Paul,
(If you have sent anything to my email addresse registered here, i'm afraid you will have to send it again. I got a message yesterday from the provider hosting that addresse that it is no longer valid. I have changed the registered addresse to one that is working just now.)
I do indeed not see why Victor Hasselblad would object to a copy of his system being made, especially considering that it was launched in a market in which very little spending money was going around (Hasselblads are, as we all know, very expensive).
And as mentioned, the few small but 'vital' differences between the original and copies ensured that users of the copies could use Hasselblad system parts, but not the other way round. Why did that happen?
And Hasselblad had given up the Salyut's original as unreliable years before (the 1000F was an almost complete redesign - as fas as the important functioning bits are concerned) and had been thinking about (and working on) replacing the improved version from the time they were fabricating the design for the original SWA.
(Remember too Hasselblad's ad c&aign directed against Bronica? (Whatever happened to Robert Monaghan? Anyone knows?)
They ridiculed the Bronica (another copy of Hasselblad's concept) for using the focal plane shutter they had just abandoned in favour of the leaf shutter.)
However...
There is 'very little' (= nothing at all) said about the Salyut/Kiev line by Hasselblad.
That may be because there is no direct connection, and they did indeed copy the 1600 F without Hasselblad being involved at all. It could also be because they did not want to associate themselves with a thing that always had been very much below the quality standards Hasselblad was aiming for.
(If you have sent anything to my email addresse registered here, i'm afraid you will have to send it again. I got a message yesterday from the provider hosting that addresse that it is no longer valid. I have changed the registered addresse to one that is working just now.)
I do indeed not see why Victor Hasselblad would object to a copy of his system being made, especially considering that it was launched in a market in which very little spending money was going around (Hasselblads are, as we all know, very expensive).
And as mentioned, the few small but 'vital' differences between the original and copies ensured that users of the copies could use Hasselblad system parts, but not the other way round. Why did that happen?
And Hasselblad had given up the Salyut's original as unreliable years before (the 1000F was an almost complete redesign - as fas as the important functioning bits are concerned) and had been thinking about (and working on) replacing the improved version from the time they were fabricating the design for the original SWA.
(Remember too Hasselblad's ad c&aign directed against Bronica? (Whatever happened to Robert Monaghan? Anyone knows?)
They ridiculed the Bronica (another copy of Hasselblad's concept) for using the focal plane shutter they had just abandoned in favour of the leaf shutter.)
However...
There is 'very little' (= nothing at all) said about the Salyut/Kiev line by Hasselblad.
That may be because there is no direct connection, and they did indeed copy the 1600 F without Hasselblad being involved at all. It could also be because they did not want to associate themselves with a thing that always had been very much below the quality standards Hasselblad was aiming for.