Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: narikin on April 28, 2022, 09:45:11 am
-
Recently rebooted my IQ4, after a long hiatus, partly the Pandemic slowdown, partly due to the Fuji GFX100S covering most needs.
Surprised to find no major firmware update / feature update in the past year.
I did find one for the XF, but it doesn't add much of note. Am I missing something, or is this a sign that Phase is sticking with mature products, and we can expect only small incremental changes for its flagship backs from here-on?
-
Given the rapidly changing market in which consumer demand for DSLRs is diminishing and being replaced by demand for smaller, lighter, and less expensive mirrorless cameras; I'm now pleasantly surprised anytime there is a major update in medium format DSLRs or digital backs. The future is always hard to predict, but the overall trends are clearly visible and investments by manufacturers have to include at least some nod to those along with financial realities. I'm always hopeful for new products and updates and pleased when we get a surprise from a manufacturer... and they do like to surprise us when they can.
Recent years have been financially difficult for Phase One Group ApS. While Capture One generates profits, with a pretax profit in 2020 of €5.5 million on revenue of €22.6 million, it hasn't been generating enough profit to cover the losses generated by the Phase One hardware business. Phase One Group ApS was created following the acquisition of Phase One in June, 2019 by Danish private equity investment firm Axcel and its partners.
Phase One Group ApS controls two corporations, Phase One A/S and Capture One A/S, which were split into separate corporate entities as of January 1, 2020. Phase One A/S in Denmark; its subsidiaries in Japan, Hong Kong, and USA; and its subsidiary Leaf in Israel constitute the group's hardware business. Capture One A/S in Denmark and its new subsidiary in Greece incorporates the group's software business. Financial results for 2021 won't be released until later this summer, but 2020 ended with a loss of €10.9 million on revenue of €68.9 million. 2019 resulted in a loss of €14.5 million on revenue of €72 million for all of the combined Phase One Group ApS companies.
I want to be clear that I'm NOT providing this information in order to worry anyone. I just want to encourage realistic expectations from users toward ALL of the camera manufacturers we rely upon for the tools we use. The reality for every camera maker is that the digital camera market is a roller coaster and has been for decades. Profits and losses turn quickly up and down and are largely dependent on product cycles and rapidly changing consumer demand.
Recent financial difficulty, for any company, does NOT mean that new products or updates are not coming or on the horizon. Funds acquired thru borrowing and from investors, in addition to existing working capital, are still funneled into new product development and R&D. I'm only suggesting that those anxiously awaiting new developments consider the trends in consumer demand and markets in setting their expectations. Some of the companies discussed here — which loom large in our photo consciousness — are relatively small companies that, considering their size, do pretty remarkable things in the quality and variety of tools they provide for us to delight in using and to criticize in whatever may be their shortcomings.
** Updated financial results with revenue added for 2020. Revised revenue and loss to include all of calendar year 2019 which previously only covered the period following acquisition by private equity firm Axcel. Edited corporate structure information for better clarity. Financial information converted from Danish Krone to Euro at current exchange rate.
-
is this a sign that Phase is sticking with mature products, and we can expect only small incremental changes for its flagship backs from here-on?
I realize that the reply above is a pretty indirect response to your question. So, here's a more direct response. No one knows.
Forecasts of this kind have to first look at where we've been and where we are at present. DSLRs are on life support. They are devices that require a good deal of complex mechanical and optical precision even with electronic control over timing and functions. That makes them too expensive to manufacture in relatively small quantities and as a result they are unprofitable.
To keep new digital back production alive and moving forward, you need a camera platform. With DSLRs fading, Phase One's most recent strategic move is the XT. Whether that will be enough to keep their digital back products alive and advancing and for how long only time will tell.
Clearly, mirrorless is where the market is today. You may already have the answer regarding where the future lies...
due to the Fuji GFX100S covering most needs.
-
As an IQ4–150 + XF owner it’s a great system but I am disappointed that P1 has not delivered on all the commitments made in terms of firmware upgrade.
It delivers good value as is, but could be even better.
The lack of a top notch 28mm or 26mm Blue Ring is a pity also.
I believe that P1 invested a lot in the XT system and I am not sure it was a good move.
I can only assume that they are working on a mirrorless version of the XF. For it to be appealing it would have to work very well with existing Schneider lenses and be reasonably affordable.
-
As an IQ4–150 + XF owner it’s a great system but I am disappointed that P1 has not delivered on all the commitments made in terms of firmware upgrade.
I was aware of complaints for some time regarding a very long delay in offering a Wi-Fi/mobile app solution, but that's now offered thru a third-party app. Is that correct? Are there any other commitments that they haven't yet delivered?
-
Thanks for various replies.
I feel Phase made an error in not reacting harder and faster to the Fuji 100mp.
It was an existential challenge for them, so the minute it was announced or even firmly rumored:
- Reduce the price of their IQ3-100 and IQ4-150 models by about 30%,
- Drop the prices on all used 60 and 100mp used/ trade-in backs by 50% immediately to get people locked into their system, before Fuji is on the market.
- End all trade-in/ trade-up discounts by Phase themselves (if a dealer wants to do it, that's fine). I'd imagine a lot of their losses are write downs on older backs they have bought back and nobody wants now Fuji is here.
Anyways - all too late for that, and I'm just playing armchair expert here, sorry!
I remain surprised there has not been a feature or firmware upgrade for over a year for IQ4 owners.
They need to get pixel shift option onto their flagship back ('IQ4-PS'? 'IQ4-600'?)
that will multiply the resolution by 4x at least. Phase will do it better than anyone, assuming they still have their world class image tech team there.
Phase still have the class leading color and IQ - no question. I own Fuji and Sony systems - nothing compares to the ultimate color of Phase One.
I don't see an easy way path for them, other than keeping their place at the absolute pinnacle of color and resolution.
-
I remain surprised there has not been a feature or firmware upgrade for over a year for IQ4 owners.
I'm not surprised for the reasons already given, but I love surprises from manufacturers when they do spring them on us. I hope to see more surprises!
-
They need to get pixel shift option onto their flagship back ('IQ4-PS'? 'IQ4-600'?)
that will multiply the resolution by 4x at least. Phase will do it better than anyone, assuming they still have their world class image tech team there.
I promise that I will try not to get too wordy here. If Phase One introduces a multi-shot (pixel shift) digital back, I won't be surprised—I'll be stunned.
I've been consistently using multi-shot backs for the past 25 years from Leaf, Sinar, Imacon, and Hasselblad and from 4 to 400 megapixels. Phase One has maintained that multi-shot is obsolete since their first 6 megapixel LightPhase back.
I've always enjoyed the added image quality benefits that can be derived from multi-shot. ** The biggest image quality difference, in my opinion, comes from the increased color resolution and sharpness gained from 4-shot mode providing full RGB color data for each pixel. The additional spatial resolution (increase in megapixels) which is possible with additional 1/2-pixel shots is not as impressive to my eyes, but still a nice option to have available when desired. While multi-shot has been great for my needs, the range of suitable applications for it is narrow and limited. It's definitely a niche market.
If you're interested in multi-shot and the difference compared to single-shot or how "pixel shift" using a sensor floating on an IBIS mechanism differs from how multi-shot functions with digital backs, I'd be happy to share my experiences. I'm afraid it would put others to sleep.
** The difference in 4-shot (RGBG) mode is so noticeable that for both the H4D and H5D series, Hasselblad offered two different multi-shot options for the 50 megapixel sensor. They offered either the 50c MS (1-shot / 4-shot) model (https://cdn.hasselblad.com/0463024c-5e41-470e-b70d-6ee8c6dc9fe3_h5d-50cms_datasheet_en_v3.pdf) or the 200c MS (1 / 4 / 6-shot) model (https://web.archive.org/web/20161221094634/http://static.hasselblad.com/2015/10/MSSU-Datasheet-Nov15-V2.1.pdf). The H6D-400c (1 / 4 / 6-shot) (https://www.hasselblad.com/h-system/h6d-400c-multi-shot/) 400 megapixel model is now their only multi-shot model.
Here's a comparison of a 50 megapixel image from a 4-shot capture compared to an 80 megapixel single-shot (https://web.archive.org/web/20160910140134/https://captureintegration.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/detail.jpg). It's interesting to see a 50 megapixel resolution image with 300 MB of raw color data (4-shot) compared to a higher resolution (but less color data) 80 megapixel image with 160 MB of raw color data (single-shot).
*** Link to archive of original article (https://web.archive.org/web/20160518202356/https://www.captureintegration.com/leaf-aptus-ii-12-hasselblad-4d-50ms/) comparing 50 megapixel 4-shot to 80 megapixel single-shot.
-
Same old story multi tier marketing always a one way street. Products sold by Manf. To distributors through leasing w big promises of buy back programs for newer gear all financed by private equity firms.
Take something that should sell for 1 dollar sell it for 12 dollars, give away 8 dollars to leasing, private equity, dealers, buy backs (trade-ins),advertising and smoke and mirrors. Then take new ideas to your marketing dept and have them spin those out to the consumer and your dealer network but keep some things really secret like they might be revolutionary. All while laying this thick BS on your private equity partners and as long as the money is flowing your ideas are financed. Rough times no money and your still selling a vision maybe they will buy in one time still no money now the private equity firm wants out.
Moral of the story if it was good enough why not sell it for the right price to start with instead of multi tier marketing which 9 times out of 10 ends up this way.
Consumers would have been happy
Dealer would still be happy
And the used market for old gear would have been the same as for any other brand.
PS Firmware updates are necessary for success.
-
They need to get pixel shift option onto their flagship back ('IQ4-PS'? 'IQ4-600'?)
that will multiply the resolution by 4x at least.
This is often misunderstood. Although it seems logical to assume that 100 megapixels is 2x the resolution of 50 megapixels, that is not the case. For example, 100 megapixels has 1.41x more resolution than 50 megapixels. That's simply due to the fact that we have 2-dimensional images which require width and height to increase proportionally. You need 4x the image pixels to double image resolution. Here's a guide:
Increase in resolution from a 50 megapixel sensor
• 80 megapixels = 1.26x
• 100 megapixels = 1.41x
• 150 megapixels = 1.73x
• 200 megapixels = 2.0x
• 400 megapixels = 2.83x
Increase in resolution from a 100 megapixel sensor
• 150 megapixels = 1.23x
• 200 megapixels = 1.41x
• 400 megapixels = 2.0x
Increase in resolution from a 150 megapixel sensor
• 200 megapixels = 1.15x
• 400 megapixels = 1.63x
-
WOW! I never knew ! thanks for this! :)
-
Happy to oblige. I often see statements that make the incorrect assumption that the number of pixels equates directly to the amount of increase or decrease in resolution without factoring in the fact that there are two dimensions and resolution needs to be measured for both of them.
-
I feel Phase made an error in not reacting harder and faster to the Fuji 100mp.
The medium format market is small at best. The majority of current demand is clearly for mirrorless cameras of the type offered by Hasselblad and Fuji.
It's nice that they offer consumers a different choice with the XF DSLR or XT technical camera systems, but nice doesn't pay the bills. They've so far failed to compete in the largest segment of an already small market and are only addressing narrow niche and industrial markets. Sometimes a very narrow focus can work to a manufacturer's advantage and sometimes it doesn't.
They may yet address the larger market from which they are currently absent. If so, they're kind of late to the rodeo and a lot of potential customers have already been rounded up. Still, anything is possible in the roller coaster world of digital imaging products.
-
The majority of current demand is clearly for mirrorless cameras of the type offered by Hasselblad and Fuji
Some of P1 industrial 44x33 offerings already have global shutter, hence it may be only a question of time until there will be a global shutter for the 645 format. Then there is really no need for a mirror anymore and with the back-illuminated sensor the lenses don't need to be of an retro-focus design.
This would open up new possibilities for a mirrorless P1, yet old lenses could still be used with an adapter.
-
To the original question, it is not unusual for a year to pass between significant firmware updates from camera manufacturers (not just Phase One).
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
We finally have a minor, but very useful update to the IQ4 firmware along with updates to Cascable.
The live view and image viewing are very usable now even with ad-hoc network linked to an older iPad.
-
To the original question, it is not unusual for a year to pass between significant firmware updates from camera manufacturers (not just Phase One).
Steve Hendrix/CI
Hasselblad has not made a firmware update in the at least the last 3 years. Phocus however is constantly being improved upon.
Nice to see the 50MS comparison with the Leaf single shot. Way way back we did a similar comparison, Yair, a HB dealer, Rob (former Eyesonmedia employee) and myself. The conclusion was that differences were hardly visible and probably pretty subjective. Depending on the subject, light, distance, etc. one or the other had a slight edge. Both would be sufficient, however... taking a single shot over 4 shots is always preferable (IMO). Pretty much the main reason I stopped using MS years ago after the release of the H6D100.
I fear MF (with mirror boxes and optical viewfinders) will go the way of the Dinosaur eventually. Meanwhile I keep on using it until it literally falls apart and cannot be repaired anymore. Something with trusted tools I guess ;)
Just got notice of this:
https://nikonrumors.com/2022/07/26/nikon-released-new-firmware-update-for-the-almost-10-years-old-d7100-dslr-camera.aspx/
I reckon it is not impossible.
-
Nice to see you stopping in once in awhile and it's always good to have your input. Although I still can't give up multi-shot, I always value and respect your opinion.
-
Lets also not forget that market timing is very important, along with spending the time to perfect your product.
Rollie went under because it released the Hy6 so earlier, which I still consider the top hand held MF camera. It drained them of cash without a large enough customer base in the market yet to bring in the necessary cash flow. This was more then likely reason for the very bad support network outside Europe, which turned a lot of professionals off.
Likewise, Arca Swiss was late in the game in releasing the RM3D line, and many began to doubt they would release anything to compete with the technical plate camera. When they did though, it was obvious why it took so long. The design of that system overcomes many of the shortfalls of Alpa's and Cambo's offerings, not to mention is was integrated into their M-Line universe of bellow cameras.
A near hit is still a miss; just look at the Hassy mirrorless that was released.
-
A near hit is still a miss; just look at the Hassy mirrorless that was released.
Their mirrorless cameras are what returned Hasselblad to profitability.
-
Their mirrorless cameras are what returned Hasselblad to profitability.
So?
You can only Hassy lenses on them, a severe limitation on creativity. One of the pluses of mirrorless is the lack of shutters and a mirror box, allowing for virtually any lens to be used on them unless the manufacturer prevents it.
I dont know if this is still true, but I was told the video files needed to be processed on Phocus, which is a clunker of a software.
I get the reasoning behind this, but for someone like me who was kind of interested in a medium format mirrorless, both of these were a turn off. It may have helped them, but it could have been a much better hit.
-
Lets also not forget that market timing is very important, along with spending the time to perfect your product.
Rollie went under because it released the Hy6 so earlier, which I still consider the top hand held MF camera. It drained them of cash without a large enough customer base in the market yet to bring in the necessary cash flow. This was more then likely reason for the very bad support network outside Europe, which turned a lot of professionals off.
Agree with you totally. But Rollei's demise (IMHO) started earlier with their cutting edge work in digital scanning backs. These were expensive to produce, but quickly passed by in the wave of better technology. My sense is that is where the earlier profits were spent. The Hy6 also suffered when Phase pulled out, and left them with this cobbled (and confusing) arrangement between Leaf, Sinar and Rollei. Each wanted it a certain way for their market, and it was "morphed" a wee bit accordingly. The changes were manageable from Rollei's side, but diluted its market presence from a small but interesting product to ⅓ of that for each. No way to reach credibility. There was a moment when actually Helix here in Chicago had them for rent, they were that impressive at the time, but that quickly faded away. Also... the lack of a CMOS back option closed the door on them. Plus including in the design parameters 6x6 film, everything (including lens masses) gets too big to compete with mirrorless. Great system nonetheless (had them for 10 years) but a bit too big for now...
-
So?
The most recent year for which public financial information is available for both Hasselblad and Phase One is 2020. Phase One Group ApS (Phase One/Capture One) had a loss of €10.9 million on revenue of €68.9 million, despite the fact that Capture One actually had €5.5 million in profit on revenue of €22.6 million. They're losing money making and selling cameras.
Hasselblad had a profit in 2020 of €4.5 million on sales of €73.5 million due to the success of the mirrorless X system. So? Which would you rather have? Millions in profits or millions in losses?
You can only Hassy lenses on them, a severe limitation on creativity.
That's incorrect. You can use a variety of lenses with Hasselblad mirrorless X1D/X1D II and 907X/CFV II 50C cameras using the sensor's electronic shutter. Many users do so regularly. You can find a lot of different examples of other lenses being used this way in this thread (https://www.getdpi.com/forum/index.php?threads/fun-with-the-hasselblad-907x.68158/post-813395) at another site.
Yes, using the sensor's electronic shutter has some inherent limitations. How limiting use of the electronic shutter might be depends entirely on your application.
Additionally, with the 907X/CFV II 50C, the back can be removed and attached to a technical or view camera and synched with any leaf shutter lens or any Hasselblad V-system camera from 1957 or later. Of course, the 907X accepts all of the same XCD lenses as the X1D/X1D II as well.
One of the pluses of mirrorless is the lack of shutters and a mirror box, allowing for virtually any lens to be used on them unless the manufacturer prevents it.
No, that's one of the benefits of a focal plane shutter. Still cameras with a "lack of shutters and a mirror box" are few and far between. Most have a focal plane shutter.
Hasselblad chose to stay with a leaf shutter only. That's been true of most of their cameras for decades. It's a choice that has both benefits and disadvantages, just like every design choice does. It's not for everyone or every purpose, but what is?
-
I dont know if this is still true, but I was told the video files needed to be processed on Phocus, which is a clunker of a software.
You were misinformed. The only Hasselblad video files that need to go thru Phocus are the full sensor width 4K raw video files from the H6D-100c or H6D-400c or 2.7K raw video files from the H6D-50c. Hasselblad raw video files are not edited in Phocus, it simply converts the raw video into CinemaDNG or Apple ProRes files which can be edited in your video editing program of choice. Again, that only applies to raw video.
You don't have to shoot raw video in the H6D cameras. You can shoot standard H.264 (MPEG-4 AVC) video which doesn't require any conversion to be edited. If you do choose to shoot Hasselblad raw video, however, you can get some impressive results like this lovely short wedding documentary (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ueWEOCSAiE). It was shot by Matthew Carmody (https://www.youtube.com/c/MatthewCarmody) for his friends. Nice to have a professional cinematographer as a friend when you're getting married. The possibilities of raw video from such a large sensor prompted Alpa to design a full cinema system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaCuRJepn1M) around Hasselblad backs in 2018 and update the design (https://www.cined.com/alpa-custom-housing-hasselblad-h6d100c-redesigned-filmmakers/) in 2019.
The Hasselblad mirrorless cameras don't shoot raw video. They shoot standard H.264 video. I don't find Phocus to be "a clunker of a software", but people tend to prefer software with which they are already knowledgeable and familiar. So, many simply use Lightroom for stills. As I mentioned, Phocus isn't video editing software. So, people use whatever they like for video editing.
-
I get the reasoning behind this, but for someone like me who was kind of interested in a medium format mirrorless, both of these were a turn off. It may have helped them, but it could have been a much better hit.
Well, it appears that perhaps Hasselblad didn't design their mirrorless cameras for someone like you. Perhaps you would like the Fuji mirrorless system. One thing is certain, DSLR cameras continue to shrink in demand rapidly as mirrorless continues to grow and increase market share.
A professional photographer for whom the X1D (the original model) has been a welcome tool is Justin Mott (https://www.mottvisuals.com/commercial-photography-vietnam). He has shot dozens of his commercial hotel and resort assignments with the X1D. Here's his review of the system (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9LjlEMYV6E) after using it professionally for two years.
-
Agree with you totally. But Rollei's demise (IMHO) started earlier with their cutting edge work in digital scanning backs...
Unfortunately, Rollei's demise began 60 years ago. They designed and produced some great products, but suffered from bad management decisions across multiple decades which resulted in multiple bankruptcies and rebirths.
-
Unfortunately, Rollei's demise began 60 years ago. They designed and produced some great products, but suffered from bad management decisions across multiple decades which resulted in multiple bankruptcies and rebirths.
Well, as we venture OT, I'm not sure about this. In the 1980s-90s, they were part of the Mandelmann's holdings, he also owned Schneider. And they made a series of lenses through the 1990s that were really the best MF lenses of the time - a big improvement over the Zeiss lenses that were used on Rollei and Hassy both. If you look in detail at the lens lineup - it was really special, and a great body of work. These were for the 6003/8 series of cameras, and still used on the Hy6 today. And while they have been superseded in the past decade by new lens designs and manufacturing (such as the Leica SL, or their Apo lenses), they are still impressive. The small 40, the great Curtagon 60, the 90 macro, the 150 and 300... all wonderful. So while the company hit a wall a few years later, this was understandable in light of massive changes since say 2000, they still did some very good work in the 1990s.
-
...
The mirrorless cameras don't shoot raw video. They shoot standard H.264 video. ...
even some Apple mobile phones shoots ProRes and the nikon Z9 for one shoots RAW and ProRes...
-
I was replying to Joe regarding Hasselblad's latest cameras. So, it was the X1D/X1D II and 907X that I was referring to which don't shoot raw video. Sorry that wasn't clear.
-
Well, as we venture OT, I'm not sure about this. In the 1980s-90s, they were part of the Mandelmann's holdings, he also owned Schneider. And they made a series of lenses through the 1990s that were really the best MF lenses of the time - a big improvement over the Zeiss lenses that were used on Rollei and Hassy both. If you look in detail at the lens lineup - it was really special, and a great body of work. These were for the 6003/8 series of cameras, and still used on the Hy6 today. And while they have been superseded in the past decade by new lens designs and manufacturing (such as the Leica SL, or their Apo lenses), they are still impressive. The small 40, the great Curtagon 60, the 90 macro, the 150 and 300... all wonderful. So while the company hit a wall a few years later, this was understandable in light of massive changes since say 2000, they still did some very good work in the 1990s.
No disagreement that Rollei made great products. Their recurrent financial problems, over multiple decades, were the result of poor financial management or market forecasting by the senior management of its various owners. One interesting note regarding Heinrich Mandermann is that he purchased Rollei in 1987 for a symbolic 1 DM (Deutsch Mark) plus taking on 14 million DM of their debt. Rollei engineering, however, was always top notch.
One Rollei item that I used and appreciated was the Rollei electronic shutter (https://rolleiflex.us/products/rollei-electronic-shutter-size-0) and Lens Control S (https://rolleiflex.us/products/rollei-lens-control-s) for view camera lenses. I've been using multi-shot digital backs for many years which require electronic shutters. When I transitioned from a fully integrated Sinar system to using Imacon/Hasselblad multi-shot backs, I remounted the Sinar lenses into Rollei shutters. The Imacon and Hasselblad software communicated with the Rollei control unit to allow full control and triggering from the tethered software. The Rollei shutter system integrated seamlessly and offered a wider range of shutter speeds than Sinar/Rodenstock or Schneider electronic shutters. It was an excellent and reliable solution.
-
Notably there is a reference to the 2020 financial results of Phase One earlier in this thread.
2020 was indeed a bad year for Phase One (and most of the world).
In 2021 Phase One increased revenue and was profitable (as you can see at proff.dk).
Also, this thread was about there being no firmware/feature updates for the IQ4 in over a year. Now they have; shortly after the thread was started Phase One issued a significant feature update that improves wireless control and image review.
-
I really did not intend on giving any more attention to financial information. Yes, Phase One A/S, the group subsidiary in Denmark, shows a profit for 2021. The parent company Phase One Group ApS (Phase One A/S + Capture One A/S + their international subsidiaries) has been losing millions every year since the summer of 2019 when private equity firm Axcel acquired majority control.
Since Phase One and Capture One were split at the beginning of 2020 into two separate corporate entities under the combined control of parent company Phase One Group ApS, it's clear from the annual reports that Capture One (and its new subsidiary in Greece) makes a nice profit for Phase One Group ApS. It's also clear that the group has been losing money.
-
This information is just to give some financial background on the relatively small size and other potential constraints which may affect the speed at which updates or new products are possible for Phase One and many other small manufacturers. The small companies that create the devices we enjoy using, like Phase One, do a phenomenal job. We've never had such amazing tools for creating images and they keep getting better and more diverse despite the financial, technological, and volatile market hurdles that manufacturers have continually faced.
There are multiple layers of ownership interests thru various Axcel private equity holding companies for Phase One and Capture One. They start with Phase One Group ApS which is the corporate parent encompassing both Phase One and Capture One and all of their international subsidiaries.
Phase One Group ApS consists of the following subsidiaries over which they have 100% ownership and control:
• Capture One A/S (Denmark)
• Capture One Hellas Ltd. (Greece)
• Leaf Imaging Ltd. (Israel)
• Phase One A/S (Denmark)
• Phase One Japan Co. Ltd. (Japan)
• Phase One Asia Pacific Co. Ltd. (Hong Kong)
• Phase One United States Inc. (USA)
The losses for Phase One Group ApS in current (August 10, 2022) Danish Krone to Euro exchange rate have been:
• 2019 (from new Group establishment and only for the period of July 12 to December 31, 2019) - €12.9 million (loss) on sales of €35 million
• 2019 (January 1 - December 31, 2019) - €14.5 million (loss) on sales of €72 million
• 2020 (January 1 - December 31, 2020) - €10.9 million (loss) on sales of €68.9 million
• 2021 (January 1 - December 31, 2020) - €7 million (loss) on sales of €76.7 million
• As of the end of 2021, the group has €74.4 million in long term debt (of which €72.4 million is bank debt)
Sources for all of the above information are Phase One Group ApS Annual Reports from 2019 thru 2021.
As Axcel has restructured the company into two separate corporations: Phase One and Capture One, it has also been restructuring their accounting which makes pinpointing the source or sources of the combined group losses impossible. There is only public financial information available, as legally required, for the Danish parent company Phase One Group ApS and its Danish subsidiaries of Capture One A/S and Phase One A/S. Separate financial reports for the other group international subsidiaries are not available publicly.
Phase One Group ApS combined annual reports show losses occurring from somewhere within the group. Based solely on the history of medium format camera manufacturers and the continuing decline in DSLR sales more broadly, logic suggests and my guess would be that maintaining the Mamiya/Phase One factory (https://www.google.com/maps/place/582-2+Hara,+Saku,+Nagano+385-0052,+Japan/@36.230184,138.4680902,3a,75y,224.53h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seD8xHdT1QFDV9Ue1ToaLEg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!1s0x601c34bca7063bb5:0x37394e9b114ba6af!8m2!3d36.2299636!4d138.4678221) and work force in Japan is the biggest anchor holding down financial results. But, that is only speculation on my part which can't be confirmed nor relied upon; as only Axcel, their partners, and Phase One have enough financial data to know for certain.
The same language for outlook can be found in Phase One annual reports from 2018 thru 2021: "The demand for best-in-class imaging workflow software and commercial drones/robotics are expected to drive the revenue growth going forward." Annual reports, from recent years, also make clear that it is "primarily in the Geospatial market segments" where they see "significant growth opportunities", along with Capture One expansion "based on new products, new distribution systems and new OEM partnerships". Much of the industrial and aerial technology appears to come from Leaf in Israel, so I suspect that Leaf is contributing to positive growth and profits.
Phase One financial data is available thru this link in Danish (https://www.proff.dk/firma/phase-one-group-aps/frederiksberg/kontor-og-teletjenester/GXTXDPI07SL/). It is available thru this link in English (https://www-proff-dk.translate.goog/firma/phase-one-group-aps/frederiksberg/kontor-og-teletjenester/GXTXDPI07SL/?_x_tr_sl=da&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc) via Google Translate. Annual reports can also be downloaded without cost from this site.
-
Perhaps but Phaseone in Japan is also producing the P1 Schneider lenses so it’s hard to know how the balance adds up.
One thing is sure, for someone who is not interested in highlighting the financial situation of P1 you are spending an incredible amount of time doing it. :)
Coming from an H6D-100c another thing I know is that the IQ4-150 on the XF is a far superior pro tool.
I also know that among small MF Fuji is moving much faster than Hassy with a solution that is clearly superior overall even if the lenses lack a leaf shutter and and a little bit better.
So it takes a very biased eye to paint Hassy into a positive light.
The reality is that they have been mostly acting as a brand sticker for DJI drones. I hope that exciting things are coming but the lost years will remain lost for their customers hoping to see additional value added to the systems in which they invested.
During the years that passed since Hassy did something significant to the X system Nikon has developed from scratch what I find to be the most appealing mirrorless system on the market. It takes customers with extremely limited needs and expectations to objectively consider the H or X system as the best possible way to use cash for photographic applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Perhaps but Phaseone in Japan is also producing the P1 Schneider lenses so it’s hard to know how the balance adds up.
It isn't hard to see that demand for DSLR cameras is shrinking rapidly in favor of mirrorless models. It's also easy to look at the history of medium format SLR cameras and see that they are too expensive to manufacture profitably at their steadily declining low volume of demand over the past two decades and that the loss incurred in producing them has to be offset somewhere else with something that is profitable to sell.
One thing is sure, for someone who is not interested in highlighting the financial situation of P1 you are spending an incredible amount of time doing it. :)
Who said that I was "not interested in highlighting the financial situation of P1"? If I wasn't interested, I wouldn't do it and it takes little time to download an annual report and report what it says. Out of curiosity, I've followed the financials and corporate structural changes of a handful of manufacturers for some time.
It serves as an illustration of what many other small manufacturers, like Hasselblad and Schneider for instance, have faced or are facing in the roller coaster world of manufacturing digital imaging devices. The large players are also not immune to similar financial pressures or changes in consumer demand.
-
Coming from an H6D-100c another thing I know is that the IQ4-150 on the XF is a far superior pro tool.
I also know that among small MF Fuji is moving much faster than Hassy with a solution that is clearly superior overall even if the lenses lack a leaf shutter and and a little bit better.
Different cameras, with differing feature sets and design philosophies, satisfy the needs and desires of different users. I'm happy with that fact as it provides for genuinely different options. The superior tool is the one that each individual finds satisfying for their use.
I find the minimalistic design of the Leica M10-D — which lacks autofocus and built-in live view and doesn't even have an LCD display on the camera — very appealing for its relative lack of distractions, menus, joysticks, dials and buttons compared to most modern cameras. Others would hate it for the very same reasons that I find it appealing. Thankfully, there are options available for everyone.
-
So it takes a very biased eye to paint Hassy into a positive light.
If you say so. Some seem to enjoy using their cameras, but no one is forced to do so.
The reality is that they have been mostly acting as a brand sticker for DJI drones. I hope that exciting things are coming but the lost years will remain lost for their customers hoping to see additional value added to the systems in which they invested.
During the years that passed since Hassy did something significant to the X system Nikon has developed from scratch what I find to be the most appealing mirrorless system on the market. It takes customers with extremely limited needs and expectations to objectively consider the H or X system as the best possible way to use cash for photographic applications.
Bias is in the eye of the beholder like beauty is I suppose.
-
During the years that passed since Hassy did something significant to the X system Nikon has developed from scratch what I find to be the most appealing mirrorless system on the market. It takes customers with extremely limited needs and expectations to objectively consider the H or X system as the best possible way to use cash for photographic applications.
Cheers,
Bernard
It is common for interim periods to occur in a manufacturer's product line that sometimes lead one to believe that the end is near, or at least that they are hopelessly behind, and that doom must not be far off. I recall the same being said for Nikon at one time. Remember when Kodak and Canon had full frame 35mm sensors and Nikon took years to come out with one? My point is these events are naturally cyclable for many if not most manufacturers. Sometimes, it is just a matter of time. Hasselblad announced a ground breaking 50mp mirrorless camera in approximately the same time period as Fuji (same calendar year, more or less). Fuji has been more aggressive in continuing to evolve the product line since.
But in some respects, and perhaps surprisingly, capable digital camera manufacturers rarely fall critically behind competitors to the point they can't catch up. Nikon is a good example of this. And who knows, this year Hasselblad could announce a 100mp X2D with PDAF, IBIS, and perhaps a higher resolution EVF than the Fuji GFX 100s, because they have taken their time producing their next generation product, and within that time period, technology evolved so that their options for higher resolution EVF's are better than what Fuji had available to them a few years back.
"It takes customers with extremely limited needs and expectations to objectively consider the H or X system as the best possible way to use cash for photographic applications."
Regarding the above statement from you, I would say that you underestimate the variety of preferences for the worldwide photographic marketplace.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
"It takes customers with extremely limited needs and expectations to objectively consider the H or X system as the best possible way to use cash for photographic applications."
Regarding the above statement from you, I would say that you underestimate the variety of preferences for the worldwide photographic marketplace.
Steve Hendrix/CI
There may be many photographers with very limited needs but it seems factual that compared to a Nikon Z9 or Sony a1 the scope of scenarios adressable by an X1DII is extremely narrow.
And yes Hassy may release a 100mp X2D this year, but they’ll still be 3 years behind Fuji and assuming that those interested customers would need this resolution it will have been 3 years during which Hassy will not have been able to address their need.
Which why I see the X system as a bad investment for photographers having various needs, which means it’s only suitable for photographers with narrow needs.
It doesn’t mean the X1DII doesn’t handle well the narrow scope it covers nor that it cannot produce beautiful images within this scope.
It’s just a niche tool like a Leica M.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
There may be many photographers with virtually unlimited need for more and more sophisticated features and faster-higher-better specs to feel comfortable making images. That's fine and they should use what they enjoy and satisfies their needs.
I'm just not that concerned with having more features or the latest specs for the vast majority of photographic "scenarios". I really don't require very much from the camera other than a way to focus and adjust exposure. I'm happy to adjust those myself without help from the camera. But, that's just me.
On the other hand, for narrow specialized or technical applications, I might indeed want something which has some newer and more sophisticated features or better specs. But again, that's just my perspective and doesn't apply to anyone else.
Like many photographers, I learned to make images with pretty basic equipment under a wide range of scenarios and still can — and may even prefer it sometimes. A lot of the images that I most admire were shot with equipment which had really underwhelming specs and features by today's standards, but the images don't stink because they were made without any of the features considered essential to capture images by some photographers today — and who knows, maybe it actually helped to occasionally make for more interesting images... and sometimes, better photographers.
-
There may be many photographers with very limited needs but it seems factual that compared to a Nikon Z9 or Sony a1 the scope of scenarios adressable by an X1DII is extremely narrow.
And yes Hassy may release a 100mp X2D this year, but they’ll still be 3 years behind Fuji and assuming that those interested customers would need this resolution it will have been 3 years during which Hassy will not have been able to address their need.
Which why I see the X system as a bad investment for photographers having various needs, which means it’s only suitable for photographers with narrow needs.
It doesn’t mean the X1DII doesn’t handle well the narrow scope it covers nor that it cannot produce beautiful images within this scope.
It’s just a niche tool like a Leica M.
Cheers,
Bernard
If you are calling the Hasselblad X1D a niche product compared to a Nikon Z9, you've hit the nail on the head. I'm just not sure what meaning that has for anyone considering a Hasselblad.
Hmm ... "only suitable for photographers with narrow needs" .... ? Do you mean like focusing, exposing and capturing wonderful images?
My Hasselblad clients buy because of what Hasselblad is known for - a wonderful color palette, beautiful design and aesthetics, and a modern, intuitive user interface. My Fuji clients buy Fuji for the feature set, which includes the most advanced auto focus (for medium format camera), IBIS, Capture One support. Among other things, in both cases.
If Hasselblad produced a 100mp X2D tomorrow, then the fact they did this 3 years after Fuji doesn't mean much to those who like the idea of owning a Hasselblad. Will they have lost some buyers who got tired of waiting? Sure. But Hasselblad enjoys a very large traditional user base, and that user base is pretty forgiving, and has sincere lust for Hasselblad products.
I'm not really trying to stick up for Hasselblad (well, I am, a little) - and they do deserve their share of criticism - so much as I am taking the position that not being first to market or being behind the curve has not been a guaranteed harbinger of doom, especially for a company with a large and passionate user base. Nikon themselves have proven this. We just love to count companies out.
I'm not trying to be so confrontational Bernard, but the points you're presenting sound very biased.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
No issues Steve.
I got some nice images out of my H6D-100c during the 3 years I owned the system.
I am just feeling that Hasselblad is not getting half the blame they deserve for having slowed down incredibly compared to the potential shown when the X system was first introduced.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
No issues Steve.
I got some nice images out of my H6D-100c during the 3 years I owned the system.
I am just feeling that Hasselblad is not getting half the blame they deserve for having slowed down incredibly compared to the potential shown when the X system was first introduced.
Cheers,
Bernard
They certainly have taken their time. Let's hope we see something this year.
Steve Hendrix/CI
-
My Hasselblad clients buy because of what Hasselblad is known for - a wonderful color palette, beautiful design and esthetics, and a modern, intuitive user interface. My Fuji clients buy Fuji for the feature set, which includes the most advanced auto focus (for medium format camera), IBIS, Capture One support. Among other things, in both cases.
If Hasselblad produced a 100mp X2D tomorrow, then the fact they did this 3 years after Fuji doesn't mean much to those who like the idea of owning a Hasselblad. Will they have lost some buyers who got tired of waiting? Sure. But Hasselblad enjoys a very large traditional user base, and that user base is pretty forgiving, and has sincere lust for Hasselblad products.
I'm not really trying to stick up for Hasselblad (well, I am, a little) - and they do deserve their share of criticism - so much as I am taking the position that not being first to market or being behind the curve has not been a guaranteed harbinger of doom, especially for a company with a large and passionate user base. Nikon themselves have proven this. We just love to count companies out.
Steve Hendrix/CI
well said.
-
Phase financials show these guys just do it for FUN might be financed by the Queen!