Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: hubell on January 27, 2011, 08:51:14 am
-
There were several references in the recent "exchange of views" between Michael Reichman and David Grover of Hasselblad (in the now closed topic, "Have Phase One Screwed Up?") about the outcome of litigation involving Hasselblad and Phase One. Does anyone have details about the litigation and whether the court's ruling is accessible on the web?
-
To my knowledge (and I've checked) there is no online information on the exact details of the case.
Neither of the parties seems interested in discussing it either, so it's a bit of a black hole.
What is know is the following.....
There has been a case in a European trade court for several years over the right for Phase One (and others) to mount their backs on Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras. The argument, as I understand it, was that Phase One worked with Hasselblad on the engineering of the digital interface to the H1 camera system and as a result received a royalty free right to sell backs that attached to it.
Hasselblad then closed their system and would not allow other manufacturers to sell backs that attached. (They changed the model number, claiming it was a new camera, and therefore Phase One's right to interface no longer applied).
I may have the fine details off a bit, but those are the broad strokes and are well known to people in the industy.
My understanding is the the courts ruled recently that Phase did indeed have the right to attach to Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras (H3 and onwards looks like it's still problematic) and Leaf (as announced in todays video with Yair Shahar, Leaf's Product Manager, is now shipping their Aptus II 12 80MP in that mount.
I openly invite representatives of both companies to provide further details or elaboration on this matter. I have no interest in name calling or finger pointing. But, unless someone with knowledge of the matter comes forward all we'll have is supposition.
Michael
-
To my knowledge (and I've checked) there is no online information on the exact details of the case.
Neither of the parties seems interested in discussing it either, so it's a bit of a black hole.
What is know is the following.....
There has been a case in a European trade court for several years over the right for Phase One (and others) to mount their backs on Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras. The argument, as I understand it, was that Phase One worked with Hasselblad on the engineering of the digital interface to the H1 camera system and as a result received a royalty free right to sell backs that attached to it.
Hasselblad then closed their system and would not allow other manufacturers to sell backs that attached. (They changed the model number, claiming it was a new camera, and therefore Phase One's right to interface no longer applied).
I may have the fine details off a bit, but those are the broad strokes and are well known to people in the industy.
My understanding is the the courts ruled recently that Phase did indeed have the right to attach to Hasselblad H1 and H2 cameras (H3 and onwards looks like it's still problematic) and Leaf (as announced in todays video with Yair Shahar, Leaf's Product Manager, is now shipping their Aptus II 12 80MP in that mount.
I openly invite representatives of both companies to provide further details or elaboration on this matter. I have no interest in name calling or finger pointing. But, unless someone with knowledge of the matter comes forward all we'll have is supposition.
Michael
I was not aware that there was even an issue about attaching Phase backs to H1s and H2s. My P65 works just fine with an H1, and Phase has been making its backs in H mounts all along. I had also understood that Phase would be selling its IQ series backs in an H mount, yet your interview with Kevin Raber posted on the LULA site implied that no decision had been reached on that, as if the litigation had just now opened that up a legal possibility for Phase.
I guess I understand why neither Phase nor Hasselblad want to publicize the the issues in the litigation. At this point in time where Phase has and will continue to invest millions of dollars in Mamiya and the R&D for a new camera platform, Phase has to be careful of what it asks for. Requiring Hasselblad to open up the newest H4 bodies and the latest lenses to Phase backs may not be in Phase's interest. The landscape is very different today from 2006 when the H3D came on the scene.
If anyone has PDF of the legal decision, perhaps they could share it.
-
I may have the fine details off a bit...
A bit?
I gave my account on the now deleted thread(?), so don't wish to get involved in a pointless argument, if it will simply be deleted again.
The only people who win in these kinds of things are the lawyers.
I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.
Respectfully,
David
-
It's too bad that photographers who just want to photograph get caught up corporate/legal bickering...Phase, Hasselblad, etc etc or whoever about whatever....I am also happily using my P65+ with my H2 (and am hoarding a new ("in box never opened") H2 body in case something should happen to my #1 H2 body. I don't want a Hasselblad digital back and I want the H2 camera body with support of the Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. I have the best of both worlds in my opinion...Too bad Hasselblad closed their system but that's corporate business.... eleanor
I was not aware that there was even an issue about attaching Phase backs to H1s and H2s. My P65 works just fine with an H1, and Phase has been making its backs in H mounts all along.
-
I gave my account on the now deleted thread(?), so don't wish to get involved in a pointless argument, if it will simply be deleted again.
David,
Nothing you have written here has ever been deleted, particularly not relating to this topic. Please do not misrepresent this. The previous thread was closed because it had run out of steam, but it was not deleted. It is there for anyone to read if they wish.
As for the facts of the matter, if you would like to put forward Hasselblad's side of the story you are cordially invited to do so. I'll even promise to publish it unedited on the main site.
But please, stop telling me that I have my information wrong, and then not backing it up with anything. I know all of the principals from both sides of the equation and have for some years, so there's no point in your dissembling.
Thanks you,
Michael
-
Yes,
There is something called freedom of choice. Good to have.
I have read an interview with the former CEO of Hasselblad. The point he made that the back represented the greatest value. So Hasselblad wanted to sell backs. From an economical viewpoint it makes a lot of sense, for Hasselblad that is.
Nice to hear that you are fully satisfied with the system you have invested in.
Best regards
Erik
It's too bad that photographers who just want to photograph get caught up corporate/legal bickering...Phase, Hasselblad, etc etc or whoever about whatever....I am also happily using my P65+ with my H2 (and am hoarding a new ("in box never opened") H2 body in case something should happen to my #1 H2 body. I don't want a Hasselblad digital back and I want the H2 camera body with support of the Hasselblad leaf shutter lenses. I have the best of both worlds in my opinion...Too bad Hasselblad closed their system but that's corporate business.... eleanor
-
snip...
I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.
Respectfully,
David
David,
I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.
Cheers, Ulf
-
Hi,
Actually I think it may have been pretty smart. Hasselblad has a strong position in the professional field, they may even own the market. Now, the back probably represent something like 60-80% of the value of the package. Would it not be lucrative for Hsselblad to dominate the MFDB for the H-system business? For sure, some potential buyers/owners were alienated, like MR, but it may matter little to Hasselblad as he wouldn't have their back anyway.
Of course, it may not be the smartest thing to drive one of the most respected authorities in the field in the welcoming arms of the competition.
Best regards
Erik
David,
I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.
Cheers, Ulf
-
This question of openness is a complex one.
Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.
Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.
In this context, the job of strategists defining product directions is to find the best possible compromise between the value for the customers and that for the company knowing that there will always be unhappy customers.
Our 2.0 world has made these things more complex because of the viral nature of social network where the voice of a very unhappy customer tends to have more weight now than it did in the past.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I am here as a technical guy and would rather talk about cameras, lenses and software with the people who want to know and learn more from a source like myself.
Respectfully,
David
I understand, David. However, my interest in this subject is not a matter of idle(or even professional) curiousity. I am interested to know whether it will soon be possible to buy an H4D body to use with a Phase back or the 35-90 zoom.
Thanks.
-
I understand, David. However, my interest in this subject is not a matter of idle(or even professional) curiousity. I am interested to know whether it will soon be possible to buy an H4D body to use with a Phase back or the 35-90 zoom.
Thanks.
Hi Howard,
No problem - its a technical question. ;)
Phase One can continue to make any products for the H1 and H2 platform. The H4D is separate.
Best,
David
-
David,
Nothing you have written here has ever been deleted, particularly not relating to this topic. Please do not misrepresent this. The previous thread was closed because it had run out of steam, but it was not deleted. It is there for anyone to read if they wish.
As for the facts of the matter, if you would like to put forward Hasselblad's side of the story you are cordially invited to do so. I'll even promise to publish it unedited on the main site.
But please, stop telling me that I have my information wrong, and then not backing it up with anything. I know all of the principals from both sides of the equation and have for some years, so there's no point in your dissembling.
Thanks you,
Michael
Michael,
I received many emails along the lines of "why was the thread deleted?", and then I couldn't find it. So did it temporarily go away for a while?
Anyway, I will politely decline, based on past experiences, unless my superiors would like me to.
David
-
David,
I already asked some month ago, what´s the technical reason, that we cannot use a HCD35-90 or HCD 28 with our H1 or H2 (orH2F)? I do not think closing the H-system was a clever move, it prevented us from investing in new Hasselblad gear, which we definitly would have done (although we bought some mint used backup bodies to keep our new DB busy) I´m with Eleanor, I like the H system and I don´t see any competitor yet but love to use them with 3rd party (Leaf)DB.
Cheers, Ulf
Hi Ulf,
The design of the 28 and 35-90 were based on the ability to perform software corrections as well.
ie.. Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus. To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.
This is why it only works with HxD products.
However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.
The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.
Cheers,
David
-
This question of openness is a complex one.
Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.
Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.
In this context, the job of strategists defining product directions is to find the best possible compromise between the value for the customers and that for the company knowing that there will always be unhappy customers.
Our 2.0 world has made these things more complex because of the viral nature of social network where the voice of a very unhappy customer tends to have more weight now than it did in the past.
Cheers,
Bernard
Hi Bernard,
please don´t get me wrong. I am not an unhappy customer, in fact exactly the opposite. I am enjoying putting the parts together that I consider the best for our work and this is including the H system. I am also aware of the business part of the job and understand the need for ROI, this is exactly what I am talking about. How many Hasselblad/Phase or Hasselblad/Leaf users did actually switch to Hasselblad DB users due to that closing decision? On the other hand they probably lost quite an investment in new bodies and lenses from this group. AFAIK the major part of research and development of the H-system was done before Imacon joined. R&D of the H-system (camerawise) should be paid from selling cameras and lenses, regardless of the back mounted. But may be... - closing the system was necessary to get sales of the joined brand DBs to get this R&D paid. I´ve been to photokina and was kind of disappointed, the new pro level was Ferrari red, storm trooper white and naked steel. I did not place an order. May be the dentist next to me? Honestly, I appreciate the developments of pro gear and I enjoy using it but I do not like this type of "business politics". Still like to know, wether there is any technical need to bann the HCD lenses from H1 / H2. A new firmware might help getting R&D paid for some lenses...
Cheers, Ulf
-
Hi Ulf,
The design of the 28 and 35-90 were based on the ability to perform software corrections as well.
ie.. Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus. To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.
This is why it only works with HxD products.
However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.
The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.
Cheers,
David
David,
I was kidding about that some time ago, not assuming it was the true reason. Thank you for your open answer. I can accept the technical aspect and for the kind of work we do we might be able to correct it, but I´m not sure if I would like to have to do it all the time. Anyway, we enjoy working with H-System cameras and all the pre D lenses, it is still my prefered MF platform!
Cheers, Ulf
-
Everybody needs to make money to keep delivering value to customers. Everybody also tries to maximize the value of one's investments to be able to keep investing. Hasselblad did invest a lot to create the H platform and it is understandable that they want to leverage this by providing an incentive for customer to stay in their system.
Phaseone is in fact doing a similar thing with their trade in program, both companies are keeping customers captive one way or another to secure a stable stream of revenue that hedge the risk of their investments. Chances are that their banks are demanding these approach to keep funding them throughout this tough economy.
These two things are certainly *not* the same. Phase is encouraging you to stay in their product line by offering value added pricing. Hasselblad could have done the same by building better backs than anyone and offering them at competitive prices, with irresistible upgrades. But they didn't. They simply took their ball and went home. On some level, Hassy - and everyone else who observes this practice - admits that the competition was simply too tough, so they closed up their kit.
That said, $45k for these new backs is just stupid.
Its much easier, cheaper and lighter to build a 28mm lens with some distortion AND sharpness edge to edge, correcting the distortion in Phocus. To do this though, needs specific data from the lens at time of capture.
This is why it only works with HxD products.
However, I fully understand you could argue that you could either a) live with this distortion or b) retrospectively correct for it in another application.
The whole point of our lens correction system was to make it seamless and 100% perfect upholding the standards in optics we are known for.
David,
Respectfully, once you add layers of software and post-capture correction, we are by definition no longer talking about optics. Closing your own clients out of your own products is just an extension of what I discussed above. The same holds for disallowing 3rd party developers to build software/hardware tools to compete with your own. If you are producing "100% perfect" results with your distortion correction, why not let others take a whack at it?
Competition is always better, for all parties concerned.
-
I have read an interview with the former CEO of Hasselblad. The point he made that the back represented the greatest value. So Hasselblad wanted to sell backs. From an economical viewpoint it makes a lot of sense, for Hasselblad that is.
If you are talking about Christian Poulsen there some stories to be told...you know Christian used to work at Phase One? That he tried to get Phase One to build a scanner? That he left Phase One with the designs (which were brilliant) to create Imacon? That somehow every time Imacon got bought out, Christian seemed to come out on top finally ending up as CEO of the Hasselblad Imacon Company?
I've known Christian since the old Imacon days and while I respect his engineering prowess, I think there's plenty to question regarding his management skills. I think the closing of the Hasselblad system was a mistake and I'm not at all sure that the "public" reasons for doing so are, well, "all the reasons" it was done. Personally, I think Hasselblad now regrets that move (although this is my personal opinion not based on public information).
So, we'll see. I do actually wish Hasselblad well. I used a Hasselblad (the real Victor Hasselblad AB film camera) professionally for decades. The film Hasselblads are actually having a bit of a come back. I recently sold my 500 CM for almost $1,200. I got a lot less for my 500 ELM. I now use Phase One...from Denmark which was also home to Imacon, and near another Scandinavian country a bit different, Sweden, where Hasselblad came from (now, not so much).
Strange bed fellows...
-
I received many emails along the lines of "why was the thread deleted?", and then I couldn't find it. So did it temporarily go away for a while?
The thread in question is here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=50701.20) and always has been...
-
Poor Phase One
(1)- first Hassy locked them out
(2)- then Leaf locked them out
(3)- then they suddenly had enough money to buy Mamiya
(4)- then they suddenly had enough money to but Leaf
(5) - now their customers are whining about their prices. Ingrates!
Edmund
-
I think the closing of the Hasselblad system was a mistake
+1
-
If airing out all this Phase / Hasselblad laundry gets a bit hum drum, then maybe one of you could get to another similar topic of why phase don't offer their backs for the Hy6/AFi? ::)
-
I come from a life long career in the IT industry where various devices (eg. storage) made by many manufacturers are attached to systems with out regard to being "locked out". Lock out doesn't exist. If you can engineer an interface and make money you just do it.
So, my question is, by whose authority is Phase not allowed to make an interface for any Hasselblad or whatever MF camera? Is this not a matter of access to the interface requirements (and what about reverse engineering) or is there something more sinister here?
-
...or is there something more sinister here?
There is something more technical, for sure..."sinister", not so sure (so I defer a specific answer to that ?)...
-
+1
I respectfully disagree. I believe they had no option. They could never compete with PhaseOne or Leaf. They had to spend money on the camera and lenses, and PhaseOne and Leaf could invest all the money on the backs. Besides Phase one has the favor or most of the most influential bloggers etc.
My take will be that the mistake was thinking that closing the system was enough. Before closing it, they should have prepared better: invest like winners in the backs etc. The first closed system was a very tiny step forward for Hasselblad. Not enough to push them ahead. In some aspects I will said they don't even got parity.
If you are running from behind you cannot become number one without risk. Heavy risk in the case of a marathon or technology.
In the other hand they appear to be more willing today, even as the H4D-60 remains a puzzle.
-
Jeff, the "sinister" was tongue in cheek. If the lock out was based on some legal or government regulation then sinister might apply in light of the EU's many efforts to maintain open competition amongst manufacturers.
-
If the lock out was based on some legal or government regulation then sinister might apply in light of the EU's many efforts to maintain open competition amongst manufacturers.
I have no specific knowledge one way or the the other...other than knowing a bit about the "players". (and I got to know the payers pretty well).
Not saying...just saying...
(if you know what I mean).
-
Hi,
Yes, the interview I read was with Christian Poulsen in a Swedish publication. What he said made a lot of sense.
Thanks for your comments!
BTW, I'm sort of astonished how successful Danish firms are in high end audio, digital backs and so on.
Best regards
Erik
If you are talking about Christian Poulsen there some stories to be told...you know Christian used to work at Phase One? That he tried to get Phase One to build a scanner? That he left Phase One with the designs (which were brilliant) to create Imacon? That somehow every time Imacon got bought out, Christian seemed to come out on top finally ending up as CEO of the Hasselblad Imacon Company?
I've known Christian since the old Imacon days and while I respect his engineering prowess, I think there's plenty to question regarding his management skills. I think the closing of the Hasselblad system was a mistake and I'm not at all sure that the "public" reasons for doing so are, well, "all the reasons" it was done. Personally, I think Hasselblad now regrets that move (although this is my personal opinion not based on public information).
So, we'll see. I do actually wish Hasselblad well. I used a Hasselblad (the real Victor Hasselblad AB film camera) professionally for decades. The film Hasselblads are actually having a bit of a come back. I recently sold my 500 CM for almost $1,200. I got a lot less for my 500 ELM. I now use Phase One...from Denmark which was also home to Imacon, and near another Scandinavian country a bit different, Sweden, where Hasselblad came from (now, not so much).
Strange bed fellows...
-
i have ordered an IQ180 with an H-mount yesterday and my dealer has already received the order confirmation
from phase headquarters....
peter
-
Also an IT guy and I get your point but good luck dealing with say Apple without their support, heck you can"t even distribute SW for the IPhone or IPad without their approval (never mind having to use Cocoa and Objective-C yuch!)
-
...
The only people who win in these kinds of things are the lawyers.
David
I have no problem with that (Im' a lawyer) ;D
In any event, I'm a satisfied Hassy H4 user, great camera and system, (which is not a criticism at all of the also excellent Phase / Mamiya system)
-
+1
That's what I once thought (i.e. that Hassy closing their system was a mistake) but maybe not
Consider this point. In my view, there is a key difference between Phase and Hassy.
Hassy are camera manufacturers who added digital back capabilities when they acquired Imacon, but fundamentally, the camera comes first, the digital back second.
Phase are digital back manufacturers who added camera capability when they acquired (or merged) with Mamiya, but findamentally, the back comes first, the camera second.
I think that these historic differences still inform the psycology of both companies today.
When Phase release a new series of backs, the camera is secondary (see Michael's interview piece). However when Hassy introduce a new product, it is defined by reference to the camera system, such as the H4D, with different digital back options. These different approaches are a result of the different histories of the two companies and probably explains why Hasselblad see the back as more closely tied to and part of the camera system, a link they want to protect.
Quentin
-
Hassy are camera manufacturers who added digital back capabilities when they acquired Imacon, but fundamentally, the camera comes first, the digital back second.
Phase are digital back manufacturers who added camera capability when they acquired (or merged) with Mamiya, but findamentally, the back comes first, the camera second.
Except, the current relationship of Phase/Mamiya is so new there's not been a Phase One designed camera developed from the ground up yet.
While Phase One had input with Mamiya for the current 645DF, it's still fundamentally a Mamiya. The recent relationship with Schneider for the creation of the leaf shutter lenses is, I think a better predictor of the future direction of the Phase/Mamiya direction. The next camera design will have a lot riding on it and I'm pretty sure Phase will not release it until they get it right, which is a big project.
But the fact remains, Phase is an open system and Hasselblad is closed. Only time will tell which approach ends up better in the long run...I don't think Hasselblad's closure of their system has helped Hasselblad's users and dealers and I'm not sure it's helped their position in the industry.
-
Also an IT guy and I get your point but good luck dealing with say Apple without their support, heck you can"t even distribute SW for the IPhone or IPad without their approval (never mind having to use Cocoa and Objective-C yuch!)
That's not strictly true: you just can't distribute it via the app store, the platform which Apple owns and controls. There are other sources of software for iOS.
Jeremy
-
+1
+1 Kodak is a good example of closed system.
-
+1 Kodak is a good example of closed system.
I've unofficially heard one side of this story, with the group that makes the backs saying why doesn't the group that makes the camera make a better back to compete?
Now I think they did.
I would imagine the group that makes the H-series now says why doesn't the other company make a better camera?
Opened or closed I don't think it makes that much of a difference. They're tons of h1 and h2 bodies around for any back to go on and I've seen a lot of leaf and phase backs on a hasselblad, but never have seen a Hasselblad CF back on a Mamiya.
IMO
BC
-
I wonder if the completed and revolutionary new Phase One camera which will eventually turn up will indeed still be open? Given that there are now only two players left in the MFDB world, why would they bother leaving the camera open? I know they say that they are comitted to open platform but I suppose 'blad said the same thing until they closed it...
-
I wonder if the completed and revolutionary new Phase One camera which will eventually turn up will indeed still be open? Given that there are now only two players left in the MFDB world, why would they bother leaving the camera open? I know they say that they are comitted to open platform but I suppose 'blad said the same thing until they closed it...
I would bet it will since this has been the marketing cornerstone for a few years for Phase One. The thing about open/closed systems is that it takes more work to close a system. Hasselblad H2F/H3/H4 are closed because the firmware actively rejects anything that is not Hasselblad.
-
+1 Kodak is a good example of closed system.
Canon and Nikon are good examples of closed systems: integrated design has possible advantages along with its disadvantages.
Also what is the closed Kodak system you refer too? In MF, Kodak made only backs, and they were usable with a variety of MF bodies. In 35mm digital Kodak's system was if anything more open than Canon's and Nikon's, in that Kodak made bodies for both Canon and Nikon lens mounts.
-
I would bet it will since this has been the marketing cornerstone for a few years for Phase One. The thing about open/closed systems is that it takes more work to close a system. Hasselblad H2F/H3/H4 are closed because the firmware actively rejects anything that is not Hasselblad.
Yes, the new Phase camera will be open to all third party backs. Just like the Mamiya/DF today. Sounds magnanimous. The reality is that there are no third party backs from competitors that anyone can or would want to buy to put on the new Phase camera, or the DF for that matter. Even if you could put a Hassy back from an H4D on the new Phase camera, why would you want to? Who would buy an H4D that includes an H4D body to put the back on a Phase camera? People buy Hassy backs today because they want the Hassy camera. They buy Mamiya/Phase cameras because they want a Phase back, and the only game in town is a Mamiya/Phase camera unless you are ok with a dead end camera like an H1 or Contax.
-
I wonder if the completed and revolutionary new Phase One camera which will eventually turn up will indeed still be open? Given that there are now only two players left in the MFDB world, why would they bother leaving the camera open? I know they say that they are comitted to open platform but I suppose 'blad said the same thing until they closed it...
I've been wondering exactly the same, especially after seeing the interview with Kevin Raber, Yair and Michael. Kevin as vice president of Phase US does not seem to know if his IQ series will be available for the H platform!?
Furthermore it seemed as if he, despite the fact that Michael asked him repeatedly were unable to provide an answer to weather or not the IQ series will be supported on H3/H4 blad's (around 12 min. into the video). Very fishy indeed in my opinion..
/David
Contax & P25
H3DII-39
H2
-
I've been wondering exactly the same, especially after seeing the interview with Kevin Raber, Yair and Michael. Kevin as vice president of Phase US does not seem to know if his IQ series will be available for the H platform!?
Furthermore it seemed as if he, despite the fact that Michael asked him repeatedly were unable to provide an answer to weather or not the IQ series will be supported on H3/H4 blad's (around 12 min. into the video). Very fishy indeed in my opinion..
Are you really that unsophisticated that you can't appreciate that one day after a new product is announced, during an unrehearsed interview, Kevin might not have every detail at his fingertips? Really?!
When Phase's management in Denmark saw the interview online they contact me (and Kevin) to let us know that they would in fact be making the IQ backs in H1 / H2 mount. H3 and H4 are a no-go for anyone because Hasselblad won't allow it.
Nothing "fishy". No conspiracy. Just the realities of corporate communications during a very hectic period.
Shessh
Michael
-
Are you really that .........snip.........Shessh
Michael
Michael,
With all due respect, In light of the recent court case, I got the impression from your question that you were asking if there would be a phase back on the newer Hasselblad bodies. I'll admit that might be a reach, but still that's the impression I got.
I also got the impression that Mr. Raber's hesitation was because I'm sure there is a lot of behind the scenes talk at Phase about which direction they should go.
If they offer the back in a H mount, does that cannibalize their Mamiya sales in bodies, lenses and accessories. If they don't offer the new backs in a H mount, does that stunt the potential sales of the backs?
Granted this is all conjecture, but I'll bet those questions have gone around Phase management for some time and i think you have to admit there is a lot of contradictory and confusing information out there.
The video interview you did was nice and appreciated, but there were no hard questions asked, or answered.
Take Leaf for example, there was a Leaf rep, with the same exact sensor and camera body with a Leaf back, though the price is $10,000 less.
Will Leaf be positioned as the lower priced Phase brand, will Leaf eventually have a new high rez screen of their own, will Leaf even continue to update Leaf Capture software?
Then how about the Mamiya system. There is talk from Phase sales people of a new Mamiya body. Will that be soon, or years down the line? Will it have the same interface as the older body so a user's investment in the back is secured, or will they have to upgrade both backs and bodies?
Medium format has always been less than transparent on future plans and let's be honest a lot of people got stung on the Leaf AFI and with Phase having to upgrade to a new Mamiya DF just to use the new lenses at full features and the 90 degree grip.
These backs are high investment items and a little more clarity would go a long way to stopping conjecture from both the users and the sellers.
There is a lot of video out there as sales material to push the new Phase backs. That's natural for new product introductions, but I think a lot of people would like to see some longer term questions asked and hopefully answered, especially when two of the Phase company principles are present.
IMO
BC
-
Canon and Nikon are good examples of closed systems: integrated design has possible advantages along with its disadvantages.
Also what is the closed Kodak system you refer too? In MF, Kodak made only backs, and they were usable with a variety of MF bodies. In 35mm digital Kodak's system was if anything more open than Canon's and Nikon's, in that Kodak made bodies for both Canon and Nikon lens mounts.
It is true Kodak makes the digital 35mm camera base on Nikon or Canon. So you can use Nikon or Canon lens.
But that is all. No 3rd party accessories or software support. For example to change the HD is so expensive.
Their Minilab is also closed system. So once Nikon and Canon start making their own digicam.
Their is choice for the consumer. Once they go they never look back again.
Even Nikon or Canon has 3rd party lens and accessories.
-
Are you really that unsophisticated that you can't appreciate that one day after a new product is announced, during an unrehearsed interview, Kevin might not have every detail at his fingertips? Really?!
When Phase's management in Denmark saw the interview online they contact me (and Kevin) to let us know that they would in fact be making the IQ backs in H1 / H2 mount. H3 and H4 are a no-go for anyone because Hasselblad won't allow it.
Nothing "fishy". No conspiracy. Just the realities of corporate communications during a very hectic period.
Shessh
Michael
What a passionate answer Michael!
I noticed your passion for Hasselblad cameras during the interview and would myself as a fan of their products have loved to mount my P25 (your more sophisticated than me so yours is probably bigger) on a brand new H4. I however also respect and as a customer see the advantages of the decisions Hasselblade made some years back.
So the resent court case seems to have come out in their favor..or?
/David
Contax & P25
H3DII-39
H2
-
Listening to the interview, I doubt Leaf will continue to update the Leaf Capture but Capture one would serve both units. I'm sure I've heard that at one point in the interview. It makes sense in a way but that would be nice if confirmed.
It does not seems that Leaf is going to be a Lexus remake but indeed Phase will have the "luxury" label and Leaf the "affordable". At least they clearly established the tendency on 2 backs, being fair that the only difference is generational but price gap is big.
The only company who does a proper body so far is Hasselblad.
It's like manufacturers are completly broken into pieces, a coherent system will belong to a sort of lego between various brands? looks a little bit like a chaos and more and more DIY.
I don't like that.
-
It's like manufacturers are completly broken into pieces, a coherent system will belong to a sort of lego between various brands? looks a little bit like a chaos and more and more DIY.
I don't like that.
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think both companies, Phase/Leaf and Hasselblad are pursuing integration, Hasselblad just had a head-start with their own (and in my opinion superior to the Phase/Mamiya) camera. I notethat the IQ backs can be turned on via the camera power-on (much like the Hasselblads) due to better back/body interface. I very much look forward to a rumoured new body from Phase just as I did the AFi/Hy6 as it can only lead to more competition/innovation.
Like it or not, tighter integration between back/body (or closing the system if you wish) does lead to better results. Hasselblad's DAC corrections are amazing, and a dividend of that integration. If you haven't seen the results get someone to show you the distortion correction using the HTS on an H3D/H4D.
Finally if as I hope Phase are indeed working on a body you can bet they will be looking for similar benefits by closing integrating the new body with their (excellent) backs.
Nick-T
-
I'm not sure I agree with that. I think both companies, Phase/Leaf and Hasselblad are pursuing integration, Hasselblad just had a head-start with their own (and in my opinion superior to the Phase/Mamiya) camera. I notethat the IQ backs can be turned on via the camera power-on (much like the Hasselblads) due to better back/body interface. I very much look forward to a rumoured new body from Phase just as I did the AFi/Hy6 as it can only lead to more competition/innovation.
Like it or not, tighter integration between back/body (or closing the system if you wish) does lead to better results. Hasselblad's DAC corrections are amazing, and a dividend of that integration. If you haven't seen the results get someone to show you the distortion correction using the HTS on an H3D/H4D.
Finally if as I hope Phase are indeed working on a body you can bet they will be looking for similar benefits by closing integrating the new body with their (excellent) backs.
Nick-T
Nick, I agree. I may have expressed myself badly, english sometimes is hard for me. I'm NOT in favor of messing backs with bodies. Simply because there will always be a looser and I think too many lost so far. I'm in favor of closed or integrated if you prefer systems. The chaos I mentioneed was in the case we start to broke systems into pieces. I think it will damage the manufacturers and not sure at all will benefit the user.
It's too easy for Phase, doing excellent backs and deplorable bodies (ok not deplorable but rather bad) to relly on others. They deserve to put their engineers at work and go out with a great body once for awhile. It's amazing that the Contax is still a must after all those years.
-
Nick has really hit the nail on the head and I agree with him that it is almost certainly inevitable that the Phase System will be eventually be totally closed (sorry integrated). The bottom line is that all the MF suppliers effectively have closed systems - Hasselblad, Phase/Mamiya, Leica and Pentax - and the fact that Phase has products which fit obsolete MF cameras is entirely for their benefit. Where do you go when your H1/2, Rollei or V series body finally packs up? You will certainly not be throwing away the investment in an expensive Phase back. Phase One as an open system? It's a myth.
-
Nick has really hit the nail on the head and I agree with him that it is almost certainly inevitable that the Phase System will be eventually be totally closed (sorry integrated).
Integrated doesn't mean closed...already there's more integration between the P1 645 FD and the P65+ than is capable with the previous P1 camera. Doesn't equate to being closed...it just means there's greater integration–which is a good thing.
Obviously, there can be benefits for users of integrated equipment systems but that's a far cry from saying no, you CAN'T use this back on THIS camera.
-
So Jeff can I grab a
Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool! Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?
Nick-T
-
So Jeff can I grab a Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool! Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?
Nick-T
Hasselblad caught a lot of s**t when they closed off their camera and I for one wasn't that wild about it.
But then I put myself in their shoes.
I get a call a few times a year where a good client wants to use part of my crew, or retouch team or someone to usually fix some other photographer's project. I'm all for helping a client, but I'm not a production company that works for other photographers, we work in a closed loop, because that's where the creative control and profit for my company is generated. I would not have much success if I took my hard earned equity and gave it away to my competitors at a smaller profit than my business model dictates.
So with that in mind can anyone blame Hasselblad for wanting the whole piece of the pie?
Let's be honest, The AFI went semi-bust and hurt a lot of early adopters in the process. Contax went down, Bronica never got a foothold in digital and Mamiya was left languishing in the corner with their ZD camera and back. All of this was like some kind of comedy of errors. The AFI could have been a great camera, though for some reason nobody wanted to feature the Rolliflex name and for some reason F+H just couldn't come out with a complete autofocus lens line in time. The fact that Contax was left on the table nobody understood and Mamiya was the last one standing without a partner.
As much as Phase has improved the Mamiya to the DF, it's still not close to the 10 year old H series and it must have cost Hasselblad a lot to develop that camera so quickly and complete. This gives Hasselblad one hell of a strong position.
Phase One always has held a strong industry position with their software, but it won't process a Hasselblad file and until Phase acquired Leaf, it wouldn't see those files either. That's a closed system especially since software is 1/2 of the equation in the world of medium format.
Anyway the goal of all business is to hold a strong industry position and I don't think any of us that run a business have a problem understanding that.
IMO
BC
-
So Jeff can I grab a Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool!
You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?
Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?
Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?
-
You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?
Excuse me for answering for Nick, but I've shot in most studios in most major markets in the world and have seen a lot of different equipment used.
I believe that Hasselblad and Sinar were the only two companies that made backs with interchangeable mounts for most popular cameras.
Whether they still do this I don't know, but I've seen a lot of different backs (including hasselblad) on H series camera, but never have seen a Hasselblad back on any other platform and kind of wonder why anyone would want to, since the H series is the standard for most rental studios in most of the world.
Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?
Please see above.
Actually I don't understand why any Phase user would have a problem with this. Leaf users especially, because Leaf through their contact with the MAC (Mamiya America Corp), always pushed the Mamiya brand first, then later Leaf featured the AFI.
In regards to Hasselblad or Phase making backs for the original HY6/AFI I don't think it was expertise, I believe that F+H wanted a specific buy in price (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and I believe Phase probably opted out of that.
Once again when it comes to the world of medium format competitors sharing, the only company that really shared their platform was Hasselblad and Mamiya with most professionals and studios going with the Hasselblad. Leaf didn't give Phase a share of their AFI's, Phase didn't process other medium format companies files and once Leica came out with a semi competitor to Phase it seemed that close relationship went from the talk of Leica lenses for Phase bodies, then it ended.
IMO
BC
-
You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?
Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?
Yes, Hasselblad does. The question is whether they are allowed to make a mount for the AFI as well. Are they?
-
Yes, Hasselblad does. The question is whether they are allowed to make a mount for the AFI as well. Are they?
Let's say they are allowed, would they then go and invest in such a project knowing that the relatively small install base is already covered by Leaf? I doubt it...
-
Oh. I am convinced they would spare themselves the effort.
-
At the risk of adding more flame to the fire, here's a thought: there is a generational shift happening in the back/body/lens combinations. Older ideas of openness are giving way, and we shouldn't be surprised. Happy, maybe not, but....
The basic MF/LF model with which we started was an interchangeable back, such as the Hassy V where backs were simply swopped out. Simple, clear and very flexible. And we all thought our digital backs should do the same: one back, many platforms is but a modification of this approach, although the priority shifted to the back, not the platform. But it is a good model - and the early Hassy backs (I-adapter) and Sinar followed this. It probably wasn't as simple as that - as different cameras had different elec signalling, but it was possible. Phase even did it - but you sent the back for re-config.
The push now is integration: integration of software and hardware is now so critical that flexibility of switching backs around is being sacrificed. Hassy goes closed. Manufacturers and system designers might be saying they can't hold the needed quality levels with bits and pieces moving around. Certainly, the new software with the lenses from Hassy shows the benefits of keeping it all in one house. This is just like smaller bodied cameras, made bigger and better.
Things tighten up elsewhere, such as the S2. Leica, wanting their famously tight tolerances, wouldn't go down the DMR route again, and have an open body/back: You can almost hear them from afar: "make it once, align it right, and close it up". Who's to argue?
More critically, if a manufacturer is responsible for the functioning of an expensive piece of kit (meaning it has to work, or the photog gets really upset), they will want control over the integration of all the pieces. Having different makers pointing fingers at each other is no one's idea of fun. Remember Michael's MFDB tests of a few years ago, where the measurement of success was how few times the system locked up?
The systems get more tightly integrated, performance goes up, sacrificing along the way system flexibility (mix and match components). But this makes good business sense and we get better working products, hopefully for lower costs.
Is it the only way? Probably not. Some of us make do with the other approaches - Afi, Contax, H1/2, etc. They work and work well, and suggest that this other approach (more resources spent on cross-platform flexibility) works as well. But lets not kid ourselves and be surprised at the trend.
-
Let's say they are allowed, would they then go and invest in such a project knowing that the relatively small install base is already covered by Leaf? I doubt it...
Yaya
Is it me or did you just duck the question? :)
ARE Hasselblad allowed to mount backs on the AFi??
-
Yaya
Is it me or did you just duck the question? :)
ARE Hasselblad allowed to mount backs on the AFi??
AFAIK they've never asked ;)
-
AFAIK they've never asked ;)
When someday Hass makes a 56x56mm DB, they may ask. ;D
I am not sure if the main-stream DB future will stop at 56x42mm. It probabaly will.