The other photograph is labelled 2002.
I think this section of the forum is funny, because it really is more about selling cameras than actual photography. Actually it's more about selling niche cameras in a niche market, than it is about anything else.
I looked at the blad site briefly and though I just clicked on a few images the few I did click on were 35mm format. Maybe they have been cropped, but since some were dated in the early 2000's I doubt if they were shot with a digital hasselblad.
Don't get me wrong, I like the blad site and like to look at pretty pictures, but could really care less what digital capture device was used (that's my new term for cameras, "digital capture devices" which I've now coined since camera companies refer to photographers as end users and the media refers to photoraphers as content providers).
Anyway it never seems to bother a camera company what photograph they show as long as there is a photographer's quote that says something like "the best digital capture device on the planet". Or something silly. I know, I've said the same thing before.
It's not that anyone is intentionally fibbing it's just the way things are. Some camera company calls, ooohs and ahhhs over your work and it's flattering so in kind you ohhh and ahhh over their camera.
Anyway, I also know from past experience getting too close to a camera company skews your objectivity. It's just human nature because there you are just shooting away with your Canon or Nikon and you think, "oh shit, ________ features my work so I had better dust off the digital back and shoot a few frames so I can say I shot this with a ________.
Don't think this doesn't happen, actually it happens a lot. I know of photographs featured by camera company(s), shot by very good photographers that were reshot using brand _________, though originally they'd been shot with a another brand.
Now deep down I don't think there is anything wrong with this cause advertising has always featured semi celebs to sell product and anybody with any common sense knows that Hair Soap P is never really used on set for a hair ad or actually believe that Tiger Woods buys his shick razors at the local CVS.
The only downside about ohhing and ahhing about a camera make is some people actually believe that one brand will make their photographs a lot better than another brand and that's just not so. I get sporatic e-mails where someone asks me if buying a _________ is a good idea, cause they love the shot I did with the _________. It's obvious that they're starting out and really shouldn't spend money on $20,000 to $50,000 camera systems to make them a better photographer.
So you kind of have to be careful what you say, cause the last thing I want is points on my driver's license that say, "photographer mortages home for camera".
Still, with all of this "superior image quality stuff" and showing legacy photos shot before there were even digital cameras, I think most of the makers, especially the niche makers have missed the mark when it comes to selling the best of their product.
I've said this now 200 times, but follow a photographer on a real heavy production shoot from pre production to final delivery (including the 12 rounds of retouching) and document it showing how your camera works within the professional photography world system.
Now if I was Hasselblad and was writing the sales message (my ad roots are showing), I'd start every web page with the headline, "the only current medium format camera with a full lens line of leaf shutter lenses".
Then the second headline would read, "The only medium format camera (camera not digital back), that is in rental in 98% of the worlds major markets.
Then I'd throw in a touch of self regulation and only show images shot with Hasselblad cameras, digital or analog.'
Actually, I'd take it a step further and only show photographs shot with hasselblad cameras where the owner actually bought the camera at retail and used it.
IMO
BC