Cost of P45+ Platform Change

[Steve Hendrix]

Steve, I saw this as well and I deduce the same thing from it as you do but it is still no official statement from the company towards the future though, thanks Joris.

True enough - I deduced as well and didn't imply anything official from Hasselblad. My deducement is only based on the fact that Hasselblad doesn't indicate any current, in production digital backs for non-Hasselblad cameras on their website. Considering that the last models shown are discontinued 39MP sensor products introduced over 5 years ago, I would say unless we hear otherwise, for now that's the reality.

My only reference intent was to show that while there are interchangeable adapter systems available, they're not that cheap either, and the digital back choices for those systems are dwindling. Of course the camera platforms have dwindled as well, if you're counting products that are still in production.


Steve Hendrix

[ondebanks]

But, did you really mean to say that if you swapped a digital back mount, you would expect to keep your digital back? That threw me a bit - gosh anyone would take that. *Yes, I'd like to change my P45+ digital back mount to Mamiya, but I want to keep the one I have, and pay less than $3,000.* Umm hmmm....

Steve - no, your statement is the one that completely threw me! I agree with John entirely. To my understanding, indeed to anyone's, swapping the mount means just that - swapping the mount, and only the mount. Not the complete back! Yes, of course, I would expect to get my original back returned to me, just with a different mount on it. The other interpretation is just too weird, and I cannot believe that what actually happens is that you get a "changeling" back returned to you!

Ray

[ondebanks]

Well John, not "Everyone" knows, because I never came across it, and clearly neither did the other John (Smith) in this thread.

Other than some ancient LL or other forum thread, can you point me to anywhere on the websites of PhaseOne or their main dealers where this policy is made clear?

Ray

[John R Smith]

Well John, not "Everyone" knows, because I never came across it, and clearly neither did the other John (Smith) in this thread.
Ray

No, I didn't realise that you would have to swap your back for another one. Phase users would already know this, of course. I still don't understand why they have done this - the basic shell for all the backs must be the same. Therefore you could have a six or eight-point attachment on the body for a range of adapter plates, which would surely be more sensible and cheaper. Leaf certainly seem to think so.

John

[Steve Hendrix]

No, I didn't realise that you would have to swap your back for another one. Phase users would already know this, of course. I still don't understand why they have done this - the basic shell for all the backs must be the same. Therefore you could have a six or eight-point attachment on the body for a range of adapter plates, which would surely be more sensible and cheaper. Leaf certainly seem to think so.

John

I'm sure there's a reason inherent to the design of the back chassis itself. Case in point, Leaf backs are notable for their eBox system, which allows components to be replaced (like a firewire circuit board) while not exposing the sensor to any extraneous material (dust, etc). This is laudable. It's why Leaf and Mamiya branded backs can generally be repaired within a couple days in the USA, instead of needing to be sent back to the factory clean room facility. It's a different design with the Phase One chassis and like I said, I'm sure there are reasons why they swap out the unit instead of a swappable platform interface. They were not designed this way.

It's a relatively moot point anyway, as the "mount swap" for Leaf costs almost as much as the "platform change" from Phase One.


Steve Hendrix

[John R Smith]

It's a relatively moot point anyway, as the "mount swap" for Leaf costs almost as much as the "platform change" from Phase One.

Fair enough, Steve. I think the problem I have with all of this is that it is fine for pros and corporate photogs who can reclaim these costs against tax and recover them from clients. But for the amateur like myself, even if we can afford the back, can we afford to run it thereafter? (a bit like being able to buy a Ferrari but then being too skint to buy tyres for it). When in truth, a little more thought in the design process (like the infamous internal battery swap) would make the thing easier and cheaper to service. I am quite pleased with Hasselblad at least inasmuch as they produced the CFV-39 at what is a pretty reasonable price for us 500 users - a lot cheaper than a P45, for example. But I haven't asked them how much they charge to replace the battery, yet, I have to admit 

John

[bcooter]

But I haven't asked them how much they charge to replace the battery, yet, I have to admit 

John

This isn't a complaint (probably because both my backs are running fine)  but I admit I'm fascinated as to why it cost $2,500 to change the clock battery in a Phase back?   

Is this really true and if so has anyone of the reps that frequent this forum answered why?

IMO

BC

[John R Smith]

This isn't a complaint (probably because both my backs are running fine)  but I admit I'm fascinated as to why it cost $2,500 to change the clock battery in a Phase back?  
Is this really true and if so has anyone of the reps that frequent this forum answered why?

I would imagine it is because the design of the back means that to get at the battery you have to dismantle it to the point where it must be done in a clean room and you also have to recalibrate the sensor, for which it has to go back to Denmark. Which is just plain silly for an item which will need in-service replacement. The battery probably costs $5.

John

[ondebanks]

So with this new IQ series of backs, surely the designers had the presence of mind to make the internal battery a lot more accessible than with the P/P+ series? Anyone know if they did?

[John R Smith]

So with this new IQ series of backs, surely the designers had the presence of mind to make the internal battery a lot more accessible than with the P/P+ series? Anyone know if they did?

This is the sort of stuff which nobody is going to tell you until you find out the hard way. However, Hasselblad UK prices seem very reasonable by comparison -

CCD Cleaning and Sensor Calibration £312. And Flash Synch Repair, which seems to involve just as much work as the Phase battery replacement, is £417. The job involves -

"A flash sync repair requires total disassembly of the digital back. The flash output integrated circuit is replaced
and additional hardware modifications are made (if necessary) to ensure optimum performance. The CCD
protecting filter is removed, the position of the CCD measured and if necessary, adjusted. The CCD is very
carefully cleaned with compressed air, cleaning fluid and tissues. The unit is then thoroughly checked, following
internal protocol, before despatch."

Now if Hasselbald can do all of that for £417, why not Phase?

John

[lance_schad]

John,

On all the PhaseOne backs since the P series the Flash Sync Connector is replaceable by the end-user or dealer with a $40 kit that consists of a few extra connectors and a special tool. Making the Flash Sync Connector field replaceable probably in response to their experiences with having to do H-series repairs in Denmark.

Not sure about the design of the internal battery, but I can only imagine they have taken that into consideration, and also most likely are using battery technology has evolved since the design of the P/H series since.


L

[Steve Hendrix]

Fair enough, Steve. I think the problem I have with all of this is that it is fine for pros and corporate photogs who can reclaim these costs against tax and recover them from clients. But for the amateur like myself, even if we can afford the back, can we afford to run it thereafter? (a bit like being able to buy a Ferrari but then being too skint to buy tyres for it). When in truth, a little more thought in the design process (like the infamous internal battery swap) would make the thing easier and cheaper to service. I am quite pleased with Hasselblad at least inasmuch as they produced the CFV-39 at what is a pretty reasonable price for us 500 users - a lot cheaper than a P45, for example. But I haven't asked them how much they charge to replace the battery, yet, I have to admit  

John

I'm not sure how the internal battery change came to $2,500 from that one thread. And without recalling the details, it doesn't sound right. Internal battery replacement for a USA-based customer is $600. Because yes, they will have to open the back - just like everyone else besides Leaf, even Hasselblad, though I don't know for sure - and yes, they will clean it, inspect it, re-calibrate it, etc.

It is $600, not $2,500.

The design of products must take into account not just serviceability, but optimization of functionality, quality, etc. Sometimes there are conflicts. It is a non linear equation.

John, I hear you about not just affording the purchase, but also the potential upkeep and surrounding accessories. That is sage advice for someone considering a system like this.

I do feel while the CFV-39 is a great value ($5k less), but it is only made for one system (which can affect costs). A P45+ can go on many different cameras (and I won't get into the feature comparison, long exposures, etc). And we have P45+ refurbs coming in near the same price as a CFV with full warranty.


Steve Hendrix


Steve Hendrix