When will Hasselblad release a new CFV back?

[Gigi]

I tend to agree with you. For some time, Torger has been making a similar point: that the back makers ought to go for more volume in sales and a more modest price point, so as to build up sales and increase market penetration. Of course, none of us are in the "inside" of this problem: its rather a remarkable accomplishment to be a back maker, with high price points, and still be in business today. Looking back at Rollei and Hassy's ventures into digital products in the 1990s is a lesson in how easy it is to get this all wrong. I believe the failed efforts then (due to evolution in technology, not a lack of enthusiasm) underlies the deep conservatism in the industry today. At that time, The leading lights of the MF industry basically did everything they could and still got clobbered.

That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!

[Theodoros]

I tend to agree with you. For some time, Torger has been making a similar point: that the back makers ought to go for more volume in sales and a more modest price point, so as to build up sales and increase market penetration. Of course, none of us are in the "inside" of this problem: its rather a remarkable accomplishment to be a back maker, with high price points, and still be in business today. Looking back at Rollei and Hassy's ventures into digital products in the 1990s is a lesson in how easy it is to get this all wrong. I believe the failed efforts then (due to evolution in technology, not a lack of enthusiasm) underlies the deep conservatism in the industry today. At that time, The leading lights of the MF industry basically did everything they could and still got clobbered.

That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!

Well… it's obvious isn't it? MF had considerably more market volume during the film days and while SLR market retained its customers and even expanded with digital, the huge base of MF market, that the MFDB makers could support with both new equipment and even re-selling to them backs that they take as part exchange, they instead followed a "keep prices as high as possible" policy, which excluded the vast majority of MF users, from becoming possible customers in the future… How stupid of them! Instead of improving prices by increasing production, prices where kept high by both lower production and having a premium included that would allow for the value of the possible part exchange, that was to be thrown away!  Not to add that the customers that would buy new without part exchanging anything, they were practically paying for the premium that is included in the price for the part exchange! …Then, there was so little support for those hundreds of thousands of Bronica users or of RBs or even of Rolleis, that practically was forcing the vast majority of these camera users to never enter digital… Leaf and P1 policy to offer only constant fit (no user interchangeable adapter) also damaged the possible MF market.

[Gigi]

That's from the consumer side. One wonders if the same viewpoint holds from the producer's side. They are likely struggling with the high costs of limited volume, complex engineering requirements, and a modest user base. The model of high-priced, low volume specialty items is not unique to the photo industry, but we're used to seeing it in mechanical photo gear, where the premium was more modest (say 2-4X). It seems that in electronics, the premium is much higher. I wonder if one can compare this to other industries (automobiles for example) and see some of the same issues.

[Chris Livsey]

with the high costs of limited volume, and a modest user base.

The limited volume was because "they" limited it, the user base, potentially, was very far from limited given the sales of all medium format equipment. The choice was to produce and sell limited volume, high price, there was the option to increase production and reduce price. That assumes flexibility in the supply chain to manufacture volumes of chips, that may have been the limiting factor?

"They" limited the supply of S/H backs for trickle down to protect new sales and the pricing policy cut out the majority of the base. Did that model work for the makers, looks like it, up to now, and for the consumers?

[JV]

That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!

The Leica M used to be at the top of the pricing pyramid (together with Hasselblad and Rollei).  

For a lot of people it was something almost mythical, financially very hard to obtain.

Now the Leica S costs 3 times as much as the Leica M…

And a Phase One back alone 2 times as much as the Leica S...

[Theodoros]

That's from the consumer side. One wonders if the same viewpoint holds from the producer's side. They are likely struggling with the high costs of limited volume, complex engineering requirements, and a modest user base. The model of high-priced, low volume specialty items is not unique to the photo industry, but we're used to seeing it in mechanical photo gear, where the premium was more modest (say 2-4X). It seems that in electronics, the premium is much higher. I wonder if one can compare this to other industries (automobiles for example) and see some of the same issues.

That's what I'm saying… they are now trapped in their own mistakes. If the start was different (with "start" I mainly refer to the 2004-2005 period where the first self contained large image area backs first appeared), things would be different by now… OTOH, I don't think that photographic industry can be related with cars… you see everybody needs a car and thus a "special" car can be recognised as a "status symbol" from all population, while MF photography is only relevant to those that do "specialised work", an expensive MF product may not be recognisable even from some DSLR users… and more… the result (the image) is more depended to the creators ability (and creativity) than the tool he uses… See…, now we've spotted an extra point of concern for makers, where some of their products are targeting to customers that use them as status symbols among photographers rather than "tools".

Heck, if P280 is so much better than a P25+, why photography as an art hasn't advanced further because of it?

[jerome_m]

A Hasselblad MF camera cost about $500 in 1952 and was marketed towards advanced amateurs:

(image from: http://silverbased.org/classic-or-dinosaur/).

$500 in 1952, corrected for inflation, is about $4400 today. That was the price for the camera, one magazine and one lens. Additional lenses would add the equivalent of today's $2500-$3500 to the package.

I think that, when one considers the cost of film, development and prints necessary to run a photo business, one will find out that today's prices are a bargain.

[jerome_m]

Just for comparison, I should add that amateur cameras of the 50s could be much cheaper:

(from: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/photography-ads-1950s/10)

This is about the equivalent of $85-95 today, which happens to be close to today's entry price for basic digital P&S cameras...

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I guess that those sensors were expensive and I guess they still are. Most of the sensor market is about smaller sensors and that is were development money is invested. For large makers, like Sony, large sensors are a high margin business, small share in numbers but high prices.

I would not think MF-sensors are much cheaper now than say five years ago. But I am pretty sure that old sensors are recycled and used with newer electronics.

Best regards
Erik

I tend to agree with you. For some time, Torger has been making a similar point: that the back makers ought to go for more volume in sales and a more modest price point, so as to build up sales and increase market penetration. Of course, none of us are in the "inside" of this problem: its rather a remarkable accomplishment to be a back maker, with high price points, and still be in business today. Looking back at Rollei and Hassy's ventures into digital products in the 1990s is a lesson in how easy it is to get this all wrong. I believe the failed efforts then (due to evolution in technology, not a lack of enthusiasm) underlies the deep conservatism in the industry today. At that time, The leading lights of the MF industry basically did everything they could and still got clobbered.

That back makers today can still sell their product for 5-10X the price of an almost-as-good solution (DSLR, now getting closer to the quality levels if seen in the broader picture) to a small and limited group of users with a working business model work is surprising. Perhaps they have a good sense of what they are doing, or maybe they are walking dinosaurs. Its not clear. But glad they are doing it!

[Theodoros]

There is a point here… DMF market is supposed to be at about 4-5000 units per year. Aren't the different sensors that are available too many for such a small market?

[jerome_m]

There is a point here… DMF market is supposed to be at about 4-5000 units per year. Aren't the different sensors that are available too many for such a small market?

They are used in other applications: radiography or astronomy for example. And the size of the DMF is not that clear. That figure can be traced down to a single interview from a Leica representative and how they made it good with their S camera in the "traditional photo" market. Obviously, Leica had an interest to define that "traditional" market as small, but DMF are used in less "traditional" markets as well. For example, it seems that aerial photography is a big enough market for Hasselblad and Phase One to have a line of cameras devoted to that particular application. How do you think the pictures in google maps are taken?

[Douglas Fairbank]

I would guess that the V system today is mostly used by amateurs and some artists (like Anton Corbijn, which still shoot film), while the typical professional would use the H system or other auto focus system.

While some of my clients are amateurs the majority are successful professionals mostly using Phase backs. There are clear indications that many photographers of various ages are rediscovering film photography even if they have digital backs.
This is a very interesting thread and I have no idea what direction MF will take from here.

[Theodoros]

They are used in other applications: radiography or astronomy for example. And the size of the DMF is not that clear. That figure can be traced down to a single interview from a Leica representative and how they made it good with their S camera in the "traditional photo" market. Obviously, Leica had an interest to define that "traditional" market as small, but DMF are used in less "traditional" markets as well. For example, it seems that aerial photography is a big enough market for Hasselblad and Phase One to have a line of cameras devoted to that particular application. How do you think the pictures in google maps are taken?

Surely that extra market you state Jerome, doesn't use all those types of sensors… I would imagine that since the application is "standard" there would be one maybe two sensors only that are used in that market. My opinion is that in what is used in cameras, size of sensor is more important to customers than resolution. I think that a line of 3 sensors, say a 36x48 28mp one, a 53x40.5 40mp one and an equal size 80mp one, would cover all possible customers… The way things are now, there is no lower resolution FF sensor (I think that would be of much demand), the FF sensors are too near in resolution and the mid-resolution (33-50mp) area is overcrowded! Surely the other applications you state, wouldn't be affected by fewer offerings. Additionally, there could be only two FF sensor designs (say 40mp and 80mp as stated above) and the basic sensor could be a cropped version of the 40mp one.

[Theodoros]

While some of my clients are amateurs the majority are successful professionals mostly using Phase backs. There are clear indications that many photographers of various ages are rediscovering film photography even if they have digital backs.
This is a very interesting thread and I have no idea what direction MF will take from here.

To my knowledge Douglas, (please correct me if I am wrong) most of the pros are stuck with older 22/33/39mp backs and only few have invested in new high resolution ones. It's mostly amateurs that are buying hi-end backs.

[eronald]

That's what I'm saying… they are now trapped in their own mistakes.

+1.

Here in Paris, you can  hire a whole crew for an afternoon  (makeup, hair, assistant)  for the price of an MF rental for the day.

I think that strictly as an amateur, I will put out an ad for an assistant when I want to do a walkaround a few times a year;having someone carry stuff will at this point probably cost me $20, be cheaper and more useful than buying any sort of additional equipment. In fact I wonder why amateurs on this forum don't do it more - less time with the equipment means more time with free hands and eyes to set up a shot ...

Edmund

[eronald]

Bonsoir Edmund,

where in Paris do I have to go/phone/mail to find a crew for the afternoon? Merci.

Best,
Johannes

AFAIK, it's a bit like in the film trade, if you know one person, they are then always willing to rope in more. One trick is to go into any big department store, and ask the girls/guys at the makeup stands if they have a friend who .... My first makeup artist was an ex-Moulin Rouge dancer, and she had contacts all over the beauty industry. I didn't do a lot of real crew work, but Paris seemed awash with people who were certainly better at whatever they did than I as a photographer.   

Edmund

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Currently, they will never release another CFV back because they have discontinued the system. As others have said.

[narikin]

Yes the CF system is discontinued, but... we all may be in for a big Hasselblad surprise in the near future.  

That tie up with Sony that everyone scoffs at?  Hmmm - do you think there is more to it that a couple of rebadged cameras?  If a Sony CMOS MF sensor were to be released, with great high ISO and Sony engineered image pipeline, Hasselblad could be back in the game in a huge way.  

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

There is (or was) a solid rumor about Sony working with Hasselblad on a sensor, reality or not? We will see.

Best regards
Erik

Yes the CF system is discontinued, but... we all may be in for a big Hasselblad surprise in the near future.  

That tie up with Sony that everyone scoffs at?  Hmmm - do you think there is more to it that a couple of rebadged cameras?  If a Sony CMOS MF sensor were to be released, with great high ISO and Sony engineered image pipeline, Hasselblad could be back in the game in a huge way.  

[eronald]

Yes the CF system is discontinued, but... we all may be in for a big Hasselblad surprise in the near future.  

That tie up with Sony that everyone scoffs at?  Hmmm - do you think there is more to it that a couple of rebadged cameras?  If a Sony CMOS MF sensor were to be released, with great high ISO and Sony engineered image pipeline, Hasselblad could be back in the game in a huge way.

And if Sony made the sensors for cheap, then Hassy could put Phase out of business
This is actually not impossible, because Sony could run other chips on the same wafers.

Edmund