Rollei's fatal mistake! They abandoned the aperture ring!

[Gigi]

if an adapter for Leica S or even a DSLR would be made (which "a bird told me" its coming...   

oh, please!

[Theodoros]

Sorry Geoff... I should have said I know its coming as I'm personally involved on the project... The other project I'm personally involved, is explained here http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111070.msg915586#new as Joe (by coincidence) brought it up...

[JoeKitchen]

As far I can tell, Rollei made two mistake.  First, for some reason, they never supported P1 backs.  P1 is the largest seller of digital backs and to ignore that market was not smart.  Second, they had no real distribution, or support, in North America, making it difficult for any pro over here to take the system seriously.  Things break, stuff happens, you need support, and when you are on a job, you needed it yesterday, end of story!

Personally I always thought the Hy6 was the best designed SLR out there.  But to buy an electronic SLR camera that has many different failure points, both mechanically and electronically, it's hard to make the justification when it could take months to get repaired.

[Theodoros]

As far I can tell, Rollei made two mistake.  First, for some reason, they never supported P1 backs.  P1 is the largest seller of digital backs and to ignore that market was not smart.  Second, they had no real distribution, or support, in North America, making it difficult for any pro over here to take the system seriously.  Things break, stuff happens, you need support, and when you are on a job, you needed it yesterday, end of story!

Personally I always thought the Hy6 was the best designed SLR out there.  But to buy an electronic SLR camera that has many different failure points, both mechanically and electronically, it's hard to make the justification when it could take months to get repaired.

Joe... it's not up to a maker of a platform to support a back... It's up to the back maker to support a camera platform!  It was never a secret that Rollei approached P1 so that they would support the platform. It was P1 that denied (obviously because their own based on M645 platform was much inferior -still is- and it could cause people  buying in favor of the better platform) to support the system. Don't forget that P1 used to make backs for the Rollei 6008 before... Rollei was designed to be an "open" platform for all back makers, who ever didn't join was his policy, nothing to do with Rollei whatsoever...

Another thing that may have influenced P1's decision not to support the system, could be that although P1 backs where selling better than competition after the P series was introduced, on the Rollei  6008 platform the balance of sales for MFDBs was in favor of Imacon/Hasselblad and Sinarbacks (different to the rest of the market) and P1 is known to avoid direct competition but use "secret dealer policies" (especially in the US) to penetrate the market... Notice that the dealers that promote P1 in the US market underestimate competitive products on their pages (if they support them at all...).

[landscapephoto]

Which simply meant... that one couldn't use the new lenses on his older (6xxx series) camera! ...and more than that, they changed the digital back mount! (which meant that one couldn't share an MFDB between his previous and next camera)...

CONCLUSION: It takes only a couple of (marketing) foolish decisions to destroy the most brilliant pro system ever...

No camera system ever had this kind of potential... Rollei offered a complete series of lenses, a fully modular camera and a modern view camera that one could share his backs (film or digital) and additionally keep the same line of lenses and use on it! And then, they even added a shutter system and control so that one could use the very same interface if he wanted to use dedicated lenses on the view camera! But then... the HY-6 came and changed it all! The lenses where not back compatible to the existing systems anymore! 

Who ever thought of that "brilliant" idea? ...AF was there, electronic aperture control was there, what was the need for the AF-D series of lenses? ...what they where thinking of? 

OTOH, It reminds of some recent marketing decisions of some modern makers, doesn't it? (making the camera incompatible with the existing base of backs)   

May I suggest you start your own MF camera company, Theodoros? With your brains and knowledge of the needs of photographers I am confident that you will grace us all with the cameras of our dreams.

[Theodoros]

May I suggest you start your own MF camera company, Theodoros? With your brains and knowledge of the needs of photographers I am confident that you will grace us all with the cameras of our dreams.

Good thinking... will you finance buying Rollei and resurrect it now that it's cheap? You should, since most people here agree that it was the platform of "our dreams"...

[landscapephoto]

Good thinking... will you finance buying Rollei and resurrect it now that it's cheap? You should, since most people here agree that it was the platform of "our dreams"...

With the profits you will make and the number of prospective customers you reach, venture capital brokers should queue at your door any minute now.

[Theodoros]

With the profits you will make and the number of prospective customers you reach, venture capital brokers should queue at your door any minute now.

Surely you have developed a talent on speaking and saying nothing on the subject but clowning the joker instead... Very funny indeed....

[landscapephoto]

Surely you have developed a talent on speaking and saying nothing on the subject but clowning the joker instead... Very funny indeed....

I am glad you like it.

[Gigi]

The Hy6 was done at a transitional moment in the industry. One of its strengths/weaknesses was the decision to maintain 6x6 film capability at the same time as an open digital back platform. There was a moment of desperation in the digital back industry about a lack of standardization among the back suppliers - and this was meant to provide an open and accessible alternative. Michael R. wrote on this matter some years back.

As things unfolded differently, the situation changed. Yes P1 decision was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so perhaps there was some residual good-will still in place.

On the subject of repairs, I've sent things back to DHW and usually their turnaround is a couple of weeks, with another week overall for shipping. Rather nice, in fact. Not sure what the situation is now, although a lens has come back from them repaired, so something is good.

FYI - the leaf shutter in the Hy6 lenses is really a treat - you can walk around with a monopod, quickly flick the camera into mirror lock up, shoot a few leaf shutter frames - I've had good luck with 1/40th exposures, and with care, as low as 1/20th. Also have shot on a 4' monopod with little legs in a jungle with 5 second exposures still sharp. Love that leaf shutter option! The only downside is the 300 only has 1/500 shutter speed, generally not great. There are some (like the 80 PQS and the 150PQS) that go up to 1/1000. 

 

[Theodoros]

 Yes P1 mean-spirited approach to this was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so there was some residual good-will still in place.

Was it? or maybe it was even more mean-spirited? Leaf had a contract to support the system and already a number of customers they bought it to it... After P1's take over, all Leaf AFI where "mod.2" version, on which Sinarbacks where not compatible anymore... Another P1 "under the table" action?

I never ever remember another company than P1 being afraid to directly compete with anybody in equal terms... All they do is creating a fake marketing "image profile"...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I don't know about P1 being mean spirited. They lost two supported camera platforms at that time (Contax 645 and Hasselblad). They needed a platform to survive, rumour said they tried to acquire rights and tools for the Contax 645, but that was not possible so they invested in Mamiya.

Jenoptic, Leaf and Sinar invested in Hy6. Obviously, the Hy6 would be helped by being supported by Phase One. Leaf continued supporting Hy6 after being acquired by Phase One

At that time I felt that the 6x6 cm size of the Hy6 was a disadvantage. The Hasselblad system at that time was optimised for the 49x37 mm size sensor.

I would guess that any manufacturer needs to achieve something like critical mass, enough sales to support R&D, manufacture and operation.

Best regards
Erik

The Hy6 was done at a transitional moment in the industry. One of its strengths/weaknesses was the decision to maintain 6x6 film capability at the same time as an open digital back platform. There was a moment of desperation in the digital back industry about a lack of standardization among the back suppliers - and this was meant to provide an open and accessible alternative. Michael R. wrote on this matter some years back.

As things unfolded differently, the situation changed. Yes P1 mean-spirited approach to this was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so there was some residual good-will still in place.

On the subject of repairs, I've sent things back to DHW and usually their turnaround is a couple of weeks, with another week overall for shipping. Rather nice, in fact. Not sure what the situation is now, although a lens has come back from them repaired, so something is good.

FYI - the leaf shutter in the Hy6 lenses is really a treat - you can walk around with a monopod, quickly flick the camera into mirror lock up, shoot a few leaf shutter frames - I've had good luck with 1/40th exposures, and with care, as low as 1/20th. Also have shot on a 4' monopod with little legs in a jungle with 5 second exposures still sharp. Love that leaf shutter option! The only downside is the 300 only has 1/500 shutter speed, generally not great. There are some (like the 80 PQS and the 150PQS) that go up to 1/1000.

[Theodoros]

Hi,

I don't know about P1 being mean spirited. They lost two supported camera platforms at that time (Contax 645 and Hasselblad). They needed a platform to survive, rumour said they tried to acquire rights and tools for the Contax 645, but that was not possible so they invested in Mamiya.

Jenoptic, Leaf and Sinar invested in Hy6. Obviously, the Hy6 would be helped by being supported by Phase One. Leaf continued supporting Hy6 after being acquired by Phase One

At that time I felt that the 6x6 cm size of the Hy6 was a disadvantage. The Hasselblad system at that time was optimised for the 49x37 mm size sensor.

I would guess that any manufacturer needs to achieve something like critical mass, enough sales to support R&D, manufacture and operation.

Best regards
Erik

I must say... this kind of "logic" surprises me...

P1 didn't loose any platform, Contax didn't stop making cameras for P1, they stopped making cameras for all MFDB makers! OTOH, Hasselblad was never "lost"... The H2F was an "open" platform for all makers! The H3/H3II where complete cameras (again) that couldn't accept an MFDB on them (not even Hasselblad's own CF series).

OTOH, Leaf & Sinar didn't join Rollei (only)... they where making backs for anybody (just like P1), if P1 wanted to support Rollei, they where free to do so... Nothing stopping them!

I'm also in a position to know, that Mamiya "blocked" Imacon backs (but not P1) after the AFD... My (at the days) Imacon 528c, could work on an AFD and do multishot without any exterior cable needed, but it couldn't work at all on an AFD II... (Obviously negotiations with P1 and Mamiya started before the deal was complete...) P1 was invited to support the Rollei platform... they just refused to do so.

[Steve Hendrix]

Was it? or maybe it was even more mean-spirited? Leaf had a contract to support the system and already a number of customers they bought it to it... After P1's take over, all Leaf AFI where "mod.2" version, on which Sinarbacks where not compatible anymore... Another P1 "under the table" action?

I never ever remember another company than P1 being afraid to directly compete with anybody in equal terms... All they do is creating a fake marketing "image profile"...

Phase One is a mean company? And Hasselblad (or Rollei in the day) is ... a nice company? Um hmm. Right. They're all (except for Phase One, of course) so nice, they just want everyone to get along. I guess some have forgotten that these companies are ultimately in business to make a profit. And any smart company will be focused on doing exactly that. A company that makes great products isn't much good to anyone if they aren't open for business.

As far as Leaf mod.2 support of Sinarbacks, perhaps it was decided that it was best to support - in the technical sense - only Leaf digital backs on Leaf AFi products? And let Sinar handle their support of Sinarbacks on Sinar Hy6 or Rollei Hy6 cameras?

I must say... this kind of "logic" surprises me...

P1 didn't loose any platform, Contax didn't stop making cameras for P1, they stopped making cameras for all MFDB makers! OTOH, Hasselblad was never "lost"... The H2F was an "open" platform for all makers! The H3/H3II where complete cameras (again) that couldn't accept an MFDB on them (not even Hasselblad's own CF series).

OTOH, Leaf & Sinar didn't join Rollei (only)... they where making backs for anybody (just like P1), if P1 wanted to support Rollei, they where free to do so... Nothing stopping them!

I'm also in a position to know, that Mamiya "blocked" Imacon backs (but not P1) after the AFD... My (at the days) Imacon 528c, could work on an AFD and do multishot without any exterior cable needed, but it couldn't work at all on an AFD II... (Obviously negotiations with P1 and Mamiya started before the deal was complete...) P1 was invited to support the Rollei platform... they just refused to do so.

So, everyone lost a platform (Contax), including Phase One. Let's say it for what it was.

You're right, Phase One could have supported Rollei, after all, they already had, with P20/P45 models. I mean, according to you, they had an invitation, right? Probably a nice little card in an envelope was sent from Rollei with some words to the effect of - "We'd love you to join our wonderful platform, save the date!".

One thing I always try to keep in mind on this (and any) forum, and that is writing in a forum is not easy, and presenting an argument the same way that you would face to face is not easy. I never assume that posters don't know what they're talking about, in fact I notice that most indeed have a good deal of knowledge and information on topics. But Theo - in your case, regardless of what you know or what you think you know, what distorts and devalues any of that is your extremely biased presentation on the topic.

The H2F was an open platform camera? I seem to recall some of my Phase One clients who were using Hasselblad cameras were so pissed off that they could no longer buy a nw Hasselblad camera for their Phase One digital back, they renamed the H2F the H2FU. You're painting this picture that Phase One is - uniquely - some sort of conspiratorial, under-handed camera company assassin that ruthlessly plots to put others out of business by not accepting their free invitations and canceling platform support willy nilly. Do you really think that in any of the circumstances that you raise, money/costs are not a factor or point of contention?

I know - first hand - for a fact, that Phase One considered being involved in the Rollei situation at the time, as well as after the dust had settled. They looked at the situation, looked hard at the situation, and made what seemed to them the smarter business decision. It is quite possible that hitching their wagon to Rollei may have threatened Phase One's existence, the same way it impacted Leaf. There is the notion that with Phase One behind the Rollei platform, the day would have been saved. That is a Theory. It is not a fact.

Whether you like the older Mamiya cameras, or whether or not you like the new XF platform, the fact is Phase One made a business decision, and their business decision has enabled them to stay open for business, and continue to produce innovative digital capture solutions for photographers (sorry if that sounds a bit like a commercial, but it's a fact).

It is my strong belief that companies make decisions for very valid reasons, I've actually witnessed quite a few very hard, complex discussions concerning big question decisions, and I've never seen anything resembling the simplistic motivations that you, Theo have attributed to Phase One. To assume one knows everything that went into that decision and castigate them for not making the decision you wanted, but to also apply a coat of viciousness as the motivation behind the decision is, I don't know how else to say it, Theo, it is BS.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[Gigi]

Steve -

I owe you an apology, as I put forth the "mean-spirited" comment first. I'll take that back and modify the post. It came from frustration, as P1 was (I think) really close to getting involved with the beloved Hy6, and sadly did not. Their reasons, as you point out, were probably reasonable from their perspective.

Geoff

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve -

I owe you an apology, as I put forth the "mean-spirited" comment first. I'll retract that, and say that it was a moment of frustration, as P1 was (I think) really close to getting involved with my beloved Hy6, and sadly chose not to. Their reasons, as you point out, were probably reasonable from their perspective.

Geoff

Geoff - that's ok, no need to apologize, I know you, and have always appreciated your reasonable, informative and objective communications. And I do understand their is emotion involved, I'm not immune to that. The difference is your expression is one of understandable frustration, while others have created this fake insiders view of a fantasy that paints Phase One as this uniquely intentional Rollei camera killing, closed system monster of a company.

I also wish that Rollei the company was still here. I have frustration as well and wish Rollei had been in a better position to continue. 


Thanks,
Steve Hendrix/CI

[Theodoros]

.....BS.

Steve Hendrix/CI

Thanks Steve from confirming every bit of history on the matter I posted... I remind you that it wasn't me that brought the subject up, but Joe... who blamed Rollei for not... using P1 backs!  I believe everybody can notice that you fail to answer this... What harm would have been to P1 if they did support the Rollei platform?  Surely it could affect MFDB only positively (some added back sales)... no? The interface, other than it was ready from the P45 days, it was given to them (so no development cost to consider)... no? So the "business decision" wasn't because some harm to P1 could happen... only to "help" closing Rollei down... no? ...and thus harm photography and photographers in general by diminishing the most capable of equipment and sell their inferior one instead... no?

[Steve Hendrix]

Thanks Steve from confirming every bit of history on the matter I posted... I remind you that it wasn't me that brought the subject up, but Joe... who blamed Rollei for not... using P1 backs!  I believe everybody can notice that you fail to answer this... What harm would have been to P1 if they did support the Rollei platform?  Surely it could affect MFDB only positively (some added back sales)... no? The interface, other than it was ready from the P45 days, it was given to them (so no development cost to consider)... no? So the "business decision" wasn't because some harm to P1 could happen... only to "help" closing Rollei down... no? ...and thus harm photography and photographers in general by diminishing the most capable of equipment and sell their inferior one instead... no?

Yes, but Joe did not cast aspersions as to the motivations of either parties. And Rollei's "second mistake" he mentions is extremely notable.

The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My take is a bit that Hy6 was dead when Jenoptic pulled out.

But, the reason that the Hy6 got attention  was really that Hasselblad has closed the H-platform. Hasselblad was the dominant platform and that was closed. Contax was killed by Kyocera. Phase One invested Mamiya and the competition geared up with Hy6, but competition gave up…

Best regards
Erik

Yes, but Joe did not cast aspersions as to the motivations of either parties. And Rollei's "second mistake" he mentions is extremely notable.

The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.


Steve Hendrix/CI

[Theodoros]

                                                                .................................................
The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.


Steve Hendrix/CI

Yes, I now understand... it is a larger and complex picture for P1... but not for Leaf!    I think I'll end the argument here!