karllkarll
New Member
I have a mint, practically new Kodak DCS Pro Hasselblad back that I may be willing to sell. Contact me at karll@ldesign.com for info if interested.
Karl
Karl
Medium Format Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
New to hasselblad
- Thread starter redgreenblue501c
- Start date
simonpg
Active Member
Qnu, while I get your points, the disease I refer to is the consumeristic behaviour - churn of equipment in an ongoing quest to achieve what film achieves already. It creates an environment of obsession about equipment rather than images.
But I don't understand your reference to LF here. Digi just doesn't seem to come anywhere near what LF film produces.
With regard to 501/503 models, I do understand the chronology. But, given that today's 503 is today's 501 plus TTL flash and winder connectivity, the 503 was always an upgrade replacement of the 501 anyway even if not so implemented by Hasselblad.
So while digital developments have pressured Hasselblad to rethink the model range and get more efficient (wake up call), dropping the 501 was more like them doing what they should have done as a product strategy anyway.
In any case, I think (among other things)the company's product strategy has had problems reflecting a lack of focus on its positioning and legacy. Here, for ex&le the H series partnership with Fujinon ignored its legacy and long customer base.
Zeiss optics have very different characteristics to Fujinon. 6x4.5 was a major departure in format. There was no pathway for V series customers. Each of these aspects were departures from its legacy and the philosophies it so heavily pushed and risked leaving the customer base and even the brand behind.
On the other hand the Imacon merger was a good strategic move - leading professional dual media company. But, as always the success or otherwise will lie in the execution of the strategy, so we stay tuned!
But I don't understand your reference to LF here. Digi just doesn't seem to come anywhere near what LF film produces.
With regard to 501/503 models, I do understand the chronology. But, given that today's 503 is today's 501 plus TTL flash and winder connectivity, the 503 was always an upgrade replacement of the 501 anyway even if not so implemented by Hasselblad.
So while digital developments have pressured Hasselblad to rethink the model range and get more efficient (wake up call), dropping the 501 was more like them doing what they should have done as a product strategy anyway.
In any case, I think (among other things)the company's product strategy has had problems reflecting a lack of focus on its positioning and legacy. Here, for ex&le the H series partnership with Fujinon ignored its legacy and long customer base.
Zeiss optics have very different characteristics to Fujinon. 6x4.5 was a major departure in format. There was no pathway for V series customers. Each of these aspects were departures from its legacy and the philosophies it so heavily pushed and risked leaving the customer base and even the brand behind.
On the other hand the Imacon merger was a good strategic move - leading professional dual media company. But, as always the success or otherwise will lie in the execution of the strategy, so we stay tuned!
Simon,
There is a trend away from quality. Not just in the consumer segment, but in the professional segment, the "image industry", as well. While in the past no self-respecting photographer would dare be without an LF camera, nowadays even MF cameras are deemed to be "too much".
Sad perhaps, but true.
There is more to digital photography than "a quest to achieve what film achieves already". In fact, there is something digital can do that film can not. It's advantages are in workflow optimization.
First, the printing industry has gone digital too, so it's a must to supply digital images.
We've talked about the time it takes to scan film (a major factor). Scanning time is in addition to the time it takes to get film to somewhere to get it processed and proofed, delivered, etc. The "immediacy" of the digital image makes it possible to show art directors on the spot not just how an image might look like (the thing Polaroid was for), but it's now possible to slip it into a lay out and show a preview of the finished product on a computer in the studio. And that while the set is still there, and rejects and reshoots are a matter of seconds.
Then there are matters like tone and colour correction, edits, etc. All very quick and easy, compared to film.
Next, the speed and ease with which images can be send back and forth across the world. Art directors need not be in the studio, they can be hemispheres away.
Etcetera. ;-)
I do have a different view of the 501's place in the Hasselblad line up. But not that it matters much. ;-)
The "product strategy" they were pursuing did call for an entry level camera like the 501.
Lucky for them, they still had the "Classic" to play with when they decided that a two-tier system would bring in more cash (it of course didn't ;-)). So in 1994 the 500 C/M was reworked and reappeared as 501 C.
The "Classic" was a camera that indeed should have been dropped before. So why wasn't it? I think the "Classic" name however provides a clue.
The H1 might ignore the Hasselblad tradition, but i don't think it was a bad decision.
The tradtional Hasselblads aren't doing very well, are they? The one MF segment that has shown some signs of still being alive was that of AF 645 cameras. So Hasselblad joined the ranks and produced something that could take a slice of that market.
I wouldn't say that doing so presents a "problem". On the contrary, i'd say: "well done!"
This "ignoring the customer base" thing is, i feel, wrong.
First, their customer base wasn't supporting Hasselblad. There lies the true root of the evil you see...
Second, they still are (!!!) supporting their customer base!
You can still get a wide choice of V-system cameras, lenses and accessories. Adding another, very different thing (the H-system) has not taken away anything from that.
So do tell, what are you really complaining about...?
;-)
The Imacon merger could have been a good move (it still can be), because before Hasselblad was totally depending on what third parties they had no control over were doing.
Digital *is* the future, digital is *now*. So companies like Hasselblad need something to propel them into the digital world. Digital backs however were not competitive products (still are not). Too expensive by far (and that's just their first problem).
That doesn't matter very much to companies making these things, since they can always switch to producing other digital products that can be put in the market and make a profit.
It does matter very much to a company like Hasselblad. No digital backs, no digital future = no future at all.
So with the merger, Hasselblad has taken control of it's own fate, it's own future.
Or so it seemed. Sadly, all the merger has shown so far is Imacon trying to boost the sale of their unchanged products by putting the "Hasselblad" label on them.
Other than that label-trick, no change in marketing at all = no hope for the future.
Imacon will use Hasselblad for as long as they can, and then go on to other things.
They shouldn't have put Imacon in charge of the new Hasselblad company. A bad decision.
There is a trend away from quality. Not just in the consumer segment, but in the professional segment, the "image industry", as well. While in the past no self-respecting photographer would dare be without an LF camera, nowadays even MF cameras are deemed to be "too much".
Sad perhaps, but true.
There is more to digital photography than "a quest to achieve what film achieves already". In fact, there is something digital can do that film can not. It's advantages are in workflow optimization.
First, the printing industry has gone digital too, so it's a must to supply digital images.
We've talked about the time it takes to scan film (a major factor). Scanning time is in addition to the time it takes to get film to somewhere to get it processed and proofed, delivered, etc. The "immediacy" of the digital image makes it possible to show art directors on the spot not just how an image might look like (the thing Polaroid was for), but it's now possible to slip it into a lay out and show a preview of the finished product on a computer in the studio. And that while the set is still there, and rejects and reshoots are a matter of seconds.
Then there are matters like tone and colour correction, edits, etc. All very quick and easy, compared to film.
Next, the speed and ease with which images can be send back and forth across the world. Art directors need not be in the studio, they can be hemispheres away.
Etcetera. ;-)
I do have a different view of the 501's place in the Hasselblad line up. But not that it matters much. ;-)
The "product strategy" they were pursuing did call for an entry level camera like the 501.
Lucky for them, they still had the "Classic" to play with when they decided that a two-tier system would bring in more cash (it of course didn't ;-)). So in 1994 the 500 C/M was reworked and reappeared as 501 C.
The "Classic" was a camera that indeed should have been dropped before. So why wasn't it? I think the "Classic" name however provides a clue.
The H1 might ignore the Hasselblad tradition, but i don't think it was a bad decision.
The tradtional Hasselblads aren't doing very well, are they? The one MF segment that has shown some signs of still being alive was that of AF 645 cameras. So Hasselblad joined the ranks and produced something that could take a slice of that market.
I wouldn't say that doing so presents a "problem". On the contrary, i'd say: "well done!"
This "ignoring the customer base" thing is, i feel, wrong.
First, their customer base wasn't supporting Hasselblad. There lies the true root of the evil you see...
Second, they still are (!!!) supporting their customer base!
You can still get a wide choice of V-system cameras, lenses and accessories. Adding another, very different thing (the H-system) has not taken away anything from that.
So do tell, what are you really complaining about...?
;-)
The Imacon merger could have been a good move (it still can be), because before Hasselblad was totally depending on what third parties they had no control over were doing.
Digital *is* the future, digital is *now*. So companies like Hasselblad need something to propel them into the digital world. Digital backs however were not competitive products (still are not). Too expensive by far (and that's just their first problem).
That doesn't matter very much to companies making these things, since they can always switch to producing other digital products that can be put in the market and make a profit.
It does matter very much to a company like Hasselblad. No digital backs, no digital future = no future at all.
So with the merger, Hasselblad has taken control of it's own fate, it's own future.
Or so it seemed. Sadly, all the merger has shown so far is Imacon trying to boost the sale of their unchanged products by putting the "Hasselblad" label on them.
Other than that label-trick, no change in marketing at all = no hope for the future.
Imacon will use Hasselblad for as long as they can, and then go on to other things.
They shouldn't have put Imacon in charge of the new Hasselblad company. A bad decision.
fotonick66
New Member
Hi dear friends,
can you please tell me the difference between the first version of the 110mm F Planar (f2) and the TCC/FE version. Do you think that 1300 USD is a good price in the used market for the old version?
Thank you.
Nick
can you please tell me the difference between the first version of the 110mm F Planar (f2) and the TCC/FE version. Do you think that 1300 USD is a good price in the used market for the old version?
Thank you.
Nick
semmelblad
Member
> The main difference is the data bus on the FE lens which you will only need if you own a 203 FE, 205 TCC or 205 FCC. I got my technically perfect 110 F-lens for 450 Euros which translates into around 500 US-Dollars. That is somewhat less than the 1300 USD you mentioned...
jotloob
Well-Known Member
> Hi Nick The FE Version of the 110 mm lens (and other FE lenses) has electronic contacts and therefore you always measure with open aperture and the aperture is then closed automatically to the value you preset . This happens during exposure (shortly before to be exact) . When using a F110mm on a 201F , 203FE or 205FCC you have to open the aperture for measering and then close it manual before exposure. There
might be engraved F110 on the lens tube , although it can be acually a
FE110 . if the contacts are there (four golden contacts , then it is a
FE lens. I can't say anything to the prices in the U.S. The prices here in germany are , as far as i could find out , much lower . Regards.Jürgen > ]
might be engraved F110 on the lens tube , although it can be acually a
FE110 . if the contacts are there (four golden contacts , then it is a
FE lens. I can't say anything to the prices in the U.S. The prices here in germany are , as far as i could find out , much lower . Regards.Jürgen > ]
A bit of additional info about the "new" version of the 110 mm lens:
In Zeiss' 1999 announcement of the change (cemented rear group + better internal baffling) they mention that there is one feature by which we can tell whether an FE 110 mm Planar is the old or new version:
"It can be distinguished from its predecessor only by a square light baffle behind the last lens element. This is part of the flare reduction treatment."
Jürgen,
"When using a F110mm on a 201F , 203FE or 205FCC you have to open the aperture for measering and then close it manual before exposure."
Using non-Databus lenses on a 200-series camera, you manually close the aperture to meter (!!!), open it up again to do the rest.
You're describing it exactly opposite, the "wrong way round"!
In Zeiss' 1999 announcement of the change (cemented rear group + better internal baffling) they mention that there is one feature by which we can tell whether an FE 110 mm Planar is the old or new version:
"It can be distinguished from its predecessor only by a square light baffle behind the last lens element. This is part of the flare reduction treatment."
Jürgen,
"When using a F110mm on a 201F , 203FE or 205FCC you have to open the aperture for measering and then close it manual before exposure."
Using non-Databus lenses on a 200-series camera, you manually close the aperture to meter (!!!), open it up again to do the rest.
You're describing it exactly opposite, the "wrong way round"!