simonpg
Active Member
It came as no surprise that the initial release of the H1 was met by some "shock and horror" that Hasselblad had made 3 key departures in its "new generation" camera:
1. Fuji replaced Carl Zeiss - probably for many reasons and we've all seen how good the Fujinon optics are anyway; as they say "get over it".
2. 6x6 was replaced by 6x4.5 - well there were many design and build issues brought about by the all electronic AF wonder machine that might have necessitated the smaller image frame - again "get over it", as many have.
3. the plentiful use of plastics despite the excellent alloy chassis.
BUT, for one, I was a tad surprised that the H2 did not see the use of alloys in the outer casing. Why? Well my new XPan II is superbly built with an all alloy outer casing (yes, except for the added on rubber hand grip - a nice feature) as was the original XPan. Am I missing something here?
My XPan is to my hands and eyes a nicely constructed as my Leica M7. But, hadling an H1 or H2 has no such joy (although ergonomically I think it's great).
Now I know that is a bit fussy of me, but perseptions mean a lot and in particular they gave buyers of such "expensive" equipment some sense of value for money.
To a pro having many years of use from wonderful V series cameras, I'd have thought the use of more metal in the casing/shell would provide a similar sense of robustness.
If Fuji (and the Japanese are not so famous for the use of metal bodies these days) was able to build such a fine product for Hasselblad as the XPan, why was it not possible to do something siliar with the H series?
Surely weight was not the issue especially with the alloys available today?
Will we ever see such fine camera body construction and finish as Hasselblad did for so long with the V series? Is the XPan the last of superbly finished Hasselblad cameras?
Not a serious topic, but fun anyway!
1. Fuji replaced Carl Zeiss - probably for many reasons and we've all seen how good the Fujinon optics are anyway; as they say "get over it".
2. 6x6 was replaced by 6x4.5 - well there were many design and build issues brought about by the all electronic AF wonder machine that might have necessitated the smaller image frame - again "get over it", as many have.
3. the plentiful use of plastics despite the excellent alloy chassis.
BUT, for one, I was a tad surprised that the H2 did not see the use of alloys in the outer casing. Why? Well my new XPan II is superbly built with an all alloy outer casing (yes, except for the added on rubber hand grip - a nice feature) as was the original XPan. Am I missing something here?
My XPan is to my hands and eyes a nicely constructed as my Leica M7. But, hadling an H1 or H2 has no such joy (although ergonomically I think it's great).
Now I know that is a bit fussy of me, but perseptions mean a lot and in particular they gave buyers of such "expensive" equipment some sense of value for money.
To a pro having many years of use from wonderful V series cameras, I'd have thought the use of more metal in the casing/shell would provide a similar sense of robustness.
If Fuji (and the Japanese are not so famous for the use of metal bodies these days) was able to build such a fine product for Hasselblad as the XPan, why was it not possible to do something siliar with the H series?
Surely weight was not the issue especially with the alloys available today?
Will we ever see such fine camera body construction and finish as Hasselblad did for so long with the V series? Is the XPan the last of superbly finished Hasselblad cameras?
Not a serious topic, but fun anyway!