Simon,
What do you think the 1000-series of the late 1940s/early 1950s, and every other Hasselblad ever since, has been 'clad' in? (Hint: it's not leather.)
You are a bit late in lamenting the "introduction of plastics to the overall external finish".
True, it isn't made to look like leather. In my opinion, the H-camera would look hideous in a leatherette covering.
And it, after all, is not designed to have a retro-look.
But tastes differ, yes.
But, frankly, i think you should be struck from the Hasselbladian-Register, and be forced to relinquish your Hasselblad equipment, for judging only by the outside.
For not recognizing Hasselblad's true value. Which does indeed not lie in being a 'looker', made to impress other people, but in what's underneath and what that 'underneath' allows you to do.
Now, really...
Digital, i'm afraid has everything to do with the way MF is going. Hasselblad is indeed prove of that too.
You can't plan to have a MF digital camera and be succesfull, when the market is running with 35 mm based digital products, which (to allmost all intents and purposes) are every bit as (no, not good) usefull, and cost a fraction of what the MF-Digido costs.
Unless, of course, the management makes plans to dump their MF product line and get busy in the 35 mm based digital segment too (Carver Meade's thingy?)
Shriro, as mentioned before, entered the picture after (!) the decision to make H-system cameras.
What Hasselblad and Shriro did was very sensible. They did not drive people away (you can still (!!!) buy V-system goodies), but people flocked to other things. Other things that are mostly not MF, certainly not non-digital, traditional MF.
Away from Hasselblad, not because they didn't like the new products, but away from Hasselblad because they did no longer like the old products.
It's the H-system that managed to keep Hasselblad (V-system and all) alive.
So do not think that the H-System led to "defection".
Shriro also recognized that (as Marc said) Hasselblad was completey at the mercy of what digital back makers were doing, or would do. So they bough one of those digital back makers, to regain some control over Hasselblad's fate.
Sadly, the fear that makers of digital products will completely turn away from MF (the fear that made the Imacon purchase a necessity) is not unfounded. They will do so because we, the market, are not really looking for MF digital 'solutions'. So even with Imacon on board...
The rapid H1 to H2 evolution is inspired by Imacon: they want H1 buyers to be bound to Imacon products. So while the H1D still offered the possibility to attach film backs, the H2D doesn't. The integration between camera and back has increased too. A next step will be that no H-camera will work without Imacon back attached.
The remarkable 200-series cameras, were that, but suffered three flaws.
Noone bought them.
The automation inside is geared towards film photography.
Their focal plane shutter makes using digital backs a pain in the posterior, unless you reduce the camera to a 500-series camera by mounting leaf shutter lenses.
I'm really not surprised that they were the first victims of the Digido, the first to go.
Anyway,
One thing keeps returning: you (and others) seem to think that it is Hasselblad who made the decisions, Hasselblad who dictates what we should be offered.
They wish...
It is not.
We, the people buying photographic products (the 'market') did, and do.
Photographers showing disinterest in MF products, not spending money on what Hasselblad (and others) had to offer, are responsible for both the demise of the V-System and the relative success of the H-System.
Companies like Hasselblad, Bronica, Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax are trying to come up with an response to our disinterest. A response that might prolong their live, a bit.
What do you think the 1000-series of the late 1940s/early 1950s, and every other Hasselblad ever since, has been 'clad' in? (Hint: it's not leather.)
You are a bit late in lamenting the "introduction of plastics to the overall external finish".
True, it isn't made to look like leather. In my opinion, the H-camera would look hideous in a leatherette covering.
And it, after all, is not designed to have a retro-look.
But tastes differ, yes.
But, frankly, i think you should be struck from the Hasselbladian-Register, and be forced to relinquish your Hasselblad equipment, for judging only by the outside.
For not recognizing Hasselblad's true value. Which does indeed not lie in being a 'looker', made to impress other people, but in what's underneath and what that 'underneath' allows you to do.
Now, really...
Digital, i'm afraid has everything to do with the way MF is going. Hasselblad is indeed prove of that too.
You can't plan to have a MF digital camera and be succesfull, when the market is running with 35 mm based digital products, which (to allmost all intents and purposes) are every bit as (no, not good) usefull, and cost a fraction of what the MF-Digido costs.
Unless, of course, the management makes plans to dump their MF product line and get busy in the 35 mm based digital segment too (Carver Meade's thingy?)
Shriro, as mentioned before, entered the picture after (!) the decision to make H-system cameras.
What Hasselblad and Shriro did was very sensible. They did not drive people away (you can still (!!!) buy V-system goodies), but people flocked to other things. Other things that are mostly not MF, certainly not non-digital, traditional MF.
Away from Hasselblad, not because they didn't like the new products, but away from Hasselblad because they did no longer like the old products.
It's the H-system that managed to keep Hasselblad (V-system and all) alive.
So do not think that the H-System led to "defection".
Shriro also recognized that (as Marc said) Hasselblad was completey at the mercy of what digital back makers were doing, or would do. So they bough one of those digital back makers, to regain some control over Hasselblad's fate.
Sadly, the fear that makers of digital products will completely turn away from MF (the fear that made the Imacon purchase a necessity) is not unfounded. They will do so because we, the market, are not really looking for MF digital 'solutions'. So even with Imacon on board...
The rapid H1 to H2 evolution is inspired by Imacon: they want H1 buyers to be bound to Imacon products. So while the H1D still offered the possibility to attach film backs, the H2D doesn't. The integration between camera and back has increased too. A next step will be that no H-camera will work without Imacon back attached.
The remarkable 200-series cameras, were that, but suffered three flaws.
Noone bought them.
The automation inside is geared towards film photography.
Their focal plane shutter makes using digital backs a pain in the posterior, unless you reduce the camera to a 500-series camera by mounting leaf shutter lenses.
I'm really not surprised that they were the first victims of the Digido, the first to go.
Anyway,
One thing keeps returning: you (and others) seem to think that it is Hasselblad who made the decisions, Hasselblad who dictates what we should be offered.
They wish...
It is not.
We, the people buying photographic products (the 'market') did, and do.
Photographers showing disinterest in MF products, not spending money on what Hasselblad (and others) had to offer, are responsible for both the demise of the V-System and the relative success of the H-System.
Companies like Hasselblad, Bronica, Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax are trying to come up with an response to our disinterest. A response that might prolong their live, a bit.
