bForumb Magazine Cancelled bVictorb for Digital Announced

[fotografz]

Dirk, Contax IS a good ex&le. They did try, but were too late moving to the N system and didn't support it strongly enough.

However failure wasn't because it lacked backward compatibility, it was because the likes of Canon and Nikon had done it so much earlier there was no catching up.
The small cadre of Contax C/Y lovers are/were mostly advanced amateurs, and had considerable competition from Leica for those manual focus, fine optics lovers.

Again, none of these fine camera makers, and fine optic companies had any tradition in the advanced electronics necessary to survive in the digital age. Hasselblad itself didn't offer earlier digital solutions because they didn't have any. Other companies with a electronic business base either did have the solutions, or had the vast resources to make it happen (i.e., Kodak, Canon).

When digital back makers started offered 645 solutions, and the gurus of quality touted it as THE answer, the handwriting was on the wall for the future of MF. If Hasselblad had instead offered a solution for the traditional user, they would no longer exist. They would have been competing with Imacon, Leaf, Phase One and others who specialize in that end of the market.

 

[john_r_smith]

Something occurs to me here, which no-one has yet mentioned -

All this actually happened once before, when Victor WAS in charge of the company. Back in 1957, Hasselblad introduced the 500C, and overnight, all the poor devils who had bought heavily into the 1600F and 1000F system were left out in the cold. Film magazines from the F series would not work on the new camera, and neither would any of the old series lenses. About the only thing you could re-use on a 500C was the viewfinder. Were there cries of anguish then, I wonder? And as we all know, Hasselblad not only survived, but moved on into its Golden Era.

John

 

[dirk]

Marc A. Williams (Fotografz) wrote on December 04:

' 2006 - 10:47 am,for their old loyal FD customers when the EOS system was introduced.'

This comparison is not fair. At that time, except for Nikon, all majour companies switched lens mount because of introduction of AF (Minolta, Canon etc.)

Marc A. Williams (Fotografz) wrote on December 04:

' 2006 - 11:16 am,Dirk, Contax IS a good ex&le. They did try, but were too late moving to the N system and didn't support it strongly enough. '

I agree. Contax' mistake was also to hesitate to bring a cheap 6MP DSLR for the Contax masses at that time for around 2000 EUR. Plus the lack of more lenses plus the lack of Marketing & interaction with the users...

Hasselblad is very similar in this respect. They could have done this earlier also for the V system. Pick a good digital MF company, make a contract and sell the stuff with no margin for the first year to gain market share. After that more expensive backs with good margin, and at the same time (if it has to be) the H System.

It is always easier to sell to existing customers additional (compatible) stuff than to new stuff to new customers. Hasselbald needs volume IMHO.

It would be better to bring out a kind of EOS 300D as a Hasselblad, before others are doing it. I am curious how the prices will be for the new Sinar/ Francke & Heidecke stuff...

Hasselblad thinks this is no competition. Same as Contax thought, Canon or any kind of digital P&S is no competition

 

[qnu]

Marc,

Canon is mentioned because that's where all the money goes that is not going to Imablad c.s.
That Canon would be another ex&le of lack of backward compatibility makes Imablad look even worse: people still prefer Canon to Imablad.

And it points to where the problem lies.
Your, and other people's, H2D did cost a lot of money. Canons are dirt cheap in comparison.
You can't use that wide angle lens on your brand new H2D. So please spend that kind of money again (and who are you going to sell that crippled H2D to? So it's a 100% reinvestment), or do without.
Should you ever need to do that with Canon, it will not be fun still, but it doesn't even come close in $s nor in 'pain and agony'.

You're quite right, John. The 1000-series to 500-series transition must indeed have been a blow to 1000-series users. So Hasselblad painstakingly avoided doing such a thing again ever since.
So why a lens should not fit last year's body while all the rest of them do, then does indeed mark a return to a 'scr&w you' attitude towards customers.
That's what this is all about.

And, Marc, you're not suggesting that this selective lack of backward compatibility Imablad is displaying is in fact a giant leap towards a new (Maybe. we'll soon see whether they will continue this 'policy') and better future?

They are just snubbing their last-year's customers. There's no more to it than that.

Yes, you can of course use all of your V-System lenses on your H2D. But that's no help. Where is that 28 mm V-System lens? What do you you when you need a wide angle lens? Imablad's answer: buy a new camera. Again.

But i'm really curious to find out who the few are that think Canon is not the competition MF digital is facing!
Canon is indeed raking in the money that was previously tied up in the MF segment. No doubt about it.
That they are not equal is a given. Just like the fact that for the past 5-10 years already, nobody seems to care about that at all.
That's what helped the digido (both MF digital and smaller digital alike) overwhelm traditional film in the first place.
Gadgetism/Consumerism has taken posession of the minds of many, and not just in photography. Alas!

Oh and yes: Hasselblad was a camera company.
There however is a very good reason why Shriro made a digital back maker part of that camera company. And a very good decision that was indeed.
That decision made good where some silly investors seriously spoiled Hasselblad's then still bright future. That "camera company" did offer digital solutions well before. They had an Electronic Imaging division (a subsidiary comany even) before most of the now well-known players in the field (including Imacon) were around.
Until the then new owners (those capital venturists) in their infinite wisdom decided there was no money in digital photography.

Now, Marc, if Hasselblad had offered an affordable (!) digital solution to existing users when they first could, they would have been a hit, leaving companies like Imacon, Leaf, etc. whiping the dust from their eyes.

There was a market back then already.
And that market, Marc, was indeed asking for that, which you now avoid to addresse: "affordable [!] ways to lift Hasselblad into the digital age". Proofs of concept that only NASA could afford were all fine, but helped nobody.
And even today the "affordable" bit is still woefully lacking. Hence the hard times Imablad and their fellow "camera companies" are going through.

Anyway. You're right Marc. There is no need to get into a huff over this.
Just as there is no need to "faire bonne mine à mauvais jeu".
After all, we can all just spend our money on Canons, can't we?

 

[fotografz]

I don't agree that it was an unfair correlation Dirk.

Hasselblad not only had to go digital, it had to do the same thing as as the 35mm SLRs, go AF ... and data bus AF at that.

The key is total system integration just like they did in the past with their modular mechanical cameras ... only considerably more complex.

BTW, loyality is rewarded. The Company offers discounts to current owners. They also have an upgrade path open to anyone with a current camera just like other back makers. My H2D/39 is being upgraded to a H3D, and it's not all that expensive considering that the viewfinder will be new as well as some of the internal aspects of the camera, and how it communicates with the back. Even the badging is replaced. Meanwhile they gave me another camera to use.

In the end, it's not keeping up that's the issue, it's the price of entry that kills you.

But as I said, all this grousing, when there have been relatively affordable backs on the market for many years ... especially now when there are used ones to be had for the same price of that the Contax ND body was. So what's the driving need for it to be a Hasselblad back? I don't get what the problem is. None of these back makers make the sensors, and that's where the money goes ... but all of the major ones have one thing in common ... the all work on a Hasselblad 500 series mechanical camera.

 

[fotografz]

Well QG, it didn't happen the way you think it should have. So ....?

As I said above, I don't have to re-invest completely, I have to upgrade the camera IF I want to take advantage of the 28mm, at a cost less than a prosumer Canon. Do I like it? Not exactly. Do I understand why? Yes I do.

Canon WAS the competition when Hasselblad was all mechanical. Adding a reasonably priced digital back to a 503CW would not have altered that one bit. For ex&le, wedding and event work was already going AF 35mm film, with the arrival of the 35mm digital camera, the future was crystal clear for that business ... because you could use the DSLR for both candids and posed work and no longert needed a MF camera at all.

The Canon 5D does it all now for a hugh majority of this business, for under $3,000. There are only a handfull of us still using a Hasselblad V camera for weddings, and frankly, the client doesn't give a wit that I do use it ... as long as I scan the keeprs and give them a DVD.

IMO, those that see Canon as the competition for these mega backs, don't understand what they are used for.

 

[goofybird]

Just to throw in my 2 cents worth - I have a different perspective - I am a hobbiest and it is only recently that I have felt comfortable buying Hasselblad equipment (used). All of my equipment is probably more than 20 years old, but very impressive. The most impressive part is that it is all modular - and that cameras/lenses as old as mine work as well as they do. Also that they can use newer components (and newer components can use them).

The biggest problem with digital (electronic) is that no one knows what it will look like next year, it is changing so quickly. I wish that Hasselblad could come up with a modular system for digital, but since no one knows what it will look like next year (need more connectors/etc), it is almost impossible.

I am impressed that there is a digital back for my 20+ year old camera (although I will wait years before getting one, as the price is well outside my range). I don't believe that any other manufacturer has that.

Electronics is a new world - what is the greatest thing today (and outrageously expensive) is commonplace (and cheap) tomorrow. Just look at computers - 20 years ago, Cray dominated the high-performance computing market and their products were over $1,000,000. Today no one makes anything that even resembles a Cray and no one wants one. I can buy a PC for under $1000 that will outperform that old Cray.

I hope that Hasselblad can come up with a modular digatal system that will "last" as long as the V-series, but with the rapid market advances and changes, I am not sure that it is even be possible.

Electronics (and cameras are electronics today) have a very short life in todays marketplace and they become cheaper with time. No one saves old electronics (anyone here got a PC from 10 years ago? - probably not).

Times are changing - we all have to change or be left behind....

Ted

 

[qnu]

So, Marc, you think it didn't happen the way i think it should have...?

I'm sure that the fact that you do have to reinvest at all (even when it's not completely, and only "IF" you want to...

) is already enough to confidently say that it didn't go the way it should have by anybody's standard (even Imablad's).
I'm confident too (

) that it did nothing to stop the dwindling of Hasselblad's number of customers. Quite the contrary. (Hence the even-not-by-Imablad's-standards bit. Unless, of course they meant to scare customers away.)

Canon still IS the competition. Canon "does it all" for less than 1/10th of what you spent. And not just for wedding photographers.
That doesn't change just because you decided to spend more... (about which, by the way, the client "doesn't give a wit"

How's that for a business model, Bruce?)

 

[gjames52]

be left behind.... >

Yes, and hopefully with the last of the good stuff.

... especially now when there are used ones to be had for the same price of that the Contax ND body was. So what's the driving need for it to be a Hasselblad back? >

The price here in LA for a Contax ND was $10,000.

I do like my N bodies and lenses and I had hoped that Contax had corrected the problems and stayed in business.

Canon still IS the competition. Canon "does it all" for less than 1/10th of what you spent. And not just for wedding photographers.>

Indeed, even a few years ago while shooting in the Tetons, and elsewhere with advanced amateurs and pros, when I would pull out my Hasselblad, most envied it, complemented it, even though they were using there new digital, and very expensive wonder Cannons, and Nikons.

About a month ago, at the nearby wetlands, just for the fun of it, I showed up with my 203FE and 250FE F4 with a 2X, (I know this is not for fast action bird shooting, but it can be done, nor is the image size remarkable.) The local shooters equipped with the latest high end Cannons, Nikons, with high-speed 600mm and 800mm lenses and shutters that sound like machine guns firing, actually touted the grandeur of their cameras. They did so on their own volition, as I had not said a word. One even stated that he no longer uses his Hasselblad. (but he did not want to sell it).

re-investment>

Return on investment is an issue when you are constantly purchasing the latest and greatest. I wonder how the old timers would have welcomed this transformation. After all, many of the great photographers made a living with the same equipment for many years, if not their entire careers.

It is time for some fun!


Gilbert

 

[fotografz]

"Canon still IS the competition. Canon "does it all" for less than 1/10th of what you spent. And not just for wedding photographers."

Q.G., perhaps you are getting out of your depth here with statements like that. Yes, the DSLR has made inroads on MF for some applications like weddings and other stuff like reportage (that had already gone 35mm film prior to digital), and now even Leica is no longer the top end photojournalists camera, Canon is. But it's been lifetimes since MF was in that game.

While the consuming public may not care if I use a MF camera, and a D5 will do the job, the opposite is true for commercial applications.

Other than lifestyle work (which also went 35mm film before digital appeared), a vast majority of commercial work is MF digital, or MF digital backs on a view camera. NO ONE will pay for MF film, processing and most of all scanning anymore ... and they want it yesterday, not tomorrow.

On this subject, I am on the other side of the fence ... as a Creative Director for an ad agency that buys huge amounts of photography for national clients...NONE of which is shot with a Canon, nor would our art directors, production people, or clients allow it.
In fact, not one photographer I've dealt with thinks a Canon is even remotely close to a MF digital back in delivering that image quality needed for a vast majority of commercial work.

I also have a small photo company on the side. The cost of my Hasselblad H gear is already paid for by commercail work, including the upgrade. For every job we do there is a digital capture fee and rental fee. Now, rather than handing over that portion of the over-all photography budget to a film company and lab ... I use it to pay for the gear.

So, while the Canon cost me 1/10th the price, I can't charge a digital capture fee in the wedding market ... so it was out of my pocket ... where the Hasselblad H2D/39 didn't cost me a penny, and in essence was FREE.

I get the work, because I have the gear required and the talent and knowhow to use it.
I also have a Canon 1DsMKII that I had hoped to use in the studio ... no dice, it failed on the very first job shooting jewelry ... couldn't handle the specular highlights. Back to the MF back.

Love film. Love my MF Hasselblad gear. Can't make a dime with it ... unless I put a MF digital back on it. The H camera is more versatile, faster, and is the future whether anyone likes it or not. Digital interface with lenses, bodies and sofware is where it's going, and it's going there at rocket sled speed.

 

[Andrewdyer]

Howdy All.
Generally I am a quiet, shy and retiring type...

... but I have to agree with Marc here.
As good as the Canons are, the MF backs are in a different league.
I also work in large international design companies, usually retouching the images to be used in the artwork,and then making the artwork. I rarely, almost never, receive a file from a Canon. It is always at least a 22MP file from a MF back or a MF tranny... more and more these days a digital file. This is what is wanted by directors like Marc and so that should be the case.
If big clients are paying big dollars for a photoshoot they want the best possible image.
Often this image will be used scaled down onto some packaging artwork, but also blown up large onto Point-of-sale and posters etc. You never know what they will want to use it for in the future... especially if the c&aign is a success.
There is also the mentality by some clients that if they went to the shoot (as they often do) and the photographer was using a Canon they would feel like they could have done the same thing themselves on their Canon 300D at home. Using a bigger camera in turn impresses the client.
Sad but true!

The point of all this waffling on is that Canon is not the competition for Medium Format digital. Medium format is, and will remain, the minority market of high end commercial photography and hobbyists with good taste and a good wallet. Comparing it to the Canons I think is a waste of time. Sure, Canon will sell more items but they are a different and larger niche.
To keep within the small MF niche, Hasselblad have to be innovative. I don't know if what they are doing now is the right answer for them to make more money to survive, it will probably take another couple of years before we see if there strategy will pay off. But you can't blame 'em for trying!
Regards
Andrew

 

[colin]

they would feel like they could have done the same thing themselves on their Canon 300D at home.

This reminds me of Alfred Eisenstaedt's comment when asked why he used a tripod for such a small camera(Leica).
He stated that if he didn't, then people would think that they too, could take the same pictures.

In photographic equipment appearances.........size matters!!

 

[simonpg]

I received my Victor magazine 2 days ago.

Colin, I was shocked to receive a letter from Hasselblad telling me of the demise of Forum, I enjoyed it greatly.

BUT, to my excitement a huge A3 format cardboard package arrived for me today - alas it was #1 edition of Victor - it looks stunning and seems to be printed on superb super gloss thick stock. It looks a treat on my coffee table.

And no one is getting to open it before me.... I hope th content includes stuff like that in Forum and not overly "sell" stuff material.

Anyway on first glance it seems to fit the image and positioning of Hasselblad.

 

[simonpg]

Marc - total agreement from me.

More importantly, if you see another 205FE being sacrificed for $1,500.00 again, PLEASE PLEASE email me with the dealer's phone number.... wow!! Lucky you.

 

[rcyoung]

> Sniff...sniff...I have not seen mine yet........

 

[dirk]

Marc A. Williams (Fotografz) wrote on December 04:

' 2006 - 8:32 pm,a MF digital back in delivering that image quality needed for a vast majority of commercial work. '

I understand this point, but is this enough volume for Hasselbald?

Can Hasselbald survive with a market niche of professionals for these kind of jobs?

I do not know it. But I guess in the past, Hasselbald had good earnings thanks to many hobby photographers and "wannabe professionals". These people do not need the MF quality, but they enjoy it nevertheless.

But for this target group, you need affordable equipment. They will save a long time for the lenses, but if the body is too expensive, they will choose canon et alii.

And I do believe that although those non-professionals buy only a few lenses and less often bodies, the number of these clients multiplied with product prices which they buy is by far more turnover for Hasselblad then the pro sales only on the other side.

IMHO it is like the automotive industry. You have to be able to sell many 15.000 Euro car to be able to afford to produce & offer a 100.000 Euro car. The masses bring the money in industries where R&D expenses are very high.

Same for Hasselblad. Digital bodies for around 3000-5000 Euro are needed to gain market share and to have economies of scale in lens production, sales & marketing expenses, dealer network etc.

I do not believe that the margin and the sales number are high enough, to survive with a short list of professionals who can afford the current price tags.

Just my 2 cents

 

[agripix]

Dirk:

Well stated, Dirk. Getting someone to buy a pre-owned, factory certified $18000 BMW is very often the only way to build brand loyalty - so that the same person will 'mature' with the brand and eventually become the new BMW buyer at the $80000 level.

I think that the Hasselblad shareholders will have to depend mainly on the pro market for almost all new sales, and not all of those potential pro buyers will continue in MF as Canon and Nikon etc turn the technical advancement screws.

Leica (another oldie but goodie) has managed to keep a more graduated product/price range, and they are talking now in their Fotografie magazine about the re-emergence in Europe of black and white film as an 'artists medium'.

Back on original topic now for a moment ... I await the 2nd issue of VICTOR. I hear it will be smaller so it will be postman friendly, and library friendly, and that like Leica, it will devote 40% to Digital, 40% to Analogue, and 20% to post exposure work - printing etc. I knew they would change their mind ... (joking).

Just curious and certainly off topic: if you EXPOSE film, do you SENSE with a Sensor??

Cheers!

 

[gjames52]

Same for Hasselblad. Digital bodies for around 3000-5000 Euro>

Dirk:

I agree with your premise of an entry level body, but $7,980.00 in the USA won't attract the masses either. The average Joe here $500.00 is a lot of money, especially today, with all the point and shoot digital wonders and camera telephones. As a reference most photo magazines here sell for about a $1.10 a month with a subscription.

Colin:

Just curious and certainly off topic: if you EXPOSE film, do you SENSE with a Sensor?? >

Only if I use my Light meter!

Regards:

Gilbert