Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hasselbladfan on October 05, 2015, 10:18:20 am
-
We all know that Hasselblad is having some financial struggles.
But having the same private equity house owning both Phase One and Hasselblad would be unique.
Future will tell. :)
-
For the sake of healthy competition, I hope not.
If Phase and Hasselblad are under one umbrella, I presume Trufocus would be added to the XF, the H system would be quietly retired and the CFV will carry on. Not a good thing.
If anything, I would like Fuji to take over. They have a history in MF, already do lenses for Blad and know the H system quiet well. They have also demonstrated that they can take a garden variety Sony sensor and do something special with it.
-
For the sake of healthy competition, I hope not.
If Phase and Hasselblad are under one umbrella, I presume Trufocus would be added to the XF, the H system would be quietly retired and the CFV will carry on. Not a good thing.
If anything, I would like Fuji to take over. They have a history in MF, already do lenses for Blad and know the H system quiet well. They have also demonstrated that they can take a garden variety Sony sensor and do something special with it.
Interesting, I thought a similar system to that of true focus could possibly be one of the first firmware updates to the XF (I was not aware the technology was patented) and recall Doug saying if this is a feature that XF owners want it would be wise to make your voice heard with your dealer and they would pass it on to P1.
As far as Hassy, would hate to see them go away, competition breeds development, new products and technology and MFD could stand some growth, not diminishment so I hope someone other than P1 picks them up.
-
Interesting, I thought a similar system to that of true focus could possibly be one of the first firmware updates to the XF (I was not aware the technology was patented) and recall Doug saying if this is a feature that XF owners want it would be wise to make your voice heard with your dealer and they would pass it on to P1.
As far as Hassy, would hate to see them go away, competition breeds development, new products and technology and MFD could stand some growth, not diminishment so I hope someone other than P1 picks them up.
I agree with the general sentiment, but maybe phase will have competency from the other brands, both from Pentax in the medium format space and from Sony and Canon from the 35mm. A combined company could be a dream come true for many, like the a dream that was voice here more than one time.
Best regards,
-
Just speculation/opinion by someone at the photorumors site based on their opinion of Hassy's financial health - and picking the only other household name in the MF world as the supposedly needed/ideal acquirer. That's it. Unfortunately, as with anything, once on the 'web it's getting traction.
-
Well, the rumors of Hassy's demise may be somewhat exagerated ...
Edmund
-
The numbers are not great looking, but everyone knew that as the numbers are public like for all Swedish "aktiebolag". You can get the annual report too.
http://www.allabolag.se/5565283123/Victor_Hasselblad_AB (the actual company where work is done)
http://www.allabolag.se/5566365846/Hasselblad_AB (their holding company I suppose)
The numbers for 2014 is still lacking there though. And it will take yet one more year to see the (hopefully positive) effects of the H5D/CFV-50c.
They can always get money injected from the owners if they still believe in the company, and I think they have a long term plan. If the right buyer comes along I'd guess the company can be sold at any time.
-
If Phase and Hasselblad are under one umbrella, I presume Trufocus would be added to the XF, the H system would be quietly retired and the CFV will carry on. Not a good thing.
If Private Equity buys it, it is all about multiples of EBITDA. So, they will try to stop the bleeding and improve the profit line. They rarely stop lines (with the exception of the Lunatic series). But price competition may be reduced a bit.
-
Although I am a Leaf user, I have a fondness for Hasselblad. It is one of those brandnames that have a permanent spot in the main hall of photography hall of fame.
Whoever takes them over, I hope they focus on marketing the brand as a photography brand once again, instead of the pseudo luxury whatever they have tried to be recently. Compete with Phase, not with Bulgari.
(As I said before, I believe Fuji will get them there better than Silverfleet or any other venture capital firm).
-
+1
The beauty of Fuji would be that they have a great income stream from other camera systems / lenses.
But the japanese are never quick to make a decision. :)
-
MFD is now competing with certain mirroless offerings. It is simple to attach a 7RII to a tech cam. I am not trying to incite a bitter debate. It's just that I have been following tech trends over the past 40 years. Granted, MFD is still the king/queen of IQ, however mirrorless offers portability, flexibility, and cost savings. Mirrorless camera technology is evolving rapidly, MFD moves at a slower pace. Surely we can all agree that just like the shift from mainframe & mini computers to desktop PCs, mirroless digital capture is a disruptive technology.
-
Note that Hasselblad is already owned by another private capital firm, Ventizz: http://www.vmcap.de/en/pm110630.php I agree that a merger with another photographic player might help, and Fujifilm is the only one I see with any reason to get involved. The former owner Shriro probably helped to get Hasselblad this far when it arranged the merger of Hasselblad with Imacon. But maybe the larger-than-35mm market cannot sustain all the current systems, and Hasselblad has been outflanked by Phase One, with its exclusive deals on the more recent "near 645 full frame" Dalsa sensors, take-over of Leaf, partnership with Alpa, and so on.
-
So what you're saying is that the Leica s and contax lenses are going off to eBay soon.
Cool.
-
1. Real and hip (even if the "real" is constructed). This can be shot with an i phone, m43, a canon rebel, virtually any camera that is fast and available.
2. Extreme post manipulation which is usually shot with higher megapixel cameras, since post work is 90% of the concept and final imagery.
Everything else falls in the middle ground with mid to lower pay.
Sadly I so agree with you Cooter!
-
I don't sell much stuff.
Why would I, I own all our gear and it makes us money?
I just know how the wind blows in the professional world and when you see something different, you have to take notice.
IMO
BC
I just find the crazy brand loyalty in this business amusing. It's Chevy vs Ford all over again. I'll shoot whatever works the best for that project. Currently shooting Nikon/sony/leica and occasionally rent Canon. Would switch in a heart beat if it made my pictures better. But I will not be loyal to any of them unless they are doing their job.
-
Hi,
Whoever may buy Hasselblad, they would do it to have a decent return on investment. That is to say the investor needs to do a market analysis and figure that there is large enough share of the market to make decent earnings.
The MFD market is a bit crowded, with Phase One (including Leaf) competing with Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica.
Best regards
Erik
+1
The beauty of Fuji would be that they have a great income stream from other camera systems / lenses.
But the japanese are never quick to make a decision. :)
-
Nothing is too crowded if you're disruptive enough.
They said the cellphone market was too crowded when Apple started and look where we are now.
-
Man we were not looking ahead. We should have been inventing a ring flash for an iPhone.
BC
Ringflash for an iPhone! As much as I dislike the look of a ringflash, I might actually buy that, because the one thing I hate a lot more is an above camera flash.
-
Hi Synn,
A very good point. It is just that I don't see that innovation in MFD.
Just to make a small point, price point does also matter. Would the iPhone sell att 6k$US or 60k$US, the market would be an almost non existent niche. But the iPhone is priced absolutely right. Expensive enough to make great earnings but inexpensive enough to have a great market.
Best regards
Erik
Nothing is too crowded if you're disruptive enough.
They said the cellphone market was too crowded when Apple started and look where we are now.
-
Unfortunately medium format sensors still cost quite a bit. It's hard to find prices, but the ones I found hover between 3k and 5k per unit above 30Mpix.
-
BTW: I know my hot rod chevy is faster than your Bronco.
Have not experienced Rogan's Bronco yet but it'll have to be seriously souped up if he wanted it to beat that Black beast...
-
Knowing very little about digital sensors - other than that they seem to work quite well - I'd like ask a question prompted by my love for the Series 500 cameras.
My biggest camera body (D700) has only 12 mp. If its sensor were scaled up to cover the so-called 6x6 area, wouldn't it be a practical proposition? You'd still have a great type of pixel and best of all, a camera body that suits pretty much anything you care to throw at it that's tripod-based.
I'd have thought it's more costly and difficult to cram 36 mps into a small frame than make a larger frame with a lower density.
No?
Rob C
-
Unfortunately medium format sensors still cost quite a bit. It's hard to find prices, but the ones I found hover between 3k and 5k per unit above 30Mpix.
I don't believe that Pentax would be able to sell the "Z" at the price they do if this was the case...
-
My biggest camera body (D700) has only 12 mp. If its sensor were scaled up to cover the so-called 6x6 area, wouldn't it be a practical proposition? You'd still have a great type of pixel and best of all, a camera body that suits pretty much anything you care to throw at it that's tripod-based.
I'd have thought it's more costly and difficult to cram 36 mps into a small frame than make a larger frame with a lower density.
With more pixels in a smaller area you will have very tight tolerances, so you may not get high enough yields to keep prices down. Same thing if you keep the amount of pixels low, but use a much larger area. You can also make less sensors per wafer the bigger you go, so the price tends to go up regardless of production yields.
I don't believe that Pentax would be able to sell the "Z" at the price they do if this was the case...
I don't have access to Sony pricing, but buying in bulk definitely helps. Still, even if you consider all the discounts available, such a sensor would still cost around 2k, maybe they got a really good deal and it's even less than that. The rest of the body can be made for that much money as well, leaving Pentax and resellers enough room for profit. My prices are based on CCD sensors, which are the majority of the MFD offerings available today and are also the most expensive. The Sony sensor is CMOS and much cheaper to make, so you have to factor that in the price as well.
-
Hi,
Problem is that chip estate is expensive, while megapixels are almost free. Scaling up the D700 sensor to 645 would give you something like 30 very expensive MP.
Sony offers 50 MP on a 33x44 mm sensor at a much lower price.
Best regards
Erik
Knowing very little about digital sensors - other than that they seem to work quite well - I'd like ask a question prompted by my love for the Series 500 cameras.
My biggest camera body (D700) has only 12 mp. If its sensor were scaled up to cover the so-called 6x6 area, wouldn't it be a practical proposition? You'd still have a great type of pixel and best of all, a camera body that suits pretty much anything you care to throw at it that's tripod-based.
I'd have thought it's more costly and difficult to cram 36 mps into a small frame than make a larger frame with a lower density.
No?
Rob C
-
I don't have access to Sony pricing, but buying in bulk definitely helps. Still, even if you consider all the discounts available, such a sensor would still cost around 2k, maybe they got a really good deal and it's even less than that. The rest of the body can be made for that much money as well, leaving Pentax and resellers enough room for profit. My prices are based on CCD sensors, which are the majority of the MFD offerings available today and are also the most expensive. The Sony sensor is CMOS and much cheaper to make, so you have to factor that in the price as well.
Given the Pentax 645Z price, considering HB's CFV price and the knowledge that my BEng degree in mechanical & production engineering offers me, I would say that the Sony sensor doesn't cost (to Pentax or HB) more than 250 to 300 maximum... I would also say that no MF sensor in the market costs to the MFDB maker more than 1K...
EDIT: I would say that there is absolutely no way to sell (or offer at a discount period) a product like an MFDB at a retail price that is less than 20x the sensor's price... Now if one adds the (fake) trade in offerings that are included in the retail price, ...here you are!
-
Rob,
It's the sensor *surface* which counts.
I'd expect the Sony 50mp to cost between $800 to $2K depending how many you buy, if you can get them.
Edmund
Knowing very little about digital sensors - other than that they seem to work quite well - I'd like ask a question prompted by my love for the Series 500 cameras.
My biggest camera body (D700) has only 12 mp. If its sensor were scaled up to cover the so-called 6x6 area, wouldn't it be a practical proposition? You'd still have a great type of pixel and best of all, a camera body that suits pretty much anything you care to throw at it that's tripod-based.
I'd have thought it's more costly and difficult to cram 36 mps into a small frame than make a larger frame with a lower density.
No?
Rob C
-
Rob,
It's the sensor *surface* which counts.
I'd expect the Sony 50mp to cost between $800 to $2K depending how many you buy, if you can get them.
Edmund
You can't have a variation of 2.5x in price if you buy the smallest possible quantity... You have to know how production works... The maker sets the minimum amount of units he can supply so that his production is cost effective and usually there is a 2% discount for every doubling in order quantity... So, for example, if the maker sets 100 sensors as minimum order, if one orders 200 he usually gets 2% extra discount... If he orders 400, then there is an extra 2% (of the 200 unit price) added...
EDIT: Now... out of the 8500K that Pentax "Z" is sold in the US, one must subtract about 22.5% dealer margin, then subtract another 15% for transportation, insurance and warranty costs another 5% for promotion & advertisment (etc...) and then divide the outcome by at least 10x to extract the material costs of the whole camera inc the sensor... Profit for the maker is what is left after labor, research and running the production premises costs are subtructed...
In the case of MFDB companies, one must add the (pre-calculated) discount, special offerings and trade in costs...
-
Given the Pentax 645Z price, considering HB's CFV price and the knowledge that my BEng degree in mechanical & production engineering offers me, I would say that the Sony sensor doesn't cost (to Pentax or HB) more than 250 to 300 maximum... I would also say that no MF sensor in the market costs to the MFDB maker more than 1K...
EDIT: I would say that there is absolutely no way to sell (or offer at a discount period) a product like an MFDB at a retail price that is less than 20x the sensor's price... Now if one adds the (fake) trade in offerings that are included in the retail price, ...here you are!
10x gives you the Pentax.
Large scale engineering does not -sadly- carry the same margins. As a guy who sold dams once told me about his trade and military gear: 30% cost, 30% commission, 30% profit.
Edmund
-
10x gives you the Pentax.
Large scale engineering does not -sadly- carry the same margins. As a guy who sold dams once told me about his trade and military gear: 30% cost, 30% commission, 30% profit.
Edmund
Look above.... ;)
-
You can't have a variation of 2.5x in price if you buy the smallest possible quantity... You have to know how production works... The maker sets the minimum amount of units he can supply so that his production is cost effective and usually there is a 2% discount for every doubling in order quantity... So, for example, if the maker sets 100 sensors as minimum order, if one orders 200 he usually gets 2% extra discount... If he orders 400, then there is an extra 2% (of the 200 unit price) added...
I don't know a lot about engineering these days, but I guess you get chips that are engineering prototypes, maybe way before the release, then you get them VERY expensively in sample quantities, and then sometimes you go through some sort of agent/wholesaler, and in the end you deal with the manufacturer, or get a custom run made. The quotes I got from CMOSIS for some sample 24x36mm chips were ... as much as the price of a lens from a certain german luxury camera manufacturer - and there were some interesting conditions attached :)
Edmund
-
I don't know a lot about engineering these days, but I guess you get chips that are engineering prototypes, maybe way before the release, then you get them VERY expensively in sample quantities, and then sometimes you go through some sort of agent/wholesaler, and in the end you deal with the manufacturer, or get a custom run made. The quotes I got from CMOSIS for some sample 24x36mm chips were ... as much as the price of a lens from a certain german luxury camera manufacturer - and there were some interesting conditions attached :)
Edmund
If the quotes where true, then an M9 would never cost what it does and ...just look at the S007 introduction price! (don't fool yourself that the most healthy camera maker -Leica that is- makes a few euros out of their cameras). Usually, there is a contract between the maker and the supplier which guarantee the minimum annual supply and the absorbment both sides...
-
I do believe that the (false) idea of MF sensor costs that the public has, is being intentionally spread by the premium MFDB makers (and in consequence the dealers of them) to justify the asking prices... Market is easy to "bite"...
-
If the quotes where true, then an M9 would never cost what it does and ...just look at the S007 introduction price! (don't fool yourself that the most healthy camera maker -Leica that is- makes a few euros out of their cameras). Usually, there is a contract between the maker and the supplier which guarantee the minimum annual supply and the absorbment both sides...
Theodoros, prices vary over time, as you know, I think the Pentax 645Z is in the same profit bracket as any other "pro" 35mm model, but it uses an off the shelf Sony chip which is now 3 years old (as a finished design). We can expect this chip to get 30 or 40% cheaper every year, and in fact we can see the price of the Pentax drifting down; the 645D is around $5K and I think that reflects the "real" price of the Z when you discount novelty. Hasselblad could effortlessly match the H5D50c to the H5D40 in price if they wanted, in fact I think the 50C is probably much cheaper to produce as the electronics are entirely digital. As Joe Obvious recently posted, if a CFV 50C costs $10K then so should an H back at most, and it should work on any existing H body. Pricing in MF has little to do with component costs.
Edmund
-
Hasselblad could effortlessly match the H5D50c to the H5D40 in price if they wanted, in fact I think the 50C is probably much cheaper to produce as the electronics are entirely digital. As Joe Obvious recently posted, if a CFV 50C costs $10K then so should an H back at most, and it should work on any existing H body. Pricing in MF has little to do with component costs.
Edmund
Phamiya is even worst... They keep IQ 140 & Credo 40 in production as ...much cheaper (!!!) products to the IQ-150 & Credo 50... I really wonder why Hasselblad doesn't consider selling an "open" version of the CFV for other cameras... (reintroduce the CF series of backs). That could be a major success for them! The re-introduction of the CF series of backs could really help them to "breath" financially.
-
The 645D is a discontinued product based on a very old (and also discontinued) Kodak CCD sensor. Current prices are not indicative of manufacturing costs as dealers may just be trying to partially recover expenses on old stock nobody wants anymore.
Suppliers set prices based on industry demand and what their clients (engineering companies) are willing to spend. They sure don't set prices to fool people into paying 22k for a Phase One back.
The Sony CMOS sensor isn't as huge as 60 or 80MP CCD offerings and is based on a cheaper (to make) technology as well, so its price isn't going to be the same as others. What I can give you, are real numbers from the only supplier I found (in a rather quick search, I'm sure there are others) with public pricings: http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA-ND/5256756 (http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA-ND/5256756). Just for information, that sensor model is without microlenses and with a color filter, as per specs (http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/KAF-50100-D.PDF). Yes, it's around 6k per unit, and while there are no automatic price breaks I'm sure that we can work something out.
Considering the supplier has to make its own margin, we can remove a hefty 25% from that price, and another 10% for shipping and taxes. That brings us down to around 4k per unit, which is pretty much in line with one could expect from a medium format CCD sensor with 50MP. Even if you were to strike an awesome deal with OnSemi, I can't imagine that price going lower than 2k per unit, and that is for an off the shelf CCD sensor. The Sony sensor could be half that, and if you factor in additional discounts because it's an old design (though 3 years on sensors is not that old considering R&D takes more time) we can get to sub 1k prices per unit. Keep in mind that silicon wafers are expensive, and they get more expensive the less you make. If you make 100 sensors per year, and a 300mm wafer only holds 8 of them, you get one price as the manufacturer. If you make half the sensors, prices are much higher, and the less you make the more you are impacted by bad sensors.
Credo 50, IQx50 and H5D-50c prices are indeed overpriced if you only consider material costs and a fixed margin, but you have to take into account that while those use the same sensor as the 645z, they are not in the same product category. The 645z can't be (easily) attached to a technical camera, for instance, and it doesn't have the same software stack and color science behind it either. They are different beasts for different people.
I do think MFDBs are overpriced in general, even CCD offerings, but they aren't making outrageous margins like luxury clothing companies do.
-
The 645D is a discontinued product based on a very old (and also discontinued) Kodak CCD sensor. Current prices are not indicative of manufacturing costs as dealers may just be trying to partially recover expenses on old stock nobody wants anymore.
Suppliers set prices based on industry demand and what their clients (engineering companies) are willing to spend. They sure don't set prices to fool people into paying 22k for a Phase One back.
The Sony CMOS sensor isn't as huge as 60 or 80MP CCD offerings and is based on a cheaper (to make) technology as well, so its price isn't going to be the same as others. What I can give you, are real numbers from the only supplier I found (in a rather quick search, I'm sure there are others) with public pricings: http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA-ND/5256756 (http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA/KAF-50100-CAA-JD-AA-ND/5256756). Just for information, that sensor model is without microlenses and with a color filter, as per specs (http://www.onsemi.com/pub_link/Collateral/KAF-50100-D.PDF). Yes, it's around 6k per unit, and while there are no automatic price breaks I'm sure that we can work something out.
Considering the supplier has to make its own margin, we can remove a hefty 25% from that price, and another 10% for shipping and taxes. That brings us down to around 4k per unit, which is pretty much in line with one could expect from a medium format CCD sensor with 50MP. Even if you were to strike an awesome deal with OnSemi, I can't imagine that price going lower than 2k per unit, and that is for an off the shelf CCD sensor. The Sony sensor could be half that, and if you factor in additional discounts because it's an old design (though 3 years on sensors is not that old considering R&D takes more time) we can get to sub 1k prices per unit. Keep in mind that silicon wafers are expensive, and they get more expensive the less you make. If you make 100 sensors per year, and a 300mm wafer only holds 8 of them, you get one price as the manufacturer. If you make half the sensors, prices are much higher, and the less you make the more you are impacted by bad sensors.
Credo 50, IQx50 and H5D-50c prices are indeed overpriced if you only consider material costs and a fixed margin, but you have to take into account that while those use the same sensor as the 645z, they are not in the same product category. The 645z can't be (easily) attached to a technical camera, for instance, and it doesn't have the same software stack and color science behind it either. They are different beasts for different people.
I do think MFDBs are overpriced in general, even CCD offerings, but they aren't making outrageous margins like luxury clothing companies do.
Your post is very interesting, but with the greatest respect I stand by my estimation of the Sony 50MP sensor at $800 to $2K. And, again with the greatest respect, I would like to point out that contrary to the old CCD sensors the Sony devices belong to a modern CMOS family with on-chip A/D conversion, entirely digital interfaces to the outside world, and are like the On Semi devices drop-in members of a sensor family of various sizes which are widely used across the industry. Customers are now normal engineers, not necessarily super-experts. I'd expect the "software stack" and the "color science" to be exactly the same across any camera using any member of this Sony sensor family. The days of the old CCD backs with their complex offboard electronics and signal processing are now gone, at least when it comes to consumer equipment.
Edmund
-
Your post is very interesting, but with the greatest respect I stand by my estimation of the Sony 50MP sensor at $800 to $2K. And, again with the greatest respect, I would like to point out that contrary to the old CCD sensors the Sony devices belong to a modern CMOS family with on-chip A/D conversion, entirely digital interfaces to the outside world, and are like the On Semi devices drop-in members of a sensor family of various sizes which are widely used across the industry. Customers are now normal engineers, not necessarily super-experts. I'd expect the "software stack" and the "color science" to be exactly the same across any camera using any member of this Sony sensor family. The days of the old CCD backs with their complex offboard electronics and signal processing are now gone, at least when it comes to consumer equipment.
Edmund
Oh, in that case we agree completely. As far as the software stack, I was referring to supporting software available with the camera, so that would be Phocus and Capture One, not the actual camera firmware (which I expect to be kind of standardized now, possibly a VxWorks derivative or something similar).
-
Given the Pentax 645Z price, considering HB's CFV price and the knowledge that my BEng degree in mechanical & production engineering offers me, I would say that the Sony sensor doesn't cost (to Pentax or HB) more than 250 to 300 maximum... I would also say that no MF sensor in the market costs to the MFDB maker more than 1K...
AFAIK the 645Z retails for about US$6000 more than the last of the film-based Pentax 645 models, the 645Nii. So with the rule of thumb (suggested by Thom Hogan) that each $1 in extra component costs adds about $3 to the retail price, the digital part of the 645Z could have component costs of about $2000. Not all of that is the sensor of course but probably a large proportion of it is: the other chips for DSP and such are far smaller and probably cost far less, especially for Pentax, which for electronics other than the sensor can be using a lot of the same stuff in the 645Z as in its smaller-format, far higher units sales volume DSLRs.