Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: Theodoros on June 14, 2016, 09:25:34 pm
-
Which simply meant... that one couldn't use the new lenses on his older (6xxx series) camera! ...and more than that, they changed the digital back mount! (which meant that one couldn't share an MFDB between his previous and next camera)...
CONCLUSION: It takes only a couple of (marketing) foolish decisions to destroy the most brilliant pro system ever...
No camera system ever had this kind of potential... Rollei offered a complete series of lenses, a fully modular camera and a modern view camera that one could share his backs (film or digital) and additionally keep the same line of lenses and use on it! And then, they even added a shutter system and control so that one could use the very same interface if he wanted to use dedicated lenses on the view camera! But then... the HY-6 came and changed it all! The lenses where not back compatible to the existing systems anymore!
Who ever thought of that "brilliant" idea? ...AF was there, electronic aperture control was there, what was the need for the AF-D series of lenses? ...what they where thinking of?
OTOH, It reminds of some recent marketing decisions of some modern makers, doesn't it? (making the camera incompatible with the existing base of backs) :o :'(
-
Isn't this like ten years ago?
Besides, you're not supposed to sit on old gear forever, but upgrade upgrade upgrade! The small medium format companies are dependent on that their users buy their new gear, so making old stuff incompatible or at least cumbersome to use can be a good thing.
-
I would think that Rollei's "fatal mistake" was to not manage themselves properly and going out of business.
-
Isn't this like ten years ago?
Obviously... but it's one of the systems that still has fanatic users due to some reasons, here are some:
1. Camera bodies are completely modular with interchangeable finders, backs, screens and (off course) ability to use film or digital.
2. Lenses are both of superb image quality, but of second to none build quality too,
3. First camera that ever used high leaf shutter sync (higher than 1/500).
4. The most "quite" camera ever when used with mirror lock... ideal to use for multishot captures, 16x is a piece of cake with it.
5. A "ton" of lenses offered, fastest lenses available than any other system (equals the non leaf shutter Contax on this)
6. 6X6 image area and lens quality make the lenses ideal to use on a view camera... especially with 33x44 & 36/37x48/49 backs...
7. Mounting distance makes lenses much more friendly to use with modern backs and sensors with microlenses...
..and many more. All & all a system that is the most capable for pro use even if compared with any of the modern offerings, it lucks nothing - offers much that modern systems luck.
Besides, you're not supposed to sit on old gear forever, but upgrade upgrade upgrade!
I suppose this is sarcastic... quite right too if it is... Some people blame their older gear for their disappointing results and think of "upgrade" to blame...
The small medium format companies are dependent on that their users buy their new gear, so making old stuff incompatible or at least cumbersome to use can be a good thing.
It seems so... That's what I call "marketing golden boys of crap"... The truth is that making stuff incompatible is the same as tearing your own eyes off... It disappoints older users to the degree that if they are to "change system" internally, they may as well change boat to another maker... It happened with Hasselblad with the H3 introduction that was the start of the decent and brought the company facing bankruptcy, it continued with Hasselblad when they stopped the CF series of backs, it happened with Rollei and the complains on the P1 XF incompatibility out of older users are more than obvious all over the web...
Keeping compatibility is crucial when a pro invests on a system, it has being proven by Hasselblad V history and is proven again with the H4X & even more with the H5X (although Hassy has to re-introduce the CF series of backs and offer the ability for one to buy the complete camera offerings with an H-X body as an alternative)...
If the aim of Rollei was to "force" 6008AF users as to change to HY-6 instead, what they should consider first should be "why one would do so"? What is that he would gain for loosing money? ...is there anything? If OTOH the aim was to attract new comers to the Rollei system with the HY-6, what was going to be the back-up camera? Another H/Y-6?
If the H/Y-6 have kept the lens interface of the AF lenses and if a new adapter for the older MFDBs (of imacon/Hassselblad CF & Sinarbacks) was offered with the camera so that older backs where made compatible, I bet you anything that Rollei would still be among us and running strong.
There could even be an H6Y-45 (645) with focal plane shutter and "dummy" adapter for the lenses as to transfer the interface by now and a new X-act3 that would be compatible with mirrorless cameras, all compatible with the existing series of lenses and backs that would have created an ultra wide existing base of customers in the market... The wider the marketing base, the most successful the maker... (Unwritten) rule number one with marketing.
-
Well...some of this is true at least. But not the full story.
It's true there isn't backwards compatibility if the Hy6 back to the older bodies. And that the newest AF lenses (without aperture ring) didn't go backwards (maybe to the last 6008, not sure).
But the opposite is also true: all the PQ lenses, manual or AF, are forwardly compatible, and are a real pleasure to use on the 6008 and the Hy6. I've got a number of the manual ones bought in the 1990s and they not only work brilliantly with the very accurate focus confirmation on the Hy6, but they hold their own against current view camera lenses in image quality. So too the AF lenses - although like you, I don't care for the AFD withou aperture rings.
Seen another way - if you are willing to parse through the complexities and nuances of the system, and deal with the size/weight, you can assemble a very capable system with lenses for not so much money. Yes you are bit locked out of the newest backs, but the Leaf AFI or Credo (if one can find that) are pretty darn nice. The Leaf AFI back came with a rotating sensor, very nice as well.
-
Hi,
My understanding is that the HY6 was developed for Jenoptik who needed a camera to put their digital backs on. Jenoptic was joined by Leaf and Sinar, while Hasselblad has closed down the H-system and Phase One bought into Mamiya. When Jenoptic pulled out, the operation (at that stage called Franke & Heidecke) filed for bankruptcy. Some assets were acquired by DHW and production restarted. DHW went insolvent in 2014 and was dissolved 2015-04-01.
The major mistake Rollei and later DHW made was probably to produce for a market that was to small to be profitable. Contrary to Phase One and Hasselblad Rollei/DHW did not have their own digital back and it is probably the backs that make good money.
It is quite interesting technical camera vendors can survive in their even smaller markets.
Best regards
Erik
I would think that Rollei's "fatal mistake" was to not manage themselves properly and going out of business.
-
Well...some of this is true at least. But not the full story.
It's true there isn't backwards compatibility if the Hy6 back to the older bodies. And that the newest AF lenses (without aperture ring) didn't go backwards (maybe to the last 6008, not sure).
But the opposite is also true: all the PQ lenses, manual or AF, are forwardly compatible, and are a real pleasure to use on the 6008 and the Hy6. I've got a number of the manual ones bought in the 1990s and they not only work brilliantly with the very accurate focus confirmation on the Hy6, but they hold their own against current view camera lenses in image quality. So too the AF lenses - although like you, I don't care for the AFD withou aperture rings.
Seen another way - if you are willing to parse through the complexities and nuances of the system, and deal with the size/weight, you can assemble a very capable system with lenses for not so much money. Yes you are bit locked out of the newest backs, but the Leaf AFI or Credo (if one can find that) are pretty darn nice. The Leaf AFI back came with a rotating sensor, very nice as well.
There is no argument that the system is superbly thought out Geoff... that's why I recently invested on it (on the 6008 platform) despite it being "dead", simply because it gives solutions that no other (modern) system can...
But please explain to me... why did they introduced the AFD series of lenses at all? What is the point behind that "bright" idea since the AF series of lenses is (as you say) fully compatible with the HY-6 and exactly the same optically??! :o :-\ :'( Who was the "Einstein" that came with the idea of INVENTING a way to "cripple" the system's appeal?
P.S. The AF-D lenses are NOT compatible with the 6008 AF, they mount on it, but there is no way one may set the aperture.... The AF lenses are fully compatible with the HY-6 and function the same as the AF-D series... but one couldn't buy one new with the HY-6 (because they where discontinued and replaced by the AF-D series of which the aperture can't be controlled on other than the HY-6)... How stupid! :P ..."brilliantly" thought eeehh? :o "Pure Einstein" logic ! ;D
-
Funny thing; with film, the makers sold many cameras for many years, and any changes were usually tiny, such as a slightly higher flash synch. for example. Now and again they'd introduce a new lens or version of an old one; life went on perfectly pleasantly for the buyers as it did for the camera companies.
You wanted a new camera? You simply traded in and got a perfectly reasonable offer that made it fairly easy and painless to buy the new one, and the second-hand market allowed the less-willing-to-spend person the chance of getting something good - usually with a guarantee - that would take that buyer to a new level.
Then the circle got greedy, and as always happens in such cases, a race began that is ending with attrition and demise. Just think stock.
Rob
-
I would say, the AFD lenses are partially compatible with the 6008 AF and the 6008 Integral 2. They work in auto aperture only.
Why they created the AFD line, who the hell knows … a pity the AF line is difficult to get on ebay nowadays.
-
I can think of multiple factors that contributed to the Rollei system's demise, and I would not try to pin all the blame on any single one of them. A couple to add to those already mentioned:
- Denmark conquered the digital back world. The digital back market came to be dominated by two companies, Phase One and Imacon, the latter then merged into Hasselblad, and it was hard for the Rollei system and its successors to compete without the profits from back sales, and without the ability to develop "integrated" systems of backs and bodies.
- Rollei's decided when it made the transition to autofocus back in the late film era to stay with bodies and lenses designed for the 6x6 (54x54mm) film frame. Whatever the virtues of that format when film or sensors are available for it, this turned out to fit poorly with the sensor sizes available, because they have stubbornly stayed within the "645" frame, hampering some aspects of the Rollei lens system.
-
….a pity the AF line is difficult to get on ebay nowadays.
Its obviously because those who have them, are not prepared to apart them... Same with the 6008AF body which is the only pricey one...
Perhaps Rollei's decision to only convert the few AF lenses to AFD instead of retaining the AF series and add some more AFD, was as "bright" ( ;D) as the decision to introduce the AF-D series at all....
-
I can think of multiple factors that contributed to the Rollei system's demise, and I would not try to pin all the blame on any single one of them. A couple to add to those already mentioned:
- Denmark conquered the digital back world. The digital back market came to be dominated by two companies, Phase One and Imacon, the latter then merged into Hasselblad, and it was hard for the Rollei system and its successors to compete without the profits from back sales, and without the ability to develop "integrated" systems of backs and bodies.
- Rollei's decided when it made the transition to autofocus back in the late film era to stay with bodies and lenses designed for the 6x6 (54x54mm) film frame. Whatever the virtues of that format when film or sensors are available for it, this turned out to fit poorly with the sensor sizes available, because they have stubbornly stayed within the "645" frame, hampering some aspects of the Rollei lens system.
Quite correct... P1's refusal to support the system (obviously because their own was much inferior) was another key factor and then Hasselblad decided to stop the CF backs altogether (tearing their own eyes off and letting P1 "alone" in the market to play the "no competition winner")... This all added to affect negatively further on Rollei's marketing position...
But then, there where more stupid decisions made... They got Leaf to supply backs for the system, but only for the HY6... and then Sinar (who also joined the platform) stopped making adapters for the 6008 altogether (which was the same stupid marketing as everything else mentioned before as it both cut additional sales of Sinarbacks, but denied support to the base of Rollei customers too - thus forcing them to abandon the platform).... All and all it all comes down to one Question... "what the YH-6 had to offer over the existing 6008AF?" ...nothing at all! ...only damage!
If (as you correctly bring it up) the "new" camera was of 645 format and 6008 would continue to develop in parallel to it by providing "links" to the new platform via adapters for backs and lenses, its difficult to see how competition could have reacted on a system that would be "miles ahead" for both quality and providing solutions... Let's not forget that competition hasn't "catch up" even today... which is more than a decade without the 6008...
-
Quite correct... P1's refusal to support the system (obviously because their own was much inferior) was another key factor and then Hasselblad decided to stop the CF backs altogether (tearing their own eyes off and letting P1 "alone" in the market to play the "no competition winner")... This all added to affect negatively further on Rollei's marketing position...
But then, there where more stupid decisions made... They got Leaf to supply backs for the system, but only for the HY6... and then Sinar (who also joined the platform) stopped making adapters for the 6008 altogether (which was the same stupid marketing as everything else mentioned before as it both cut additional sales of Sinarbacks, but denied support to the base of Rollei customers too - thus forcing them to abandon the platform).... All and all it all comes down to one Question... "what the YH-6 had to offer over the existing 6008AF?" ...nothing at all! ...only damage!
If (as you correctly bring it up) the "new" camera was of 645 format and 6008 would continue to develop in parallel to it by providing "links" to the new platform via adapters for backs and lenses, its difficult to see how competition could have reacted on a system that would be "miles ahead" for both quality and providing solutions... Let's not forget that competition hasn't "catch up" even today... which is more than a decade without the 6008...
Its funny looking back on this all with the benefit of hindsight. A bit of personal history:
- brought into the Rollei system with 6003 c. 1992, when they had a great intro body/lens package price. Bought a few lenses over the next 8 years.
- got into the 6008 with the Phase P20 back. Worked well enough but was a bit funky for handholding. Big pixels, but low ISO.
- got into the Hy6 c. 2011, with AFI II 7 Demo back.
The funniest part of all this was that the AFI back was from Europe, a demo, and if not sold to me was going back to Kodak (who had bought Leaf) even though it had a non-Kodak sensor. It was clear they were going to stick it in the back closet. They offered the dealer a low value for the demo, which he was happy enough if it was matched -so it was a steal at the time. Still going strong.
The AFD lenses seemed like a decent idea at the time to them.... I wonder (honestly) they were trying to save money by simplifying the lens barrel - a not-so-bright decision in hindsight (I never liked it anyway). Are the AF and the AFD lenses identical? Supposedly not, but not sure either way. I've the 50 and 80 AF lenses and they are fine.
The change from the 6008 to the Hy6 did make some sense. The 6008 was long in the tooth, and the y6 had some cool upgrades. Didn't have the removable handle of the 6008, sadly, as the Hy6 is a bear to travel with, but it has a really cool integrated read-out on the handle with the histogram and lots of other info. Also the mirror dampening on the Hy6 is much better than the 6008, allowing another stop of hand-foldability. Focus adjustment on the Hy6 allows you to dial in your lenses. This makes a huge difference, with a 150 telexenar going from "soft" to "sharp as a tack" using the adjustment.
As to the origins, Erik K. is on the track, but the story is complicated. Jenoptik was involved in the design, but I think they were a subcontractor to F&H, the successor to Rollei. Rollei, F&H, and DHW are all essentially the same players, in the same plant, although with a continuing loss of leadership over the decades. When Mandelmann owned Rollei in the 1990s, he commissioned the Schneider lenses, which are one of the finest sets of lenses (as a group), still. The evolution of that set over the 1990s is a fascinating story in itself, as they explored what Zeiss did and did not offer in their Rollei mounts, and both went head-to-head with Zeiss (40, 50, 60, 80, 150), and also introduced lenses that Zeiss did not have - the 55PC, 90 macro, 150 Apo, 300.
There are many stories about the demise of Rollei/F&H/DHW - I heard one from inside the company about how Rollei was profitable, but had been saddled with debt for other reasons and thrown into bankruptcy. The recent demise of DHW is another matter, as it was a shell of what the company was, with only a couple dozen employees. Yet even that company could have been made to work. The marketing was... abysmal to say the least, and the confusion over Rollei/DHW/Leaf/Sinar staggering.
One story about the Hy6 was that F&H was acting as the umbrella developer, Jenoptik did the work, and the deal was designed around an open platform with Phase, Leaf, and Sinar all signing on. As we know, Phase refused (sadly, for reasons we don't know), and then Leaf and Sinar and Rollei divided up the world market by a complex division of distribution, which caused the confusion and the kiss of death.
And yet... at the end of the day, (five years later) the numbers to make DHW profitable recently were not inconceivable. There were some management issues to be resolved but these did not come to pass. So now, there is a small residual company now from those ashes, who does a bit of repair and maybe a bit of sales.
One other note - in the file of "bright ideas", DHW spent real development money pursuing making a 35mm lens for the Hy6. The money should have gone into manuf/marketing, not designing and trying to make an expensive specialty lens for limited market. All in all a few silly moves can drag any company down.
Timing in these things is key. Rollei spent good money in the early 1990s on digital backs, and was way ahead of their competitors. Their macro options from that time are staggering. But it was all for naught, as they were too early and all that money was lost. That might well be the root of the whole problem, and what we are seeing 25 years later are the final spin-offs of that loss of capital. Same thing almost happened to Hassy too. Remember Leica and the DMR? The early years were brutal.
-
Much the same story as I've been told... Of course the progress on some mechanical developments on the HY-6 could have all been applied to a 6010 too... To me, the real surprise is that when people realized that they goofed with the AF-D lenses, why they didn't went back to the AF series... This is a real mystery! One sees an important issue and although he spots it, he insists on it!
By the way... (only to add to the story) the x-act2 has been developed, designed and made by Linhoff....
-
One other note - in the file of "bright ideas", DHW spent real development money pursuing making a 35mm lens for the Hy6. The money should have gone into manuf/marketing, not designing and trying to make an expensive specialty lens for limited market. All in all a few silly moves can drag any company down.
Except for the 30mm fisheye the widest lens was the 40mm which first of all was the not the greatest Rollei lens and bit underwhelming compared to the wide angle options of the competition.
IMHO it made sense that they tried to address that. I wouldn't call a 35mm lens a specialty lens...
-
I would think that Rollei's "fatal mistake" was to not manage themselves properly and going out of business.
A company that is unable to market itself goes broke... It is a simple as that.
-
When Mandelmann owned Rollei in the 1990s, he commissioned the Schneider lenses, which are one of the finest sets of lenses (as a group), still. The evolution of that set over the 1990s is a fascinating story in itself, as they explored what Zeiss did and did not offer in their Rollei mounts, and both went head-to-head with Zeiss (40, 50, 60, 80, 150), and also introduced lenses that Zeiss did not have - the 55PC, 90 macro, 150 Apo, 300.
See here the interesting comparison of MTFs: http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html (http://www.rolleiflexpages.com/lenscharts.html)
-
MTFs are delightful but difficult - Isn't there something different about these charts - that one group takes the lines at 5, 10 and 20, another at 10, 20, 40? Not sure of this at all tho...
-
Hi,
I would be pretty sure all are at 10/20/40 lp/mm. That used to be like an German industry standard.
Best regards
Erik
MTFs are delightful but difficult - Isn't there something different about these charts - that one group takes the lines at 5, 10 and 20, another at 10, 20, 40? Not sure of this at all tho...
-
I don't believe that quality of lenses would ever be an issue for one to choose among the top quality MF platforms (I would agree with Michael on this) I believe that all Hassy V & H, Contax 645, M645, Rollei, Leica and all other modern, have great lenses and then some lenses in their line that really shine out. After all, one would (naturally) expect the line's Image quality to have developed further with time if the line was in production.
With Rollei however, one can't help to mention a few facts that the rest of the makers are missing:
1. The line offers the fastest lenses among all other leaf shutter lens makers (80/2, 50/2.8, 110/2, 180/2.8 ) and exactly at the focal lengths one would probably need a fast lens at some time.
2. All lenses are at least of 80mm image circle which makes them usable on a view camera, especially with sensors of up to 37x49 in size.
3. There are special lenses (like the 90/4 & 150/4.6 apo symmars) that other than their extreme image quality, they are of even wider image circle (120mm diameter for the 150/4.6) that are ideal to use with a view camera
4. The lenses own shutter and aperture are fully compatible with the Rollei control S shutter system as if there was a dedicated tech camera lens and electronic shutter added, but without the need of an electronic shutter at all.
5. The lens long mounting distance makes them friendly with even MFDBS that have smaller pixel and microlenses (like the modern Cmos ones) when used on a tech camera.
As a result, a complete system built around the system with camera platform, lenses and view camera, would require the minimum of lenses (4-5 the most) without the need of an additional series for the view camera, only a tech camera body to add and then common MFDB for one to share between the two. Additionally, the camera can lock its mirror up for the whole multishot series, can take film, has the brightest and larger viewfinder out of all and its leaf shutter is as "quite as a dead man can be" (there are reports of people doing 16x multishot captures with the camera sitting ...on a table!!!!)
All in all, very hard to find a competitor system that would even come close in solutions provided and image quality combination, let alone the savings and the manouevrability due to the less equipment used and additionally, if an adapter for Leica S or even a DSLR would be made (which "a bird told me" its coming... ;) ), one would only then require an additional UWA lens for it as to have an ultra compact, but impressively capable complete system that would cope with any task available.
-
if an adapter for Leica S or even a DSLR would be made (which "a bird told me" its coming... ;)
oh, please!
-
Sorry Geoff... I should have said I know its coming as I'm personally involved on the project... The other project I'm personally involved, is explained here http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=111070.msg915586#new as Joe (by coincidence) brought it up...
-
As far I can tell, Rollei made two mistake. First, for some reason, they never supported P1 backs. P1 is the largest seller of digital backs and to ignore that market was not smart. Second, they had no real distribution, or support, in North America, making it difficult for any pro over here to take the system seriously. Things break, stuff happens, you need support, and when you are on a job, you needed it yesterday, end of story!
Personally I always thought the Hy6 was the best designed SLR out there. But to buy an electronic SLR camera that has many different failure points, both mechanically and electronically, it's hard to make the justification when it could take months to get repaired.
-
As far I can tell, Rollei made two mistake. First, for some reason, they never supported P1 backs. P1 is the largest seller of digital backs and to ignore that market was not smart. Second, they had no real distribution, or support, in North America, making it difficult for any pro over here to take the system seriously. Things break, stuff happens, you need support, and when you are on a job, you needed it yesterday, end of story!
Personally I always thought the Hy6 was the best designed SLR out there. But to buy an electronic SLR camera that has many different failure points, both mechanically and electronically, it's hard to make the justification when it could take months to get repaired.
Joe... it's not up to a maker of a platform to support a back... It's up to the back maker to support a camera platform! It was never a secret that Rollei approached P1 so that they would support the platform. It was P1 that denied (obviously because their own based on M645 platform was much inferior -still is- and it could cause people buying in favor of the better platform) to support the system. Don't forget that P1 used to make backs for the Rollei 6008 before... Rollei was designed to be an "open" platform for all back makers, who ever didn't join was his policy, nothing to do with Rollei whatsoever...
Another thing that may have influenced P1's decision not to support the system, could be that although P1 backs where selling better than competition after the P series was introduced, on the Rollei 6008 platform the balance of sales for MFDBs was in favor of Imacon/Hasselblad and Sinarbacks (different to the rest of the market) and P1 is known to avoid direct competition but use "secret dealer policies" (especially in the US) to penetrate the market... Notice that the dealers that promote P1 in the US market underestimate competitive products on their pages (if they support them at all...).
-
Which simply meant... that one couldn't use the new lenses on his older (6xxx series) camera! ...and more than that, they changed the digital back mount! (which meant that one couldn't share an MFDB between his previous and next camera)...
CONCLUSION: It takes only a couple of (marketing) foolish decisions to destroy the most brilliant pro system ever...
No camera system ever had this kind of potential... Rollei offered a complete series of lenses, a fully modular camera and a modern view camera that one could share his backs (film or digital) and additionally keep the same line of lenses and use on it! And then, they even added a shutter system and control so that one could use the very same interface if he wanted to use dedicated lenses on the view camera! But then... the HY-6 came and changed it all! The lenses where not back compatible to the existing systems anymore!
Who ever thought of that "brilliant" idea? ...AF was there, electronic aperture control was there, what was the need for the AF-D series of lenses? ...what they where thinking of?
OTOH, It reminds of some recent marketing decisions of some modern makers, doesn't it? (making the camera incompatible with the existing base of backs) :o :'(
May I suggest you start your own MF camera company, Theodoros? With your brains and knowledge of the needs of photographers I am confident that you will grace us all with the cameras of our dreams.
-
May I suggest you start your own MF camera company, Theodoros? With your brains and knowledge of the needs of photographers I am confident that you will grace us all with the cameras of our dreams.
Good thinking... will you finance buying Rollei and resurrect it now that it's cheap? You should, since most people here agree that it was the platform of "our dreams"...
-
Good thinking... will you finance buying Rollei and resurrect it now that it's cheap? You should, since most people here agree that it was the platform of "our dreams"...
With the profits you will make and the number of prospective customers you reach, venture capital brokers should queue at your door any minute now.
-
With the profits you will make and the number of prospective customers you reach, venture capital brokers should queue at your door any minute now.
Surely you have developed a talent on speaking and saying nothing on the subject but clowning the joker instead... Very funny indeed....
-
Surely you have developed a talent on speaking and saying nothing on the subject but clowning the joker instead... Very funny indeed....
I am glad you like it.
-
The Hy6 was done at a transitional moment in the industry. One of its strengths/weaknesses was the decision to maintain 6x6 film capability at the same time as an open digital back platform. There was a moment of desperation in the digital back industry about a lack of standardization among the back suppliers - and this was meant to provide an open and accessible alternative. Michael R. wrote on this matter some years back.
As things unfolded differently, the situation changed. Yes P1 decision was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so perhaps there was some residual good-will still in place.
On the subject of repairs, I've sent things back to DHW and usually their turnaround is a couple of weeks, with another week overall for shipping. Rather nice, in fact. Not sure what the situation is now, although a lens has come back from them repaired, so something is good.
FYI - the leaf shutter in the Hy6 lenses is really a treat - you can walk around with a monopod, quickly flick the camera into mirror lock up, shoot a few leaf shutter frames - I've had good luck with 1/40th exposures, and with care, as low as 1/20th. Also have shot on a 4' monopod with little legs in a jungle with 5 second exposures still sharp. Love that leaf shutter option! The only downside is the 300 only has 1/500 shutter speed, generally not great. There are some (like the 80 PQS and the 150PQS) that go up to 1/1000.
-
Yes P1 mean-spirited approach to this was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so there was some residual good-will still in place.
Was it? or maybe it was even more mean-spirited? Leaf had a contract to support the system and already a number of customers they bought it to it... After P1's take over, all Leaf AFI where "mod.2" version, on which Sinarbacks where not compatible anymore... Another P1 "under the table" action?
I never ever remember another company than P1 being afraid to directly compete with anybody in equal terms... All they do is creating a fake marketing "image profile"...
-
Hi,
I don't know about P1 being mean spirited. They lost two supported camera platforms at that time (Contax 645 and Hasselblad). They needed a platform to survive, rumour said they tried to acquire rights and tools for the Contax 645, but that was not possible so they invested in Mamiya.
Jenoptic, Leaf and Sinar invested in Hy6. Obviously, the Hy6 would be helped by being supported by Phase One. Leaf continued supporting Hy6 after being acquired by Phase One
At that time I felt that the 6x6 cm size of the Hy6 was a disadvantage. The Hasselblad system at that time was optimised for the 49x37 mm size sensor.
I would guess that any manufacturer needs to achieve something like critical mass, enough sales to support R&D, manufacture and operation.
Best regards
Erik
The Hy6 was done at a transitional moment in the industry. One of its strengths/weaknesses was the decision to maintain 6x6 film capability at the same time as an open digital back platform. There was a moment of desperation in the digital back industry about a lack of standardization among the back suppliers - and this was meant to provide an open and accessible alternative. Michael R. wrote on this matter some years back.
As things unfolded differently, the situation changed. Yes P1 mean-spirited approach to this was unfortunate, but up through the Credo backs, they have allowed Leaf to make backs that work for the AFI, so there was some residual good-will still in place.
On the subject of repairs, I've sent things back to DHW and usually their turnaround is a couple of weeks, with another week overall for shipping. Rather nice, in fact. Not sure what the situation is now, although a lens has come back from them repaired, so something is good.
FYI - the leaf shutter in the Hy6 lenses is really a treat - you can walk around with a monopod, quickly flick the camera into mirror lock up, shoot a few leaf shutter frames - I've had good luck with 1/40th exposures, and with care, as low as 1/20th. Also have shot on a 4' monopod with little legs in a jungle with 5 second exposures still sharp. Love that leaf shutter option! The only downside is the 300 only has 1/500 shutter speed, generally not great. There are some (like the 80 PQS and the 150PQS) that go up to 1/1000.
-
Hi,
I don't know about P1 being mean spirited. They lost two supported camera platforms at that time (Contax 645 and Hasselblad). They needed a platform to survive, rumour said they tried to acquire rights and tools for the Contax 645, but that was not possible so they invested in Mamiya.
Jenoptic, Leaf and Sinar invested in Hy6. Obviously, the Hy6 would be helped by being supported by Phase One. Leaf continued supporting Hy6 after being acquired by Phase One
At that time I felt that the 6x6 cm size of the Hy6 was a disadvantage. The Hasselblad system at that time was optimised for the 49x37 mm size sensor.
I would guess that any manufacturer needs to achieve something like critical mass, enough sales to support R&D, manufacture and operation.
Best regards
Erik
I must say... this kind of "logic" surprises me...
P1 didn't loose any platform, Contax didn't stop making cameras for P1, they stopped making cameras for all MFDB makers! OTOH, Hasselblad was never "lost"... The H2F was an "open" platform for all makers! The H3/H3II where complete cameras (again) that couldn't accept an MFDB on them (not even Hasselblad's own CF series).
OTOH, Leaf & Sinar didn't join Rollei (only)... they where making backs for anybody (just like P1), if P1 wanted to support Rollei, they where free to do so... Nothing stopping them!
I'm also in a position to know, that Mamiya "blocked" Imacon backs (but not P1) after the AFD... My (at the days) Imacon 528c, could work on an AFD and do multishot without any exterior cable needed, but it couldn't work at all on an AFD II... (Obviously negotiations with P1 and Mamiya started before the deal was complete...) P1 was invited to support the Rollei platform... they just refused to do so.
-
Was it? or maybe it was even more mean-spirited? Leaf had a contract to support the system and already a number of customers they bought it to it... After P1's take over, all Leaf AFI where "mod.2" version, on which Sinarbacks where not compatible anymore... Another P1 "under the table" action?
I never ever remember another company than P1 being afraid to directly compete with anybody in equal terms... All they do is creating a fake marketing "image profile"...
Phase One is a mean company? And Hasselblad (or Rollei in the day) is ... a nice company? Um hmm. Right. They're all (except for Phase One, of course) so nice, they just want everyone to get along. I guess some have forgotten that these companies are ultimately in business to make a profit. And any smart company will be focused on doing exactly that. A company that makes great products isn't much good to anyone if they aren't open for business.
As far as Leaf mod.2 support of Sinarbacks, perhaps it was decided that it was best to support - in the technical sense - only Leaf digital backs on Leaf AFi products? And let Sinar handle their support of Sinarbacks on Sinar Hy6 or Rollei Hy6 cameras?
I must say... this kind of "logic" surprises me...
P1 didn't loose any platform, Contax didn't stop making cameras for P1, they stopped making cameras for all MFDB makers! OTOH, Hasselblad was never "lost"... The H2F was an "open" platform for all makers! The H3/H3II where complete cameras (again) that couldn't accept an MFDB on them (not even Hasselblad's own CF series).
OTOH, Leaf & Sinar didn't join Rollei (only)... they where making backs for anybody (just like P1), if P1 wanted to support Rollei, they where free to do so... Nothing stopping them!
I'm also in a position to know, that Mamiya "blocked" Imacon backs (but not P1) after the AFD... My (at the days) Imacon 528c, could work on an AFD and do multishot without any exterior cable needed, but it couldn't work at all on an AFD II... (Obviously negotiations with P1 and Mamiya started before the deal was complete...) P1 was invited to support the Rollei platform... they just refused to do so.
So, everyone lost a platform (Contax), including Phase One. Let's say it for what it was.
You're right, Phase One could have supported Rollei, after all, they already had, with P20/P45 models. I mean, according to you, they had an invitation, right? Probably a nice little card in an envelope was sent from Rollei with some words to the effect of - "We'd love you to join our wonderful platform, save the date!".
One thing I always try to keep in mind on this (and any) forum, and that is writing in a forum is not easy, and presenting an argument the same way that you would face to face is not easy. I never assume that posters don't know what they're talking about, in fact I notice that most indeed have a good deal of knowledge and information on topics. But Theo - in your case, regardless of what you know or what you think you know, what distorts and devalues any of that is your extremely biased presentation on the topic.
The H2F was an open platform camera? I seem to recall some of my Phase One clients who were using Hasselblad cameras were so pissed off that they could no longer buy a nw Hasselblad camera for their Phase One digital back, they renamed the H2F the H2FU. You're painting this picture that Phase One is - uniquely - some sort of conspiratorial, under-handed camera company assassin that ruthlessly plots to put others out of business by not accepting their free invitations and canceling platform support willy nilly. Do you really think that in any of the circumstances that you raise, money/costs are not a factor or point of contention?
I know - first hand - for a fact, that Phase One considered being involved in the Rollei situation at the time, as well as after the dust had settled. They looked at the situation, looked hard at the situation, and made what seemed to them the smarter business decision. It is quite possible that hitching their wagon to Rollei may have threatened Phase One's existence, the same way it impacted Leaf. There is the notion that with Phase One behind the Rollei platform, the day would have been saved. That is a Theory. It is not a fact.
Whether you like the older Mamiya cameras, or whether or not you like the new XF platform, the fact is Phase One made a business decision, and their business decision has enabled them to stay open for business, and continue to produce innovative digital capture solutions for photographers (sorry if that sounds a bit like a commercial, but it's a fact).
It is my strong belief that companies make decisions for very valid reasons, I've actually witnessed quite a few very hard, complex discussions concerning big question decisions, and I've never seen anything resembling the simplistic motivations that you, Theo have attributed to Phase One. To assume one knows everything that went into that decision and castigate them for not making the decision you wanted, but to also apply a coat of viciousness as the motivation behind the decision is, I don't know how else to say it, Theo, it is BS.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Steve -
I owe you an apology, as I put forth the "mean-spirited" comment first. I'll take that back and modify the post. It came from frustration, as P1 was (I think) really close to getting involved with the beloved Hy6, and sadly did not. Their reasons, as you point out, were probably reasonable from their perspective.
Geoff
-
Steve -
I owe you an apology, as I put forth the "mean-spirited" comment first. I'll retract that, and say that it was a moment of frustration, as P1 was (I think) really close to getting involved with my beloved Hy6, and sadly chose not to. Their reasons, as you point out, were probably reasonable from their perspective.
Geoff
Geoff - that's ok, no need to apologize, I know you, and have always appreciated your reasonable, informative and objective communications. And I do understand their is emotion involved, I'm not immune to that. The difference is your expression is one of understandable frustration, while others have created this fake insiders view of a fantasy that paints Phase One as this uniquely intentional Rollei camera killing, closed system monster of a company.
I also wish that Rollei the company was still here. I have frustration as well and wish Rollei had been in a better position to continue.
Thanks,
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
.....BS.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Thanks Steve from confirming every bit of history on the matter I posted... I remind you that it wasn't me that brought the subject up, but Joe... who blamed Rollei for not... using P1 backs! I believe everybody can notice that you fail to answer this... What harm would have been to P1 if they did support the Rollei platform? Surely it could affect MFDB only positively (some added back sales)... no? The interface, other than it was ready from the P45 days, it was given to them (so no development cost to consider)... no? So the "business decision" wasn't because some harm to P1 could happen... only to "help" closing Rollei down... no? ...and thus harm photography and photographers in general by diminishing the most capable of equipment and sell their inferior one instead... no?
-
Thanks Steve from confirming every bit of history on the matter I posted... I remind you that it wasn't me that brought the subject up, but Joe... who blamed Rollei for not... using P1 backs! I believe everybody can notice that you fail to answer this... What harm would have been to P1 if they did support the Rollei platform? Surely it could affect MFDB only positively (some added back sales)... no? The interface, other than it was ready from the P45 days, it was given to them (so no development cost to consider)... no? So the "business decision" wasn't because some harm to P1 could happen... only to "help" closing Rollei down... no? ...and thus harm photography and photographers in general by diminishing the most capable of equipment and sell their inferior one instead... no?
Yes, but Joe did not cast aspersions as to the motivations of either parties. And Rollei's "second mistake" he mentions is extremely notable.
The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
Hi,
My take is a bit that Hy6 was dead when Jenoptic pulled out.
But, the reason that the Hy6 got attention was really that Hasselblad has closed the H-platform. Hasselblad was the dominant platform and that was closed. Contax was killed by Kyocera. Phase One invested Mamiya and the competition geared up with Hy6, but competition gave up…
Best regards
Erik
Yes, but Joe did not cast aspersions as to the motivations of either parties. And Rollei's "second mistake" he mentions is extremely notable.
The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
.................................................
The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Yes, I now understand... it is a larger and complex picture for P1... but not for Leaf! ;D :o I think I'll end the argument here! 8)
-
Hi,
My take is a bit that Hy6 was dead when Jenoptic pulled out.
You missed some chapters posted before Erik... No Jenoptik ever pulled out... It was banned from mod.2 from Leaf (which was their customer but was bought by P1 and "forgot" the relationship...) :'(
But, the reason that the Hy6 got attention was really that Hasselblad has closed the H-platform.
Best regards
Erik
Yes, ...and then the frog was revealed to be a prince, he got married to the princess and they all lived happily ever after... ;D
-
Phase One is a mean company? And Hasselblad (or Rollei in the day) is ... a nice company? Um hmm. Right. They're all (except for Phase One, of course) so nice, they just want everyone to get along. I guess some have forgotten that these companies are ultimately in business to make a profit. And any smart company will be focused on doing exactly that. A company that makes great products isn't much good to anyone if they aren't open for business.
As far as Leaf mod.2 support of Sinarbacks, perhaps it was decided that it was best to support - in the technical sense - only Leaf digital backs on Leaf AFi products? And let Sinar handle their support of Sinarbacks on Sinar Hy6 or Rollei Hy6 cameras?
So, everyone lost a platform (Contax), including Phase One. Let's say it for what it was.
You're right, Phase One could have supported Rollei, after all, they already had, with P20/P45 models. I mean, according to you, they had an invitation, right? Probably a nice little card in an envelope was sent from Rollei with some words to the effect of - "We'd love you to join our wonderful platform, save the date!".
One thing I always try to keep in mind on this (and any) forum, and that is writing in a forum is not easy, and presenting an argument the same way that you would face to face is not easy. I never assume that posters don't know what they're talking about, in fact I notice that most indeed have a good deal of knowledge and information on topics. But Theo - in your case, regardless of what you know or what you think you know, what distorts and devalues any of that is your extremely biased presentation on the topic.
The H2F was an open platform camera? I seem to recall some of my Phase One clients who were using Hasselblad cameras were so pissed off that they could no longer buy a nw Hasselblad camera for their Phase One digital back, they renamed the H2F the H2FU. You're painting this picture that Phase One is - uniquely - some sort of conspiratorial, under-handed camera company assassin that ruthlessly plots to put others out of business by not accepting their free invitations and canceling platform support willy nilly. Do you really think that in any of the circumstances that you raise, money/costs are not a factor or point of contention?
I know - first hand - for a fact, that Phase One considered being involved in the Rollei situation at the time, as well as after the dust had settled. They looked at the situation, looked hard at the situation, and made what seemed to them the smarter business decision. It is quite possible that hitching their wagon to Rollei may have threatened Phase One's existence, the same way it impacted Leaf. There is the notion that with Phase One behind the Rollei platform, the day would have been saved. That is a Theory. It is not a fact.
Whether you like the older Mamiya cameras, or whether or not you like the new XF platform, the fact is Phase One made a business decision, and their business decision has enabled them to stay open for business, and continue to produce innovative digital capture solutions for photographers (sorry if that sounds a bit like a commercial, but it's a fact).
It is my strong belief that companies make decisions for very valid reasons, I've actually witnessed quite a few very hard, complex discussions concerning big question decisions, and I've never seen anything resembling the simplistic motivations that you, Theo have attributed to Phase One. To assume one knows everything that went into that decision and castigate them for not making the decision you wanted, but to also apply a coat of viciousness as the motivation behind the decision is, I don't know how else to say it, Theo, it is BS.
Steve Hendrix/CI
This is one of the greatest BS slaying posts of all time.
Kudos.
-
This guy has 1150 posts and has said nothing in 1200 of them... Surely a world record, ;D If I may propose, stick with Bob at Get Dpi friend... you make a good team there, Dpr would even be a progress!
EDIT: Let me explain how it works here:
1. You read the O/P and see if you know anything on the subject...
2. You judge if the subject interests you as to improve your knowledge on the matter, or if you have some knowledge that can contribute to the knowledge of others...
3. You read the conversation and notice the fundamentals presented as to support the conversation
4. You notice how many views the subject has before you "open your mouth" unless you want to ridicule yourself...
5. Make sure you post something worthwhile for others to read and buck it up with facts... If you do, you are respected from others... if you don't, you become known for the opposite reasons... (more related to a circus figure) ;)
See? ...its simple! :P 8)
-
Yes, but Joe did not cast aspersions as to the motivations of either parties. And Rollei's "second mistake" he mentions is extremely notable.
The rest of your analysis of the situation ignores or at least extremely underestimates the true cost and complexity of supporting a platform, the notion of actual short and long term product development (and the substantial amount of cost and focus involved), and isolates the matter as the benefit of adding at least a few digital back sales - the true picture is generally much larger and more complex.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve,
I see this thread as yet another attempt to stir the soup that very few are wishing or willing to taste...
I had my finger on the "Post" button a couple of times and on both occasions chose to ditch it.
There are so many factual errors and ilinformed assumptions in the OP's posts that it is, to put simply, not worth our while or our ink.
Given enough time, it will slide down the page and will eventually disappear from our view.
BR
Yair
-
Steve,
There are so many factual errors and ilinformed assumptions in the OP's posts that it is, to put simply, not worth our while or our ink.
Given enough time, it will slide down the page and will eventually disappear from our view.
BR
Yair
Hi Yair, can you please mention ONE out of "the many" ill-information you've noticed? Make it one that worths your ink...
-
Hi Theodoros,
You have something like 2079 postings your self, and almost all of those make zero sense. Please consider that before complaining at other posters postings…
Best regards
Erik
This guy has 1150 posts and has said nothing in 1200 of them... Surely a world record, ;D If I may propose, stick with Bob at Get Dpi friend... you make a good team there, Dpr would even be a progress!
EDIT: Let me explain how it works here:
1. You read the O/P and see if you know anything on the subject...
2. You judge if the subject interests you as to improve your knowledge on the matter, or if you have some knowledge that can contribute to the knowledge of others...
3. You read the conversation and notice the fundamentals presented as to support the conversation
4. You notice how many views the subject has before you "open your mouth" unless you want to ridicule yourself...
5. Make sure you post something worthwhile for others to read and buck it up with facts... If you do, you are respected from others... if you don't, you become known for the opposite reasons... (more related to a circus figure) ;)
See? ...its simple! :P 8)
-
Hi Theodoros,
You have something like 2079 postings your self, and almost all of those make zero sense. Please consider that before complaining at other posters postings…
Best regards
Erik
True... I rarely post feathers, comment on cameras and technology I know nothing about, or suggest to Leica engineers what pixel size they should use and many others that require 10000 posts of "Einstein" knowledge... ;)
So... how would a 6008 do with multishot backs Erik?
-
Theo, there is no nicer way to put this so I will give it to you straight.
No one likes you here. No one will miss you if you were gone. You talk as if you are the last word in photography, but you have not posted a single photo that you have taken. You don't have a portfolio that anyone could find and your factually terrible posts which reek of fanboy vitriol against the brands you like and misguided optimism for the ones you like make everyone shake their head in shame. The only reason why people bother to respond to you is to make sure that if some poor soul finds your threads on google at some point, the BS you spread does not misinform them.
P.s. I am well at home at getDPI as I am here. My body of work is easy to find there as it is here. I like posting there because the artist to idiot ratio there is much more in favor of the former. I see how you'd resent it though, considering they have repeatedly refused to buy what trolls like you and yunli song have been selling.
Good day.
-
I still don't see why you are participating in this conversation... have you any knowledge on the subject or is it that you post to provoke people like you ALWAYS do?
Is it a special "mission" for you to "jump" everywhere and post all irrelevant you do? Don't you have some self respect?
-
So much speculation, over all the years... the guesses and stories never stop. I know what happened. I've seen the contracts. I've read the notes. I've been there at the factory. I've talked to the people. You want to write a novel or a soap opera - all the pieces are there.
BUT ....The only important thing is that it's a great camera with great lenses and fantastic ergonomics. I still prefer it to the other offerings including the XF.
-
Irony must be the flavour of this thread: we have so much angst, anger and pontification, but there seem to be two people available to LuLa who could make relevant comment, and neither chooses so to do.
The surprising thing, the irony referred to above apart, is that anyone not already a pro with the work type required to justify that sort of expenditure, would choose to be in the MFD system - of any brand. Yes, it would make me wince, but I could go out and write the non-bouncing cheque, but as a guy who did also own and sometimes need film MF, my life as a retired photographer would not be one iota the better for that purchase, now, as an amateur. I'd rather help feed the starving or give money to a hospital charity than blow it on an ego trip like that. Insofar as the photography goes, format doesn't give you talent; Leica doesn't give you talent, my Rollei TLR didn't, Nikon didn't and neither did Hasselblad. (I can't speak for Canon - never been there.) They are all just tools - some more suited to some jobs than others. Anyone buying into MFD thinking it'll make them better photographers is insane. It may allow them to produce the same old same old, just bigger.
Rob C
-
Irony must be the flavour of this thread: we have so much angst, anger and pontification, but there seem to be two people available to LuLa who could make relevant comment, and neither chooses so to do.
The surprising thing, the irony referred to above apart, is that anyone not already a pro with the work type required to justify that sort of expenditure, would choose to be in the MFD system - of any brand. Yes, it would make me wince, but I could go out and write the non-bouncing cheque, but as a guy who did also own and sometimes need film MF, my life as a retired photographer would not be one iota the better for that purchase, now, as an amateur. I'd rather help feed the starving or give money to a hospital charity than blow it on an ego trip like that. Insofar as the photography goes, format doesn't give you talent; Leica doesn't give you talent, my Rollei TLR didn't, Nikon didn't and neither did Hasselblad. (I can't speak for Canon - never been there.) They are all just tools - some more suited to some jobs than others. Anyone buying into MFD thinking it'll make them better photographers is insane. It may allow them to produce the same old same old, just bigger.
Rob C
Rob I never was and never will be a gear head... As you correctly say, gear is just tools and my approach is only from that perspective... I changed my Bronica ETRSi system (which I had for twenty years) some 12 years ago for the Contax 645 system only because the compatibility of the Bronica with digital was extremely limited and then I also changed my Sinar P2 for the Fuji GX-680 only because I needed a series of new lenses and electronic shutters to turn the Sinar into digital so that I could do multishot with it...
However, one can't help to notice that there are tools of limited use and other tools that are twice and three times as capable as others (modern ones)... and the Rollei 6xxx is more capable than any other I've come across and because of that it is cheaper too...
I (and everybody else) can obviously do with the Contax all tasks that an XF can do and additionally shoot multishot with it and use film, but if the Rollei would have been my choice instead of the Contax some 12 years ago, I would additionally have high sync and (most important) use the same lenses on the P2 with the same MFDBs and never need a new series of lenses and shutters as to make it compatible with my multishot MFDBs...
I have to admit I didn't have a good look at the Rollei system some 12 years ago otherwise I might have invested on that instead of the Contax, but its never too late and I'm thankful I realized that the addition of a tool like the Rollei platform can only save space and money, yet improving further (in reality maximize) the quality of my work... so from that POV it makes a (much) better tool....
-
'Twas ever thus.
That said, if anyone has an interest or desire to buy into nice cameras, cars, boats, watches...then jolly good luck to them.
My check-list:
Cameras, cars, boats are all the same proposition if you don't need them. If you buy them for fun, fine, but if you buy them out of obsession, with expectations of being better at something than you are without them, then not fun.
Watches. Unlike the current electronic toys above (and today that includes the boats, too), if you buy well, they have a lifetime longer than the buyer's. And strangely, values increases. So yes, they actually can be considered - justifiably - as investments with pleasure attached and as part of, I guess, heritable goodies.
Of course, you could be killed on the street for any one of them.
;-)
Rob
-
So much speculation, over all the years... the guesses and stories never stop. I know what happened. I've seen the contracts. I've read the notes. I've been there at the factory. I've talked to the people. You want to write a novel or a soap opera - all the pieces are there.
BUT ....The only important thing is that it's a great camera with great lenses and fantastic ergonomics. I still prefer it to the other offerings including the XF.
Well, XF can't do multishot, or use film, or has lenses with image circles enough as to be useful on a view camera does it? So it is restricted as to cope with tasks that DSLRs also do... Then with the Rollei platform one can have an external electronic control as to have his (very same) lenses fully functional on a tech camera for both aperture and electronic shutter and even use the same MFDBs of the platform on the view camera with the same interface communication... Thus it's obvious it can cope with far more tasks than any other platform can...
I guess all the above makes the ideal tool... it even gives a (real) meaning to the word "tool"...
It thus makes no surprise to me that the (usual) "posters" of all nonsense "subjects" about pixel peeping and "comparisons" on sensors do all to their power to diverge a conversation that concerns a real tool which is irreplaceable for capabilities even today....
-
Hopefully those here who aren't earning their living with their cameras buy for leisure, pleasure and fun and it would be a tad disingenuous of me to suggest otherwise.
It doesn't give them the right to suggest that what they are doing (not very well IMO) is the ONLY kind of photography that should be important to pros though...
Changing the subject completely...
The personal attacks seen on this and other threads are enough to make this contributor question what it is he's doing here.
It may be that personal attacks are motivated from the side of the industry that its existence depends on the consumption of equipment for amateur use... This kind of equipment always seeks for creating an "army" of "fanboys"... ("fanboys" is used as to be polite...) The kind of people that think of some (incapable) equipment to be as ...Ferrari and real pro equipment to be as ...KIA :o The same kind of trolls that thinks of incapable equipment as being relevant to ..."tools"! ;)
-
The personal attacks seen on this and other threads are enough to make this contributor question what it is he's doing here.
As we have seen for many months now, the last thing the moderators unfortunately seem to be interested in is to actually moderate the forum. Even when the offending posts and posters have been reported.
-
As we have seen for many months now, the last thing the moderators unfortunately seem to be interested in is to actually moderate the forum. Even when the offending posts and posters have been reported.
Do you want Lula moderators to band subjects on equipment that you can't talk about or equipment that does more photography related subjects than your "Ferrari" does?
-
I still have my 6008AF with two film magazines and a Phaseone db20. I cannot part with the Schneider 55 mm tilt and shift PCS Super Angulon. In my totally unprofessional view of a person who doesn't sell the images, this lens alone is the reason to keep the Rollei. Obviously, it's no Ferrari, is is a forklift. A tool, to use when you have no time nor desire to carry your view camera for a tabletop.
Many years ago I asked a Sinar representative if I could adapt my Rollei lenses to my Sinar P3 and she hinted that there would be a solution. Then the ill fated Hy6 was introduced and those who are living long enough remember the story. No real solution to use the fantastic line of lenses on anything modern and supported.
If the Rollei lenses can be adapted to a modern system I will be ready to buy the solution.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
There has been a way to operate your Rollei lenses on technical cameras like the Sinar P3 - you can operate the lenses with the lens adapter and the Lens Control S. You just mount the lens adapter to the lens board for your system. If you want to look into this, I have a couple of the lens adapters and lens control S units still available (used).
Arca Swiss and others have had this available. Alpa makes a very well integrated Rollei lens adapter for their FPS system that even allows step control of the autofocus lenses. I know others are working on adapters too.
-
There has been a way to operate your Rollei lenses on technical cameras like the Sinar P3 - you can operate the lenses with the lens adapter and the Lens Control S. You just mount the lens adapter to the lens board for your system. If you want to look into this, I have a couple of the lens adapters and lens control S units still available (used).
Arca Swiss and others have had this available. Alpa makes a very well integrated Rollei lens adapter for their FPS system that even allows step control of the autofocus lenses. I know others are working on adapters too.
Thank you very much for your kind offer.
Can I use my Sinarback 54H in Multishot mode with the Lens Control S? Last time I looked my 54H was not supported and Sinar offered an upgrade to eVolution 75 in order to make it work on the 6008 AF.
Thanks,
Yevgeny
-
Yevgeny,
I haven't tested that personally. I know that you can use the 54H on the 6008AF in multishot since I've tested that personally. Maybe I can find the answer for you though...
-
Thank you, Eric!
-
The personal attacks seen on this and other threads are enough to make this contributor question what it is he's doing here.
Hi Keith I quite agree, it does get a bit exhausting.
Come join the conversation at that other forum. :)