We'll, a cable is simply not a viable alternative, as has been well pointed out by Samuel-js. To accuse me of "misinformation" based on this is a bit over the top, don't you think? Apparently not.
One can always find an argument to counter another. But when that argument flies in the face of real-world needs its use rings hollow.
Why not just accept the fact that for some people with non-Hasselblad medium format backs that system has now become a dead end? If that's what Hasselblad wants to do, then they will eventually realize the consequences, one way or the other. But let's not posture and pretend that the emperor isn't stark naked. He most definitely is.
1) "We'll, a cable is simply not a viable alternative, as has been well pointed out by Samuel-js." Not a viable alternative?? Then using the back on a view camera with a Copal shutter is not a viable alternative? Don't people with Phase One and Leaf backs do that? You're obviously giving up some convenience features in where and how information is displayed or transferred and triggering the back with a cable on the H2F, but that does not prevent you from taking pictures with exactly the same image quality as before and seems far more reasonable, in my personal view, than telling people that they are "having to abandon their back". You're advising users to "abandon their back" rather than face the trauma of connecting a sync cable and making great looking images? Lets compare the options, abandon your digital back or connect a sync cable–I'm happy to allow the reader to decide which seems to be the more reasoned option.
2) "To accuse me of "misinformation" based on this is a bit over the top, don't you think? Apparently not." No, I think telling people that they must "abandon their back" is a bit over the top–don't you think? Obviously not, as you appear to believe that this is the only course of action.
have replied, "O.K, you don't really have to abandon your back. It still works with a cable, but I'm extremely unhappy with the loss of features with the replacement of the H2 with the H2F and I think it's an outrageous move by Hasselblad!" It is not my place, of course, to tell you what you should or shouldn't say, I'm just giving an example of what "could
" be said that would at least be accurate
, while still expressing a strong opinion. We can all say whatever we like, but I for one appreciate accuracy. So please let me repeat for those that still might believe otherwise, you do NOT
have to "abandon your back" if you replace an H2 with an H2F, but you do have to give up some features. You do
have a choice, what you decide is up to you.
3) "Why not just accept the fact that for some people with non-Hasselblad medium format backs that system has now become a dead end? If that's what Hasselblad wants to do, then they will eventually realize the consequences, one way or the other. But let's not posture and pretend that the emperor isn't stark naked. He most definitely is." I agree with your first sentence. For some people
, Hasselblad's direction is a dead end. They are obviously headed in the direction of making integrated camera and back systems and away from the money losing proposition of selling medium-format cameras to integrate with other products. No doubt about it.
I disagree that the emperor is naked. He's still wearing his underwear. Had Hasselblad discontinued the H2 with no replacement at all, that would be "stark naked" in my view. But then others have more vivid imaginations than I do.
4) Let me thank you for providing a forum for people to discuss and debate and even disagree on these topics. I should further say, that while we disagree and from my perspective the statement that I quoted and made a big fuss about is misinformation, I respect you as an individual and as a person (with strong views), while strongly disagreeing with your choice of words.