Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on June 14, 2012, 03:20:13 am
-
I was surprised to hear from my dealer that the Hasselblad price reductions are only temporary (till the Photokina).
Then the prices will go up again.
Is this the preparation of a new H5D model? Did anybody hear the same?
-
I was surprised to hear from my dealer that the Hasselblad price reductions are only temporary (till the Photokina).
Then the prices will go up again.
Is this the preparation of a new H5D model? Did anybody hear the same?
I would easily make a bet on that. There is no way they wil increase those same prices again.
But of course the new model will be prices high.
-
There is no way they wil increase those same prices again.
I am not sure about that. I sincerely doubt whether Hasselblad (and Phase One for that matter) already get it. Both have a tendency to bury their head in the sand and only look at each other. It might take another Canon or Sony to enter the 30MP market for them to get it. If they cannot make a 40MP solution available for around $10K they are both doomed or confined to an ever smaller and more expensive niche market...
-
Remember the official excuse for high MF prices : it is much more expensive to produce larger sensors / much more scrap.
In reality, a H4D40 has only a 65% larger sensor size than a D800, so don't tell me they have so much more scrap. This may have been the case in the early days, but no longer now.
Time now for a real price decrease : a H4D40 below $10,000.
-
Live view and lens selection are the other two elephants in the room.
If a D800e or other 35mm-format camera can match digital MF for image quality (taking into account the fact that 35mm-format lenses tend to be sharper, but require more enlargement for the same print size), it then comes down to ease of use. DSLRs have had effective live view for years now, making focusing for macro and tilt-shift lenses much easier and more accurate. MF backs, on the other hand, are stuck using antiquated ground glasses, using loupes to try to focus on a tiny ground glass which is really too small for accurate focus - what works on an 8x10 back doesn't work so well when the image on the ground glass is only 54x41mm in size.
Lens selection is the other issue. Leaving aside long telephotos (which tend to be more a 35mm-format thing anyway, for action photography) MF backs, particularly those attached to an SLR camera system like Mamiya or Hasselblad, are very limited in terms of UWA and tilt-shift options. When you're trying to get everything in sharp focus for a landscape shot, the lack of tilt-shift hurts - what's the point of 40, 60 or 80 megapixels if the foreground or background are blurred to a much lower resolution anyway, due to the position of the focal plane (even if it still technically counts as 'sufficiently sharp', it is unlikely to be '40MP sharp' without using movements)? Also, UWA lenses are a staple of landscape photography. The widest lens available, 28mm, isn't particularly wide...
-
Remember the official excuse for high MF prices : it is much more expensive to produce larger sensors / much more scrap.
In reality, a H4D40 has only a 65% larger sensor size than a D800, so don't tell me they have so much more scrap. This may have been the case in the early days, but no longer now.
Time now for a real price decrease : a H4D40 below $10,000.
It's complicated. I may not work. If the people rush to buy the sub 10K medium format camera they may be able to recover from the lower price. But is difficult to measure how much can the medium format market grow.
65% larger is a lot in microelectronics. Most the bad numbers grow faster than the area. And the good ones go down faster than the area too. And the area is already x^2 with respect to resolution.
An alternative is to drop the 40mpixel and go up with bigger /more dense sensors. In that area Phase One is ahead because of sensor+
Hasselblad could attempt CMOS and do magic to get the medium format class tonal range.
As I say is complicated, and lower prices could be deadly (if almost only the same folks buy the cameras but at a lower prices) or a salvation if people drop the Canon and Nikons and go to buy a full new system, just because 10K and 40Mpixels vs 36Mpixels.
Best regards,
James
-
James,
Not offering a below 10k H4D40 may be deadly also. The market is much smaller than in the film area and seem to be shrinking.
Just watch some of the discussions here and you notice that some MF users are moving to D800E.
-
Just a quick one, the cost of the sensor is dictated by the overall cost of the silicon wafer.
Additionally, you can't just "fill up the gaps" on a silicon wafer either. You print one size and that's it.
A quick google nets this link:
http://home.comcast.net/~pstlarry/FFRevenu.htm
The table is pretty straight forward, and the same philosophy trends similarly for larger sizes.
From the table at the top, an increase in size for a square from of 10mm x 10mm to 15mm x 15mm nets a total output almost 1/3rd for the smaller sensor. Add into that complications of placement, multiple processing for larger dies etc, the costs clearly increased dramatically. It's not a simple matter of saying "well Canon and Nikon..."
Software side, sure, so long as it's not hardware limited, but it's not as easy to compare them. The cost of the sensor in a full 645 sensor (60-80mp) is probably in the order of $10,000-15,000 considering the quantity produces, the cost of producing the die to make the chips etc, and taking into economics of scale. Hell, it may cost more then that.
-
After having talked to a Hassy importer in FR, and meeting some people at a reception from a "competing" company that is not phase one in Basel on thursday, I seriously doubt it ... :)
-
The cost of the sensor in a full 645 sensor (60-80mp) is probably in the order of $10,000-15,000 considering the quantity produces, the cost of producing the die to make the chips etc, and taking into economics of scale. Hell, it may cost more then that.
The production cost of a digital back that is sold for $30,000, is $2,000.
Why did the MFDB companies choose to sell them for such a high price?
In these prices they do not compete against Canon but only against each other.
They keep low volume sales, and can afford to have high redundancies.
If they enter the ring vs. Canon they will most likely be annihilated, as Canon has unlimited R&D budgets, and excellent production efficiency.
They chose to live in a slow pace market of 6,000 units a year, rather than in the cutthroat market of 100,000+ units a year.
-
The production cost of a digital back that is sold for $30,000, is $2,000
Care to share the secrets of producing a back for $2,000?
-
Care to share the secrets of producing a back for $2,000?
Polaroid film and a fast, minature inbuilt scanner :p
-
Care to share the secrets of producing a back for $2,000?
So maybe you can give us a number closer to the truth, Yair.
I know there are a lot of costs before the production starts,
but the actual production I would guess is less than 5000US$.
Last few years the prices for the silicon wafers has decreased a lot
after China has started production.
-
James,
Not offering a below 10k H4D40 may be deadly also. The market is much smaller than in the film area and seem to be shrinking.
Just watch some of the discussions here and you notice that some MF users are moving to D800E.
Totally agree with you. That's one component of the complicated part. I just hope that they find the proper balance. An option will be to add a more appealing system for the prosummer, or getting a better camera at the low end.
Best regards,
James
-
Care to share the secrets of producing a back for $2,000?
This number was given to me by a hardware engineer that was working at one of the digital back companies five years ago.
Since the prices to consumer have not changed much, I believe the cost of production did not change significantly either.
In production cost I don't include the upkeep of the R&D facility.
If the sensor cost was $10000-15000 as someone here suggested, there would not be enough money left to pay your salary.
The person who gave me this number is currently employed at a fortune 500 company, so I am pretty sure he is credible.
-
This number was given to me by a hardware engineer that was working at one of the digital back companies five years ago.
Good thing he was an engineer and not someone in charge of procurement ;)
If $2,000 was the cost of making a back, then a D800 would cost $200 to make....which I do not believe is the case...sorry...
-
If $2,000 was the cost of making a back, then a D800 would cost $200 to make....which I do not believe is the case...sorry...
That equation is not true.
The profit margin for an economy car selling in very high volumes, is maybe 10%, for a luxury SUV over 60%, for an extreme luxury car selling in very small volumes can be easily 80%.
The same rule applies to any other product.
Are you implying that a company that sells 1,000 units a year, can sell at the same margin as a company that sells 10,000,000 units a year?
("Canon, which competes with Xerox in printers and Nikon and Sony Corp in cameras, aims to sell 9.2 million interchangeable lens cameras and 22 million compact cameras in the year to December, compared with 7.2 million and 18.7 million, respectively, last year." -Reuters)
Margins vs volume - http://articles.esources.co.uk/id/126/
-
See Paul C. Buff's explanation here: http://www.paulcbuff.com/faq.php#international
Kumar
-
Kind of what I'm getting at in my original post. Probably the raw cost is much less then that, but once you consider the cost of scaling production etc. 10-15K isn't unreasonable.
Lets say they aim to sell maybe 50 camera's a month at Phase one or Hasselblad, I don't know, but just guessing it's about that, and from my dealing with Phase one, they were unable to produce them as fast as the parts could be supplied, I waited 6 weeks before it was delivered.
They have to consider the cost of making the die that prints the circuit boards (in which case it'd require at least 4 dies to produce a standard MFD sensor (a die max size is 24x24) and cost of erroneous runs etc would bump it all up considerably too. The collaborative cost is significant for small quantities.
But back onto topic... I hope they do have something new at Photokina... I don't think it'd hurt, but the H4D system is still relatively new by MFD standards.
-
There is a big difference between a per-unit cost of production (money paid to suppliers) and cost of operation (salaries and office space).
Let use some imaginary numbers - please don't challenge me on these numbers, as they are just examples.
Leaf sells 1,000 units per year.
Average sale price to consumer $20,000.
Average price paid to Leaf per unit by dealer $10,000.
Total revenue $10,000,000.
Expenses:
Let's say average cost of producing a unit is $3,000 (BTW, there is minimal difference in the production cost of a $40,000 back and a $15,000 back.)
Production: 1000*$3000 = $3,000,000
Salaries and office space for 30 people: $5,000,000
Total expenses: $8,000,000
Profit: $2m
Now let's make a 50% price reduction:
Lets say sales triple as a result of the price cut.
Cost of production goes down maybe 30% due to higher volume.
Cost of operations goes up maybe 20% due to higher volume.
So:
Leaf sells 3,000 units per year.
Average sale price to consumer $10,000.
Average price paid to Leaf per unit by dealer $5,000.
Total revenue $15,000,000.
Expenses:
Average cost of producing a unit is $2,000
Production: 3000*$2000 = $6,000,000
Salaries and office space for 40 people: $6,000,000
Total expenses: $12,000,000
Profit: $3m
==>
You are working three times as hard, and making only $1m more in profit.
Of course you could be selling now 5 times than before, and making $8m profit - but if you sell only twice as before, profit would be $0.
Negative side effects:
- Very increased exposure to fluctuations in costs, due to decreased margin. Now an earthquake in Taiwan can bring you to bankruptcy.
- Now you are taking bread out of the mouth of Canon - and they will make a move to compete and devour you. They can set up much more cost effective production lines, procurement and sales.
Regarding the actual numbers: the $2,000 numbers is a correct number for 5 years ago.
There is no way the per unit production cost today is more than $5000.
-
There is a big difference between a per-unit cost of production (money paid to suppliers) and cost of operation (salaries and office space).
Let use some imaginary numbers - please don't challenge me on these numbers, as they are just examples.
Leaf sells 1,000 units per year.
Average sale price to consumer $20,000.
Average price paid to Leaf per unit by dealer $10,000.
Total revenue $10,000,000.
Expenses:
Let's say average cost of producing a unit is $3,000 (BTW, there is minimal difference in the production cost of a $40,000 back and a $15,000 back.)
Production: 1000*$3000 = $3,000,000
Salaries and office space for 30 people: $5,000,000
Total expenses: $8,000,000
Profit: $2m
Now let's make a 50% price reduction:
Lets say sales triple as a result of the price cut.
Cost of production goes down maybe 30% due to higher volume.
Cost of operations goes up maybe 20% due to higher volume.
So:
Leaf sells 3,000 units per year.
Average sale price to consumer $10,000.
Average price paid to Leaf per unit by dealer $5,000.
Total revenue $15,000,000.
Expenses:
Average cost of producing a unit is $2,000
Production: 3000*$2000 = $6,000,000
Salaries and office space for 40 people: $6,000,000
Total expenses: $12,000,000
Profit: $3m
==>
You are working three times as hard, and making only $1m more in profit.
Of course you could be selling now 5 times than before, and making $8m profit - but if you sell only twice as before, profit would be $0.
Negative side effects:
- Very increased exposure to fluctuations in costs, due to decreased margin. Now an earthquake in Taiwan can bring you to bankruptcy.
- Now you are taking bread out of the mouth of Canon - and they will make a move to compete and devour you. They can set up much more cost effective production lines, procurement and sales.
Regarding the actual numbers: the $2,000 numbers is a correct number for 5 years ago.
There is no way the per unit production cost today is more than $5000.
Not challenging your numbers, but I will borrow them to explain a little more where I see the risk. If medium format were competitive system wise with Nikon and Canon, or even Sonny, then, we could easy bet that lowering prices could boost the sales a lot.
Can price be at the cornerstone of the strategy? I don't know, but here are some points that make me wonder:
1. The system is not there. Hasselblad is the best, but not close to Nikon and Canon.
2. Blogs etc are invested on Nikon, Canon and to the lesser extend Pentax and Sony. They made their money from companies that make money from those brands. They need access to them, for reviews and press releases etc. The reviewers also shoot those brands, and understand them. Phase One is far better at this than Hasselblad, but is not even at the Pentax /Sigma level.
3. People have invested a lot on those brands, they have 3th party lenses etc.
4. Most people shoot multiple subjects. If you are good you can shoot action with MF anticipating the moments etc, but even as good guy with a DSLR will be competitive with you. There is software stitching if very big prints are called for. Of course MF is better for a lot of situation. Plus the big view finder, the looks and colors. But the point is DSLR are competitive and when they are better, they are way better.
5. Most people will not like to have a totally different systems. That is part of the appealing of the D800E. If Canon goes there it will be even more interesting (not for me, I do shoot Nikon).
6. Lowering the price to much could erase the competitive advantage for the working pro. That is: They will not be differentiating themselves at the camera level. (Creativity, service and technique are far more important in any case)
There are more, and in the post I am quoting, the author already talked about driving the reaction of Nikon and Canon. About point 2 please note, as an example, that the Pentax 645 did not got harsh notes about the so called "multi point focusing system". Even with the clustering of the points. Just imagine Hasselblad doing that.
Should they lower prices: Probably yes, but if they want to grow sales, they have to Up the Image quality a lot (that will do at current prices), or improve the system together with the price.
Best regards,
James
-
Lowering the price to much could erase the competitive advantage for the working pro.
The exercise of changing the price and see how the market reacts, yields drastically different results from b2c and b2b market segments.
When selling luxury products to consumers, past a certain price point, higher price does not reduce sales. There are enough people out there for which price is not a hindrance. Quite the opposite, the more expensive your product is, more exclusive and prestigious, the more they would like to buy it.
Professionals, on the other hand, need to eat their bottom line, so past a certain price point, they simply will not buy, unless their own sales justify it.
So what we have seen in the past few years, is a shift in the makeup of owners of high end photographic equipment.
More and more of MFDB owners are very well to do amateurs.
I believe at this point they make the majority of MFDB sales.
20 years ago I'm pretty sure the majority of professional grade cameras were pros.
Phase / Hasselblad don't care if you're a pro or not, only if you can pay the premium price.
They need a few hundred high level pros to use their equipment - some of which will get free or reduced price, and then make the killing from the amateurs.
-
Phase / Hasselblad don't care if you're a pro or not, only if you can pay the premium price.
They need a few hundred high level pros to use their equipment - some of which will get free or reduced price, and then make the killing from the amateurs.
Sounds like the Leica model :)
-
Professionals, on the other hand, need to eat their bottom line, so past a certain price point, they simply will not buy, unless their own sales justify it.
So what we have seen in the past few years, is a shift in the makeup of owners of high end photographic equipment.
More and more of MFDB owners are very well to do amateurs.
very true, you only have to look at a lot of the posts on here and in the classifieds, people selling nearly new 50-80mpixel backs like they are deciding to swap from jag to merc or maybe a porsche.
maybe it's time for a dentist/optician/lawyer subforum? ::)
-
Almost all the MFDB owners I've encountered are amateurs.
The few pros I know, buy either entry level backs or used, and struggle financially do to even that.
To buy a $40,000 back, it would make sense that your income would be above $200K - very few photographers are there.
The D800E, as a Simon Harper said here a few days ago, provides a very good solution for almost any professional photographer.
As long as you're not dealing with extreme technical requirements in the shoot, the clients will be perfectly satisfied.
I don't think this camera will be an MFDB killer, but it will further affect the makeup of MFDB owners, towards less pros and more amateurs.
-
It's true that most pros use 5D.
It's true that most of that work in merely adequate.
I don't think it's true that if you see a photographer with a 5D, then you can conclude anything about the expected quality of the work.
I've seen some very nice works done with 5D.
What we're seeing is, that the prices remain the same for 5 years.
However, within these price, the quality of the cameras gets better and better.
If, 5 years ago, it would make some sense to make the extra investment in an MFDB, it makes less business sense now, with the new 35mm bodies.
This statement is arguable: "35mm cameras now are good enough for anything"
This statement is not arguable: "35mm cameras now are much much better than ever before, therefore good enough for a lot more tasks than before"
-
This statement is not arguable: "35mm cameras now are much much better than ever before, therefore good enough for a lot more tasks than before"
Well, show us your data to support the statement and then it is not arguable unless your methodology is flawed. Otherwise this is just personal conjecture which is actually falsified by the fact the same work simply continues to be produced by these cameras as has always been. The same is true for photography as a whole. The advances in technology has increased the amount of photography being done, but cameras are still being used for what they have always been used for--pictures of girlfriends and family pets, holiday snaps, travel memories, etc.
As far as high-end camera sales, amateur sales have always out-stripped professional sales--there are more amateurs than professionals and the desire for the "best" has never changed.
-
What data?
All I said was that 35mm cameras are better today than before.
Surely that can be agreed as an axiom.
Then I said the following that, the range of what they are good for now, is larger than the range of what they were good for before, when they were not as good.
That is just logic, no data involved.
As far as high-end camera sales, amateur sales have always out-stripped professional sales--there are more amateurs than professionals and the desire for the "best" has never changed.
This one does require data - I've been around for a while, and in the 1970's and 1980's, I would be very surprised to find out that the majority of pro equipment owners then were amateurs. I would love (really) any supporting reference to that statement.
-
What data?
All I said was that 35mm cameras are better today than before.
Surely that can be agreed as an axiom.
Then I said the following that, the range of what they are good for now, is larger than the range of what they were good for before, when they were not as good.
That is just logic, no data involved.
You said that that was a statement that could not be refuted. I do not think that the part where cameras are really being used for more than they used to in the past is actually true--unless you had some data and then my perception would be incorrect. And "logic" based on personal bias tends not to be logical.
This one does require data - I've been around for a while, and in the 1970's and 1980's, I would be very surprised to find out that the majority of pro equipment owners then were amateurs. I would love (really) any supporting reference to that statement.
Me too--I was around in that period and would like some numbers (but I never suggested my statement could never be challenged). Still, most of the high-end cameras I saw where owned and operated by amateurs, just as it is today. So what would be different to change the sales dynamic? Professional photographers make up such a small market which is why advertising in popular photography magazines for high-end equipment were so common and listings for this equipment for retailers like B&H carried this stuff--I don't think I have ever met a professional that subscribed to these rags, but many of the amateurs I knew did. B&H and similar stores do make their money with volume purchases. Do you think photographers like Ansel Adams had workshops populated by professionals? The whole workshop scene was coming into its own at that time catering to the hordes of amateurs welding some pretty sophisticate toys. And the medium- and large-format enlarger market I doubt was being supported by the opening of professional darkroom--someone was shooting the film for those enlargers. I also knew lots of students during that period that were shooting some really top-line equipment, very few went on to be professional. I actually think it is harder to come to a conclusion that amateurs were not the driving force in high-end equipment--if I use the same logical process you do.
-
You said that that was a statement that could not be refuted. I do not think that the part where cameras are really being used for more than they used to in the past is actually true--unless you had some data and then my perception would be incorrect. And "logic" based on personal bias tends not to be logical.
I didn't say 35mm cameras are being used more.
I said they are "good for" more.
That follows from the assumption that they are better, and is not data based.
Regarding amateurs in the olden days - that might be true, I have no idea.
The only thing I know is that I had a Zorki and a Fujica back then.
The only people I knew with cameras had 35mm reflex at best.
I didn't know anybody with MF or LF.
I believe the distribution of wealth is quite different now, and that affects ownership numbers.
-
The production cost of a digital back that is sold for $30,000, is $2,000.
There is no way the per unit production cost today is more than $5000.
Make your mind up.
Or alternatively, perhaps you should be a little more careful with your presentation of opinion as fact?
-
There is a big difference between a per-unit cost of production (money paid to suppliers) and cost of operation (salaries and office space).
Let use some imaginary numbers - please don't challenge me on these numbers, as they are just examples.
Leaf sells 1,000 units per year.
Average sale price to consumer $20,000.
Average price paid to Leaf per unit by dealer $10,000.
Total revenue $10,000,000.
Expenses:
Let's say average cost of producing a unit is $3,000 (BTW, there is minimal difference in the production cost of a $40,000 back and a $15,000 back.)
Production: 1000*$3000 = $3,000,000
Salaries and office space for 30 people: $5,000,000
Total expenses: $8,000,000
Profit: $2m
Why not challenge you? They are absolutely farcical in pretty much every respect. You quite clearly have no background in either accountancy or running a business, because if you did, you'd never have come out with such a purile and meaningless example. Go look at a few P&L's of publicly quoted companies. Get an understanding as to the costs involved in running a business, and then try again.
This assertion that "there is minimal difference in the production cost of a $40K back and a $15k back" is most intriguing though, so let's dwell on that.
Would you assert the same for other electronics such as displays and memory, where the difference between upper and lower ends of the product range is also primarily measured in terms of density of the fundamental building block of the product?
-
I said very clearly these are not real numbers, just an exercise.
Instead of calling them farcical, why don't you educate us and put in the numbers you think are closer to reality?
-
I said very clearly these are not real numbers, just an exercise.
Instead of calling them farcical, why don't you educate us and put in the numbers you think are closer to reality?
Because I have better things to do than waste other people's time with made up nonsense.
-
High end amateurs will only follow up to a certain level (read the book about Trading Up from Silverstein). When a camera costs 6-7k, like a high end Canon / Nikon / Leica, they will follow / trade up, even if they use only a fraction of the camera's potential.
When a camera system costs the price of a car, they hesitate and drop off.
I am sure there are pretty high volumes to gain from a below 10k system. The initial R&D investment is fully recuperated now.
Now it is time to bring in these high end amateurs (like Leica does with the M series) with an attractive price point or it will be the end for some MF manufacturers. They will not survive in the long run by only selling to pros who make the 200k income level and change their backs once every 3-4 years.
-
Now it is time to bring in these high end amateurs (like Leica does with the M series) with an attractive price point or it will be the end for some MF manufacturers. They will not survive in the long run by only selling to pros who make the 200k income level and change their backs once every 3-4 years.
"They" seem intent on locking out the high end amateurs by restricting the availability of used backs following pro trade in. That was a mistake as trickle down would have developed the user base which, by this activity, is a much smaller number than it could have been. In turn bringing out a price competitive new offering would have had a base ready to trade up, surely easier than selling in from new?
-
This one does require data - I've been around for a while, and in the 1970's and 1980's, I would be very surprised to find out that the majority of pro equipment owners then were amateurs. I would love (really) any supporting reference to that statement.
I don't know about then, but I do hear stuff now: Reps of pro 35mm equipment moaning.
-The pros have no money, getting paid less, so they buy amateur equipment.
-Amateurs mostly are buying pro equipment
-The amateur departments of the camera corps give the shops/reps hell because their sales are getting lowered by the sales of pro equipment to "their" customers.
Edmund
PS. You can see a bit of the same situation here in Paris in the taxi market which used to be dominated by Mercedes limos that were much nicer than most private cars. Now your taxi is often a badly maintained compact with children's seats or a grocer's wagon with tubular seat frames, while many middle class people own large private cars.
Edmund
-
But back onto topic... I hope they do have something new at Photokina... I don't think it'd hurt, but the H4D system is still relatively new by MFD standards.
Yes, back onto topic. No-one has said why there should be a new H5D? What (more) would you want in the body? [Let's hear some specifics - that would be more interesting than debating production costs].
Now the sensor/back is another matter.
For starters, Hasselblad should learn how to properly exploit the best-in-class dark current of their Kodak 6-micron 40MP and 50MP CCDs. If Phase One can deliver 1 hour noise free exposures with the previous generation of 6.8 micron sensors, there is absolutely no excuse for Hasselblad being stuck at 1 - 4 minutes with sensors which have roughly one quarter the level of dark current.
Ray
-
Restricting user base is indeed a mistake. They could sell that much more lenses.
-
I don't know about then, but I do hear stuff now: Reps of pro 35mm equipment moaning.
-The pros have no money, getting paid less, so they buy amateur equipment.
-Amateurs mostly are buying pro equipment
-The amateur departments of the camera corps give the shops/reps hell because their sales are getting lowered by the sales of pro equipment to "their" customers.
Edmund
PS. You can see a bit of the same situation here in Paris in the taxi market which used to be dominated by Mercedes limos that were much nicer than most private cars. Now your taxi is often a badly maintained compact with children's seats or a grocer's wagon with tubular seat frames, while many middle class people own large private cars.
Edmund
Actually quite trye from what I ahve seen in the last few years. Being a pro the cost of quipment will be talek into consideration, not if the pro can afford it or not, but whether it makes sense to own it - they can always rent and charge customer, the budget is there, so common pros don't need to carry the heavy depreciation. Many pros of course can afford it, just decided it is not the most economic thing to do. Non-prfessional shoot for fun, if they can buy a sports car to make themselves happy, why not an expensive camera to show some class? The point that they don't shoot for money so the cost of camera does not matter to them. Pro would use an expensive equipment if the job justify it, if not, there is always rental available.
Pingang
Shanghai
-
I would be surprise if Hasselblad did. But may be it would make sense for Hasselblad to capitalize their name into a smaller cameras, chepaer cameras, to sell a lot more. They can't and don't have to compete with Canon, Nikon or Sony, there are still many smaller camera conpany can survive 1% market share on the one that is so big, even Hasselblad comes back to capture 40% of medium format digital business, it is still a rather small business in comparison.
The sales of Canon 5DII along is hundred times larger than the whole medium format business combined.
I think Hasselblad may not have the highest pixel count back, but the H4D60 and H4D40 is really quite enough for them to hang around, I think the market is the smaller format where Hasselblad can make money, and their name still have high value.
Pingang
Shanghai
-
People keep going on about the pixel count like this is the only thing that's important with a MF system. Sure it is important for MF users but it's not the be all and end all. The Canons and Nikons are catching up on the MF systems with the sensors but they're way ahead in terms of useful features that really make sense. Hasselblad are at the very back of the pack. Way behind any DSLR system or MF system. The reason I use MF is that I can put the back on a view camera. The quality of the handmade lenses far out weighs anything else IMO BUT the reason I love this system is because of the lens movements achievable and from a far wider selection of lenses. The features I would love to see on a H5D is live view untethered and something closer to a 35mm system rather than an IQ in terms of screen quality, resolution, clarity in sunlight etc. Liveview is hugely important to a poor Professional like me!! Focus range confirmation similar to the IQ would also be useful. Another hugely useful addition would be a power supply option when used on a view camera similar to the IQ. I believe video camera batteries can be used. Where the Hassies also falls way short is the inability to shoot beyond 2 minutes. I would love the ability to shoot night photography.
I find it sad that 3 pages into the post people are mostly arguing about figures and numbers rather than what any new system should have beyond pixel count.
-
Edna,
Do you mean the sensors? Just asking cause I think the MF camera that is really behind is the Mamiya DF. The H bodies are actually pretty advanced ... stuff like the true focus is really quite innovative. And you can say their backs are behind but they offer multishot and that's a big plus over DSLR's.
-
Hi,
He talks about having the back on a view camera with moves and the need for live view and long exposures. So he may not be helped by advanced AF in the Hasselblad body.
Best regards
Erik
Edna,
Do you mean the sensors? Just asking cause I think the MF camera that is really behind is the Mamiya DF. The H bodies are actually pretty advanced ... stuff like the true focus is really quite innovative. And you can say their backs are behind but they offer multishot and that's a big plus over DSLR's.
-
Yes Erik you are right. I use the back on a view camera away from a studio in most cases. The Phase One Backs accommodate the landscape and architectural photographers much better than Hasselblad. Believe it or not Eric but there are photographers other than studio photographers out there :D But seriously true phocus is a useless tool for a lot of photographers outside the studio plus once you shoot wide angle there is no need for it. I actually would never use it. The other tools I mentioned would hugely aid my workflow. Hasselblad keep pushing the true phocus. It's great as long as you shoot a particular type of image but it's pointless for a whole lot of other situations. The phocus indicator on the IQ backs on the other hand is a fantastic tool.
IMO the multishots are useless for the majority of cases. If you want to take advantage of the multishot than you can't have moving objects in the scene so that rules it out of most cases away from a studio environment. It also can't be used for portrait shots within the studio enviornment. You can turn off the multishot but than what's the point in having it. The Phase One IQ180 back has jumped way ahead of anything Hasselblad has to offer because of it's sensor. But the main reason I would be tempted to change from Hasselblad are because of the reasons I gave in the previous post. I forgot to mention 2 other huge pluses. The lower native resolution plus the ability to shoot up to iso 3200 (at 20 megapixels)
I think Phase One sat down and actually considered what the photographers want and it's up to Hasselblad to come up with something truly innovative. Untethered live view is crucial in this day and age. People here have commented on losing customers to Nikon, but I would say a large amount of Hasselblad users have converted to Phase One.
-
Yes Erik you are right. I use the back on a view camera away from a studio in most cases. The Phase One Backs accommodate the landscape and architectural photographers much better than Hasselblad. Believe it or not Eric but there are photographers other than studio photographers out there :D But seriously true phocus is a useless tool for a lot of photographers outside the studio plus once you shoot wide angle there is no need for it. I actually would never use it. The other tools I mentioned would hugely aid my workflow. Hasselblad keep pushing the true phocus. It's great as long as you shoot a particular type of image but it's pointless for a whole lot of other situations. The phocus indicator on the IQ backs on the other hand is a fantastic tool.
IMO the multishots are useless for the majority of cases. If you want to take advantage of the multishot than you can't have moving objects in the scene so that rules it out of most cases away from a studio environment. It also can't be used for portrait shots within the studio enviornment. You can turn off the multishot but than what's the point in having it. The Phase One IQ180 back has jumped way ahead of anything Hasselblad has to offer because of it's sensor. But the main reason I would be tempted to change from Hasselblad are because of the reasons I gave in the previous post. I forgot to mention 2 other huge pluses. The lower native resolution plus the ability to shoot up to iso 3200 (at 20 megapixels)
I think Phase One sat down and actually considered what the photographers want and it's up to Hasselblad to come up with something truly innovative. Untethered live view is crucial in this day and age. People here have commented on losing customers to Nikon, but I would say a large amount of Hasselblad users have converted to Phase One.
Believe it or not but there are also photographers other than landscape photographers out there ;)
In your post above you completely ignore the Phase One body. If you compare the Phase One body to the Hasselblad body (or to the Hy6 body) it is a very easy choice, it really is. High ISO performance is not good with any back. The H4D-40 does a good ISO 1600. Similar to what the Leica S2 and the Pentax 645D do. The only backs that are really lagging behind there are the Phase one backs and especially the Leaf backs... The $40K IQ180 does ISO 3200 at 20MP, so what, my X-Pro1 does a good 6400 at 16MP, hardly impressive and with a 40MP back you will only get 10MP, and the base ISO 800 will be worse than the base ISO 800 of my P30+ and that is a 5 years old back, hardly progress I would say...
-
JV
I'm not sure what you're point is. Why are you comparing a medium format back with a camwra with a smaller CMOS in relation to high ISO performance. Of course the Fuji will perform better.
Are you seriously trying to convince anyone here that the advancements made on the OQ 180 are not real progress over previous MF backs.
I am a Hasselblad user but I have to say the IQ backs look a lot more attractive right now. I have not seen an IQ back on a Phase One body so I can't comment on its build. I'll leave that to others. I have played with the back it self and it seems very solid.
-
Are you seriously trying to convince anyone here that the advancements made on the OQ 180 are not real progress over previous MF backs.
I have never said such a thing. Please re-read my post. My point is:
1) you use a digital back on a view camera. Not everybody does that and as such not everybody's needs are the same.
2) I am unimpressed by the Phase One sensor+ technology, especially when deployed on a 40MP back.
Joris.
-
Joris
I listed a bunch of reasons how IMO the Hassleblad H system could be improved. For some reason you picked a high ISO as the only point out of that list which is, as any MF user well knows is a weakness on MF systems. The fact that you can shoot at all on a MF at 3200 ISO actually is progress and you actually DID say "hardly progress I would say." Comparing it to a smaller CMOS makes no sense.
I use the back on my H3D also. I would wish for any of the tools I listed whether I use the back on my view camera or not. The point is there are a lot of photographers who would find these tools very useful. A tool indicating the range of the scene in focus is much more useful than the true focus for most uses. The camera should be as useful a tool as possible for as many types of photographer as possible. That is what makes a truely great camera system. Hasselblad seem to have missed that point. They might claim that the amount of photographers who use their backs on view cameras is small compared to the rest of their client base. Maybe if they had a camera system that could match or exceed the IQ180 in terms of it's features and to a lesser extent it's resolution than that would change.
Anyway. I am more interested on what Hasselblad users would look for in a new system rather than squabbling over what did or did not say.
-
Enda, you are twisting my words again. The hardly progress remark was related to the fact that the base ISO 800 performance of the newer IQ backs is worse than the base ISO performance of the P30+. The fact that you can shoot at 3200 ISO is indeed progress but mainly for the IQ180 back where you still end up with 20MP. For the IQ140 back the end result is a 10MP file and there I find that sensor+ is not a good solution. Enough said. Joris.
-
Read my last sentence.
"Anyway. I am more interested on what Hasselblad users would look for in a new system rather than squabbling over what did or did not say"
enough said
-
I am a HB user too and completely concur with Enda. Currently, when you are a view/technical camera user, there is room for improvement on the HB side. When you primarily use the H body for the back it is a different story.
The long promised battery solution for the 60 so it can be used on a tech cam is the minimum I would be expecting. Things like, live view on the screen, focus peaking, binning, etc.. are things that would be very much appreciated by people that would like to use things like Arca's or Alpa's.
I would appreciate TB/USB3 & improved tethered stability.
-
Yes, back onto topic. No-one has said why there should be a new H5D? What (more) would you want in the body? [Let's hear some specifics - that would be more interesting than debating production costs].
Now the sensor/back is another matter.
For starters, Hasselblad should learn how to properly exploit the best-in-class dark current of their Kodak 6-micron 40MP and 50MP CCDs. If Phase One can deliver 1 hour noise free exposures with the previous generation of 6.8 micron sensors, there is absolutely no excuse for Hasselblad being stuck at 1 - 4 minutes with sensors which have roughly one quarter the level of dark current.
Ray
Good point.
Even Kodak some years ago acheved near noiseless long exposures with the now defunkt 14n DSLR camera using dark frame subtraction, and it worked brilliantly. This must be something Hasselblad could achieve with a firmware upgrade.
Hassy doubled the resolution of the rear screen and added other features for the H4D-40 and 50 with a firmware upgrade. I thought it pretty extraordinary that they had supplied a camera with the rear screen running at half its potential resolution. What other tricks might they include in a future firmware release?
-
Hi,
But the back represents the greatest value. I guess that Hasselblad wants to sell backs instead of selling cameras and lenses letting other companies making money on backs.
Best regards
Erik
Restricting user base is indeed a mistake. They could sell that much more lenses.
-
Hi Erik
Sure they have some great value upgrades at the moment but I would say that probably reflects their lack of sales. I think they have put too much focus on the try focus (pardon the pun) and the multishot. Therre are a lot of photographers who would have no need for that and a lot of photographers who would have a throng need for tools that are not available.
Many of the features we mentioned would be very very useful whether it be on the view camera or on the Hasselblad body. Untethered live view is possible on most descent DSlRs so it's not an unrealistic request from existing Hasselblad users to have it. I would certainly use it on the body. A proper long exposure facility is also something that a lot of users would wish for.
The ability to use separate batteries is a feature offered by other backs for years so I don't really think it's an unrealistic request.
Personally I would want the whole camera system if I was to upgrade. The camera system and lenses are as mentioned really top class. It's just tools that would assist and improve my workflow that I feel are lacking at the moment.
Hi,
But the back represents the greatest value. I guess that Hasselblad wants to sell backs instead of selling cameras and lenses letting other companies making money on backs.
Best regards
Erik
-
It is the chicken and the egg.
Once you enter a particular system (even second hand or by ebay), you buy some extra lenses and once you have the lenses, you upgrade to a new or second hand back that works with all these lenses.
If you don't have the option to buy second hand cameras, you don't buy any new lenses and if you don't own lenses, you don't buy an new or next second hand camera / back.
I don't understand why Hasselblad is not making these refurbished backs / cameras available at low entry prices. You can still make great pictures with a 3 year old camera !
-
I don't understand why Hasselblad is not making these refurbished backs / cameras available at low entry prices. You can still make great pictures with a 3 year old camera !
I actually wonder where all these 2nd hand cameras go which they take when upgrading. They even offer an upgrade price on their competitors cameras. WHEEEEERE DO THEEEEEY GO?
-
Enda,
The orig topic was about bodies not backs and that was what I was interested in. For someone like you this thread should be of little interest. I do think the phase body rubbish, and praise the H4 and Hy6. I hope that all three makes will have updates this fall.
btw - Good luck with your photo work whatever gear you use.
-
Hi Eric
Sorry. Maybe I'm nor making myself very clear but I am talking about the Camera as a whole and not just when the back is on a view camera. I use the back on the body and on the view camera. I would like to use those tools as would many on the body and on the view camera.
-
In this case my imagination is that Hasselblad does not need to look too much further, in fact, make a camera like SONY NEX-7 (as example, or like those m4/3 cameras) - that can accept a larger range of lenses BUT with a larger sensor, and then let the user produce result by their creativity. I use my SONY NEX-7 like a self-contained digital backs on many shots (OK, mostly for fun), but then if it is a 36X48 CMOS sensor that can capture excellent still, 4K video (in case needed), all the possible setting on a single camera body - and can accept proprietary lenses as well as market lenses, it would be much much bigger business and mor eprofitable than a H platform carried over decades of old medium format set up.
The photogrpahy world has contantly change over time, with the resolution of today's best sensor, I am using iPhone to do what i did before with film P&S candid, my G12 is more like the old day Contax T3 for serious P&S candid, then my NEX-7 is working like my old Leica M, my Cnaon and Nikon FF DSLR is doing the job used to be medium format, and my digital backs (Phase, Hasselblad and Sinar) - although still on medium format body - is like those large format cameras of the old day, I can't imagine I would need a camera with even larger sensor if digital stitching continue to evolve.
I do no think Hasselblad can survive long time or even a decade as a medium format only supplier and I don't think a H5D will help change that. But a newer camera concept to approach to greater audience will do.
Pingang
Hi Eric
Sorry. Maybe I'm nor making myself very clear but I am talking about the Camera as a whole and not just when the back is on a view camera. I use the back on the body and on the view camera. I would like to use those tools as would many on the body and on the view camera.
-
The Mamiya ZD camera was an excellent concept let down by some issues like shadow noise in underexposed images and a poor rear screen. But I had one and it handled well and delivered good results. How about a Hassy equivalent, an all-in-one MF camera at a "value" price point, or maybe a MF rangefinder?
-
Sure I think a more reasonably priced camera to lure Canon and Nikon users could be a good idea. Mind you the D800 has taken such a leap forward that a more affordable Hasselblad may not be able to compete. If the argument is that Hasselblad is a different beast for a different user than Hasselblad really need to walk the walk. I am a professional photographer and if I was starting up and choosing a new camera system between a D800 and a H4D 40 I would really need some convincing. Yes I sometimes use the back on the view camera and that would be the main selling point so as to to get the increased movements over DSLR tilt/shift lenses, but I'm not a wealthy amateur who can just buy any camera at any price. We are in the middle of a huge recession (much more so in Ireland than in the States :() However I am not a very good business man and I am doing what I do purely because I love it. :D I made a lot of sacrifices to invest €50,000 plus in my camera set up. I would like to upgrade my MF camera but only when the upgrade makes sense. There are features on a H3D and H4D which are lacking that affects professionals workflow significantly or affects what is achievable compared to Phase One, Leaf, Canon Nikon whatever. (I'm talking on or off the body.) Sure the sensor can be improved to bring it in line with the newer Phase One and Leaf backs but it's the tools which would improve day to day that would make me upgrade. After all time is money. :)
-
I actually wonder where all these 2nd hand cameras go which they take when upgrading. They even offer an upgrade price on their competitors cameras. WHEEEEERE DO THEEEEEY GO?
I was talking to the Hasselblad dealer nearest to where I live some months back, and, in answer to your question, he said that there is a kind of "priority arrangemant" with dealers in China and India, who take all that they can get. May or may not be hearsay, but that's what he told me.
-
May or may not be hearsay...
Unsubstantiated is the definition of hearsay.
-
Unsubstantiated is the definition of hearsay.
OK then let me say that this is unsubstantiated...merely relaying what I was told, see no reason to disbelieve him, could actually care less.
-
HASSELBLAD website does not work ...
Any new products ? ;)
-
unfortunately :(
-
Hasselblad have said they intend to target a wider audience.
Hasselblad logo on a Fuji rangefinder....
It's happened before ;)
-
Yes, and it was a good one!
Best regards
Erik
Hasselblad logo on a Fuji rangefinder....
It's happened before ;)
-
My guess would be an H4D-II, same camera body, with updated digital backs and a new optional vertical grip. I have an H4x and I don't see much room for improvement with that body.
-
http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hasselblad-with-big-announcement-on-spetember-18th-it-is-the-almost-medium-format-mirrorless-camera/ (http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/hasselblad-with-big-announcement-on-spetember-18th-it-is-the-almost-medium-format-mirrorless-camera/)
-
I seriously doubt Hasselblad will have any new cameras out that are unrelated to the current H body. I bet Hasselblad will have an updated digital back offering, at best. It takes years of development and a TON of money to develop a new product from scratch, and I just don't see Hasselblad as having the resources to go that direction.
-
They have deep pockets now, since they have been taken over by a private-equity firm.
They announced publicly they are working on selling cameras to a wider audience than MF alone.
See their press announcement :
Specifically, the medium-format camera maker is now part of the Switzerland- and Germany-based private equity firm's Ventizz Capital Fund IV, the companies said today. The firm will provide new capital for a growth strategy, Ventizz said.
"We are proud to have such an iconic brand in our portfolio and are convinced that with solid financial support and a suitable growth strategy, Ventizz can further strengthen Hasselblad's position as the first-class producer of medium-format digital camera systems. Furthermore, we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers," said Helmut Vorndran
-
I am also a long term Hasselblad owner and user and by no means want to see the brand fade away. But private equity is often run by accountant, not visionary, that worries me.
I would say a really modern body capable of using all CF, CFi, CFE, FE, H and HCD would be grea, if price is good.
Or a smaller sensor camera to mass market would probably work!
Pingang
They have deep pockets now, since they have been taken over by a private-equity firm.
They announced publicly they are working on selling cameras to a wider audience than MF alone.
See their press announcement :
Specifically, the medium-format camera maker is now part of the Switzerland- and Germany-based private equity firm's Ventizz Capital Fund IV, the companies said today. The firm will provide new capital for a growth strategy, Ventizz said.
"We are proud to have such an iconic brand in our portfolio and are convinced that with solid financial support and a suitable growth strategy, Ventizz can further strengthen Hasselblad's position as the first-class producer of medium-format digital camera systems. Furthermore, we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers," said Helmut Vorndran
-
Hasselblad actually needs a head of R&D to actually be able to develop new product lines from scratch, and at the moment my understanding is that they don't have such a resource.
-
Prognosis was right.
But I guess we would hoped for more revolution then evolution.
Anyway, let's enjoy what we get at the Photokina.
-
Hasselblad actually needs a head of R&D to actually be able to develop new product lines from scratch, and at the moment my understanding is that they don't have such a resource.
Hi Andy, this would be incorrect.
-
Prognosis was right.
But I guess we would hoped for more revolution then evolution.
Anyway, let's enjoy what we get at the Photokina.
Fan, well there is a press conference on September 18th ;)
I can also assure you that we are looking towards the future and Hasselblad will continue to develop new products.
-
I am very happy with that, Paul.
I bought my first Hasselblad in 1988 and I am planning my 4th one in 2013. :)