a photographer would I have to be happy to pay 4 times more to P1/Hassy simply because they decided not to deploy a similarly smart strategy?

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

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

Posts: 655



WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 14, 2014, 08:41:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Knowing Japanese companies

Sony sold the Playstation 1, 2 and 3 (for a few years) at a loss, in case you didn't know.


As a photographer, you are free to choose whatever tool that you feel is worth your money, whatever the business model of the company is.
That being the case, the medium format manufacturers (Phase, at least) does seem to have a sustainable business model with the prices they charge, so it's quite clear that a segment of the market considers their solutions to be worth the money.

For example, everything from a $900 Hamilton to a $7,000 TAG Heuer uses the same $120 ETA Valjoux movement. Yet they all have their customer base.

We are mixing two different arguments here, frankly. Why companies do business like they do and why customers choose what they want to choose are two separate things. Combining them into the same discussion will lead us nowhere.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 09:42:48 AM by synn » Logged

my portfolio: www.sandeepmurali.com
gazwas
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 385



« Reply #38 on: May 14, 2014, 12:27:07 PM »
ReplyReply

The complete lack of understanding of how businesses work, shown in some posts here is astounding.

Has any of you taken a look at Ricoh's financials? Cameras are bundled under "Other". It is such an insignificant business that they can afford to take parts form existing DSLRs, slap on an outsourced sensor and sell it below cost without affecting their bottomline even a little bit.

Companies like Phase and Hasselblad have ONE main revenue stream. Selling cameras. They aren't even remotely capable of engaging in similar sales tactics.

It's like the Women's Institute in here - people on their soap box spouting business advice to HB based on a totally fictional rumour that has no factual basis other than he said, she said.

Regurgitating the same old unsubstantiated rubbish is not great for any party, especially HB. I for one would shudder at the thought of a Phase One only MF world as IMO that would spell disaster for the format given P1 recent history. Employee owned company???

Let's just assume this rumour was started to drive traffic to some lonely bloggers site and we can all carry on, business as usual. I for one can't wait to see what HB has at Photokina this year.
Logged

trying to think of something meaningful........ Err?
jerome_m
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 676



« Reply #39 on: May 14, 2014, 02:42:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I find it amusing that people discuss here the end of the Hasselblad camera line on the basis of a simple rumour while the only fact we really know is that Phase One was sold to Silverfleet Capital 2 months agoRoll Eyes
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad