Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: BJL on September 26, 2013, 07:22:19 pm
-
As far as I can tell, no Hasselblad MF back has a newer sensor than the 60MP Dalsa FTC9168C in the H4D, which is also used in the Phase One P65+, so that it dates back at least to July 2008. Is this right, and of so, what does that say about Hasselblad's intentions or ability with respect to sensor improvements? Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya has introduced two newer sensors after that one.
-
Hasselblad hasn't invested a penny in R&D in many years and it is showing. And the Lunar product seems to be the only thing they have 'invested' in, even though that isn't R&D by my standards. It's really sad, unfortunately.
-
As far as I can tell, no Hasselblad MF back has a newer sensor than the 60MP Dalsa FTC9168C in the H4D, which is also used in the Phase One P65+, so that it dates back at least to July 2008. Is this right, and of so, what does that say about Hasselblad's intentions or ability with respect to sensor improvements? Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya has introduced two newer sensors after that one.
It's an awesome sensor (I own a IQ160) but yes only phase one has continuously (w/ Dalsa) developed high MP (60/80) Medium Format Digital sensors. IMHO for landscape photography applications only the 60 and 80 mp sensors make sense otherwise I rather use a DSLR. For portrait and studio even the older backs are superb since they still have that medium format depth of field characteristic and the color depth and accuracy are better than dslrs. I really like the H1 platform. Glad Hasselblad has continued to support it and even updated the lens line which is great. So even though the sensor is "old" it is still a great piece of kit.
-
As far as I can tell, no Hasselblad MF back has a newer sensor than the 60MP Dalsa FTC9168C in the H4D, which is also used in the Phase One P65+, so that it dates back at least to July 2008. Is this right, and of so, what does that say about Hasselblad's intentions or ability with respect to sensor improvements? Phase One/Leaf/Mamiya has introduced two newer sensors after that one.
There was a time when MF sensors were expensive to design and expensive to make - now they are neither, but the MF firms are broke and have lost the wish to compete.
Edmund
-
It's unclear which companies you mean to include in your comment about "MF firms" but Team Phase One's financials are doing very well. Sales have been up every year since the financial crash. This is reflected in the very heavy investment over the last several years resulting in (so far) an entirely new line of digital backs, the IQ (and a meaningful update to that new line, IQ2), the release of a big update to Capture One and several new lenses.
I have no info on other MF companies.
-
It's unclear which companies you mean to include in your comment about "MF firms" but Team Phase One's financials are doing very well. Sales have been up every year since the financial crash. This is reflected in the very heavy investment over the last several years resulting in (so far) an entirely new line of digital backs, the IQ (and a meaningful update to that new line, IQ2), the release of a big update to Capture One and several new lenses.
I have no info on other MF companies.
Doug,
Well, when I speak of the "MF firms" I was speaking historically. We do seem to agree that Phase are doing well since Leaf got bought by Phase, and Sinar backs disappeared, thereby just about halving the number of the independent parties; Ah yes, then there was the Mamiya camera and back, but Mamiya alas was also taken over by ... Phase. I think this is what economists call consolidation. As the lady who came back from the ride might have tastefully said, "I appreciate being given a chance to contribute to the survival of an endangered species".
By the way, since you are in the know, what is the exact status of the involvement of Phase with Microsoft? An what about the rumors that Phase itself is now being viewed for a possible ecological contribution by a large company?
There was a young lady from Niger,
Who went for a ride on a tiger
They came from the ride
With the lady inside
And a smile on the face of the Tiger.
Edmund
-
By the way, since you are in the know, what is the exact status of the involvement of Phase with Microsoft? An what about the rumors that Phase itself is now being viewed for a possible ecological contribution by a large company?
Phase One bought Media Pro and it's associated IP from Microsoft. That's the only MS<>P1 collaboration I'm aware of. If there is more it has not been made public or if it was made public I missed the memo.
As for the rumors you reference I see no reason to consider that something more than link-bait.
-
Hasselblad hasn't invested a penny in R&D in many years and it is showing. And the Lunar product seems to be the only thing they have 'invested' in, even though that isn't R&D by my standards. It's really sad, unfortunately.
I am a bit surprised at the continuous bashing of Hasselblad on Internet forums.
OK, I agree that they deserve some criticism for the Lunar abomination. But the H line is still being developed and saying that they did not invest a penny in R&D is simply not true. The H5D is a complete redesign internally, and is much faster than the H4D. They also presented the HCD 24mm last year. They don't have a 80 mpix back, but then phase one does not have a multishot back either.
-
I am a bit surprised at the continuous bashing of Hasselblad on Internet forums.
OK, I agree that they deserve some criticism for the Lunar abomination. But the H line is still being developed and saying that they did not invest a penny in R&D is simply not true. The H5D is a complete redesign internally, and is much faster than the H4D. They also presented the HCD 24mm last year. They don't have a 80 mpix back, but then phase one does not have a multishot back either.
Nobody is bashing the H series here, they are seriously regarded, although maybe under-represented. I think the Hassleblad owners forum is restricted to owners, am I right?
Edmund
-
You are partially right. The forum has a section that is only for owners. No need having to wade through tons of bashing to find the answer you were looking for with a specific question.
As for R&D.
The newly designed 120MacroII (much better closeup performance I must say), the New HC50MKII, a new close-up lens (like an 8mm extention), the H5D, the HCD24, just to name a few of the most recent items that have come from R&D. Oh, and I forgot the multishot backs in particular the 200MS.
For the immediate future, I hear enough around me to be worried about where HB is heading but so do I from a lot of other companies too.... many are currently struggling to stay in business.
-
I think the Hasselblad owners forum is restricted to owners, am I right?
There is an official Hasselblad owners forum? Where? Or do you mean the Hasselblad owner's club on the manufacturer's web site? To my knowledge, it does not include a forum.
-
Edmund means the Hasselbladdigitalforum run by NickT. This is derived from the FlexFrame usergroup (which is still running too BTW) and houses a large number of Hasselblad owners. If you own a digital Hasselblad you can register and become part of it. Upside is that a lot of knowledge is available to help when needed.
-
Hi,
I guess the problem is that you cannot put a Phase One back on a Hassy, would Hasselblad sell and market the H4X to ton H1/H2 owners I would guess they would get new customers. My guess is the LuLa readers are more pro Phase One backs than they are anti Hasselblad. Phase One has done a lot of development recently, H5D may be new, but it may be perceived that there is little development going on regarding the backs.
Best regards
Erik
I am a bit surprised at the continuous bashing of Hasselblad on Internet forums.
OK, I agree that they deserve some criticism for the Lunar abomination. But the H line is still being developed and saying that they did not invest a penny in R&D is simply not true. The H5D is a complete redesign internally, and is much faster than the H4D. They also presented the HCD 24mm last year. They don't have a 80 mpix back, but then phase one does not have a multishot back either.
-
Edmund means the Hasselbladdigitalforum run by NickT.
Got it. I don't think it requires you to own an Hass. camera to join. Of course, it makes little sense to join if you don't. This being said, that forum is not very active.
-
I am a bit surprised at the continuous bashing of Hasselblad on Internet forums.
OK, I agree that they deserve some criticism for the Lunar abomination. But the H line is still being developed and saying that they did not invest a penny in R&D is simply not true. The H5D is a complete redesign internally, and is much faster than the H4D. They also presented the HCD 24mm last year. They don't have a 80 mpix back, but then phase one does not have a multishot back either.
I agree with you: The H5D is new. I also understand that exclusive agreements between Phase One and Dalsa don't let them have access to the 80mpixel sensor. But I can't stop noticing that they don't even have the H5D-60 on their site as ready (http://www.hasselblad.com). They did not build a H5D-240 (you will need to invest because the sensor is of different size).
You say that the H5D is faster and better. Where is the campaign showing that? Do they release comparison videos?
They are harming themselves.
Best regards,
Jduncan
-
I don't think there are videos showing the difference in speed, but this observation has been reported by people able to test the H5D. There are also reports that the H5D was redesigned internally because manufacturing of the body moved from Japan back to Sweden.
You are right that the H5D-60 is delayed. There could be various reasons for that, but it does not mean that R&D of the H line is abandoned.
-
I agree with you: The H5D is new. I also understand that exclusive agreements between Phase One and Dalsa don't let them have access to the 80mpixel sensor. But I can't stop noticing that they don't even have the H5D-60 on their site as ready (http://www.hasselblad.com). They did not build a H5D-240 (you will need to invest because the sensor is of different size).
You say that the H5D is faster and better. Where is the campaign showing that? Do they release comparison videos?
They are harming themselves.
Best regards,
Jduncan
I did not say the H5 is faster and better someone else did. If you ask me, I do find the H5 faster, more stable and better in a lot of areas. I also find that some things are still not at a level where they should but I have been assured that they are working on those areas. All things considered the H is now a pretty mature product line with a lot of possibilities.
I don't need a campaign for these things. I own a H5 as well as a H4.
The HB forum is not very active but people that want to know something or have issues are being answered pretty quickly.
-
There was a time when MF sensors were expensive to design and expensive to make - now they are neither, but the MF firms are broke and have lost the wish to compete.
Edmund
I wish they would come out with a FF digital back for the old film cams. Low mp would be fine if it was FF. Main thing is it must be affordable and FF to work like film did on a SWC.
-
Yes, I'd like to see a big pixel 6x6 sensor. Could be made for H and for Rollei too.
-
Jerome, for me is the H5D slower than the H4D. When you switch on, you have longer to wait to take the first picture. when you will check the blinking part on the screen (overexposed), then you have to wait 4-5 sec....
rem
-
Jerome, for me is the H5D slower than the H4D. When you switch on, you have longer to wait to take the first picture. when you will check the blinking part on the screen (overexposed), then you have to wait 4-5 sec....
rem
I have been told there is a firmware update coming out in the next week or so for the H5 cameras which addresses a few issues, so maybe speed will be improved. My dealer said Hasselblad are very aware of the H5 being slower than the H4 when it comes to tethering, and are keen to improve it.
Ben
-
Hi,
You can put a P45+ back on the V-series, it is close to full frame 645. My guess is that you can put an IQ2 series back on the V also, they are essentially full frame 645 (except the 140 model). A 6x6 would be very expensive, but perhaps less so if MF-sensors can be made at reasonable cost as Edmund says.
The SWC has problems of it's own, Biogon type lenses are not very compatible with digital sensors, because the short distance between the lens and the back, making the ray angle large. Leica has done some excessive work on the M-series.
Zeiss made a very good 40/4 lens (the FLE IF), that lens has excellent optical quality so I would suggest it may be a good alternative to the SWC. The SWC is distortionless, tough, while the Distagon has quite a bit of distortion.
By the way, you would not want a low res back, like 6MP, because of extensive aliasing. Aliasing is a frequent problem on a P45+ (below f/16 - f/22), with a low resolution back the problems would be excessive.
Best regards
Erik
I wish they would come out with a FF digital back for the old film cams. Low mp would be fine if it was FF. Main thing is it must be affordable and FF to work like film did on a SWC.
-
At the price they sell these things each 80MP or 60 MP digital could come with its own engineer concierge service. Each camera would "adopt" some bright kid in Mumbai ... :)
One of the "innovations" we are missing in cameras is built-in scripting, although it is present in SLRs it is hidden from the user. The MF guys could expose it and provide custom scripting for users. Magic Lantern's features show what is possible. Oh but wait, they cannot do this - MF chips are too expensive. It's interesting how in the end the cost of chips has been used to justify ... a dearth of innovation. Frankly, I think a lot of users would have been happy with scripting in lieu of the "new" H5 upgrades.
By the way, although MF chips are expensive, "engineering grade" chips with defects are basically worthless as they cannot be sold. So there's no reason not to sell image development boards to students or consultants ... in fact Kodak used to do that.
Edmund
-
IMHO the obsession with newer sensors I often read about on forums like this is a little irrational. As far as I understand it is more about the electronics surrounding them and the software that enables things like slightly faster capture speeds or slightly better high ISO performance. The sensors themselves have probably not changed that much since I had my first 11mp back. In fact it seems that noise has gone up with megapixel counts, even at the base ISO.
Sure, Phase has introduced some amazing things like pixel-binning, a type of live-view on the back, wi-fi jpegs etc, but all of this is mostly developments of hardware around the sensor, and/or the software. I haven't seen any huge jump in image quality in the 10 years I have owned various medium format backs. I'm not defending Hasselblad's relative lack of development of new hardware features that may increase convenience or usability, but I think it's silly to get hung up on the sensors being the same as they were 5 years ago, because I really don't see image quality that much better than it was back then. If they can increase usability with the same sensors then who cares how old it is? For me it's about the end product and how easy it is to get there, and for that Hasselblad's pipeline from great lenses through to the fully digital body (controllable via the software) and Phocus's beautiful rendering of colour and detail and ease of use is what I like.
Few professionals need or want more than 40 megapixels anyway, so the lack of a back that shoots more than 60MP is not that bad. Professionals who shoot with old 22MP backs or with brand new 80MP backs get paid the same and the quality of their pictures is just as good once published. The exceptions are museums and large print-makers, and for those guys the big MP backs are great, but present their own challenges with wide lenses or slow multi-shot captures to name a few things.
Ben
-
People here see their SLRs do stuff like video and LiveView, and on-sensor auto-focusing, and they'd like these features on their MF devices. As an example, the Alpa and technical camera users would really benefit from solid real-time liveview to an iPad. Rightly or wrongly people here believe that a new generation of sensors would enable such features.
Edmund
IMHO the obsession with newer sensors I often read about on forums like this is a little irrational. As far as I understand it is more about the electronics surrounding them and the software that enables things like slightly faster capture speeds or slightly better high ISO performance. The sensors themselves have probably not changed that much since I had my first 11mp back. In fact it seems that noise has gone up with megapixel counts, even at the base ISO.
Sure, Phase has introduced some amazing things like pixel-binning, a type of live-view on the back, wi-fi jpegs etc, but all of this is mostly developments of hardware around the sensor, and/or the software. I haven't seen any huge jump in image quality in the 10 years I have owned various medium format backs. I'm not defending Hasselblad's relative lack of development of new hardware features that may increase convenience or usability, but I think it's silly to get hung up on the sensors being the same as they were 5 years ago, because I really don't see image quality that much better than it was back then. If they can increase usability with the same sensors then who cares how old it is? For me it's about the end product and how easy it is to get there, and for that Hasselblad's pipeline from great lenses through to the fully digital body (controllable via the software) and Phocus's beautiful rendering of colour and detail and ease of use is what I like.
Few professionals need or want more than 40 megapixels anyway, so the lack of a back that shoots more than 60MP is not that bad. Professionals who shoot with old 22MP backs or with brand new 80MP backs get paid the same and the quality of their pictures is just as good once published. The exceptions are museums and large print-makers, and for those guys the big MP backs are great, but present their own challenges with wide lenses or slow multi-shot captures to name a few things.
Ben
-
People here see their SLRs do stuff like video and LiveView, and on-sensor auto-focusing, and they'd like these features on their MF devices. As an example, the Alpa and technical camera users would really benefit from solid real-time liveview to an iPad. Rightly or wrongly people here believe that a new generation of sensors would enable such features.
Edmund
That's true, but I assumed the OP was talking just about MF vs MF, and singling-out Hasselblad, not MF vs 35mm, or CCD vs CMOS etc.
Ben
-
I do not need a new sensor. Just return to the production of CF line . I would be happy with CF50, CF50MS (200MPix) or even CF60, CF60MS (240MPix).
-
That's true, but I assumed the OP was talking just about MF vs MF, and singling-out Hasselblad, not MF vs 35mm, or CCD vs CMOS etc.
Ben
I think people here would mostly like either SLR equivalent MF (video, LV, wifi, on-sensor focus etc) OR just get their old 500C with a decent LARGE SQUARE sensor for an affordable price. The MF guys started well, but then they kind of ran out of gas, while the 35mm guys have started getting it. MF "updates" like H4 to H5 are not innovation, they are disguised stagnation. These guys could save the money for printing new brochures and pay some engineers rather than desktop publishing and marketing specialists.
I'm not joking - sell us a decent square full-frame back for the 500 series at the price of a Nikon D4 and there will be a queue around the block even if you print the brochures on toilet paper, and even if need to go to Kirkenses on Dec 24 to get it.
Edmund
PS although I guess they'd have to supply some pretty warm wine to keep us alive in that case ...
-
I think people here would mostly like either SLR equivalent MF (video, LV, wifi, on-sensor focus etc) OR just get their old 500C with a decent LARGE SQUARE sensor for an affordable price. The MF guys started well, but then they kind of ran out of gas, while the 35mm guys have started getting it. MF "updates" like H4 to H5 are not innovation, they are disguised stagnation. These guys could save the money for printing new brochures and pay some engineers rather than desktop publishing and marketing specialists.
Edmund
+1000 ;D
-
Hi,
There is something to it. On the other hand, I would think Hasselblad et. al. have made some market research. My guess is that there are a lot of V-series users wanting a 6x6 back, but they may not buy the product if it actually was delivered. Realistically, companies make products for profit.
As a side note, I happen to use a P45+ back with a V-series Hasselblad and I am actually quite happy. But, I could buy a Nikon D800 and a bunch of Zeiss lenses for the same money and I guess I would be happy, too!
Best regards
Erik
I think people here would mostly like either SLR equivalent MF (video, LV, wifi, on-sensor focus etc) OR just get their old 500C with a decent LARGE SQUARE sensor for an affordable price. The MF guys started well, but then they kind of ran out of gas, while the 35mm guys have started getting it. MF "updates" like H4 to H5 are not innovation, they are disguised stagnation. These guys could save the money for printing new brochures and pay some engineers rather than desktop publishing and marketing specialists.
I'm not joking - sell us a decent square full-frame back for the 500 series at the price of a Nikon D4 and there will be a queue around the block even if you print the brochures on toilet paper, and even if need to go to Kirkenses on Dec 24 to get it.
Edmund
PS although I guess they'd have to supply some pretty warm wine to keep us alive in that case ...
-
But, I could buy a Nikon D800 and a bunch of Zeiss lenses for the same money and I guess I would be happy, too!
For even less money you could buy a Fuji X-Pro1 and all of its lenses and still be very happy and have fun!
-
Or do not spend money, just start using your iPhone ;D
-
...and Sinar backs disappeared... (says Ronald).
http://sinar.ch/en/category/products/digital-backs/ (http://sinar.ch/en/category/products/digital-backs/)
PdF
-
This link works
http://www.sinar.ch/en/category/products/digital-backs/
A great step forward - no screen. :)
Edmund
-
There is an idea behind having no screen. These are the multishot backs, the idea is that having no screen means a lower operating temperature and lower noise files. Ever seen the results from a Sinar multishot back like the 75 or the 86? These things are in a league of their own. If the ultimate image quality is what you are after and if it fits your workflow these things are worth looking at. They probably sell very few of these every year...
-
There is an idea behind having no screen. These are the multishot backs, the idea is that having no screen means a lower operating temperature and lower noise files. Ever seen the results from a Sinar multishot back like the 75 or the 86? These things are in a league of their own. If the ultimate image quality is what you are after and if it fits your workflow these things are worth looking at. They probably sell very few of these every year...
From the specs they also have no built-in storage ability or battery - which makes sense, but the completely tethered workflow this implies kind of distances them from a lot of people's creative process.
There are also some companies making scanners and scanbacks, but for some reason we don't talk about them a lot here. Might be a mistake though, I'm sure scanner technology is going to make a comeback with 3d scanners.
Edmund
-
Hi,
I don't think so. The P45+ is a major step up from the Sony Alpha 99 I have with regard to resolution. From what I have seen the Nikon D800 with the very best lenses may be a match, I don't know because I don't have a Nikon D800. But seriously I don't think that Fuji plays in the same league.
Best regards
Erik
For even less money you could buy a Fuji X-Pro1 and all of its lenses and still be very happy and have fun!
-
But seriously I don't think that Fuji plays in the same league.
Probably not but it has very good high ISO and 49 accurate focusing points...
And for an increasing number of wedding photographers (you know, these guys who used to shoot MF... and after that a FF DSLR...) it seems to get the job done, so who cares?
For shooting people you don't need 60-80 MP, even 40MP is probably overkill, 16-22 MP is more than sufficient, max 30 MP.
The niche in which MF is hiding is increasingly getting smaller...
-
The sensors themselves have probably not changed that much since I had my first 11mp back. In fact it seems that noise has gone up with megapixel counts, even at the base ISO.
I have to respond to this fashionable but ill-informed cynicism. One recent example is that the newest Dalsa-Phase One 60MP sensor improves long exposure performance and noise levels somewhat, and --- despite frequent claims to the contrary in forums --- there is significant interest amongst some MF back buyers in higher resolution like the 80MP option that "Team Phase One" offers, as shown by the persistently higher prices commanded by sensors of higher resolution. And again contrary to 100% pixel-peeping irrelevancy, modest increases in pixel count have generally not been accompanied by any degradation in IQ when comparisons are done fairly, viewing the images at equal apparent size, and indeed this increase pixel count offers one IQ advantage: allowing prints of the same size at higher PPI helps to reduce visible moiré effects.
On the other hand, I am not of the camp that says Hasselblad has made no developments: improvements in camera bodies matter too, and after all, that is where companies like Hasselblad used to make all their contributions back when they used film made by other companies. I just get the feeling that the decline of Kodak's sensor division and Phase One's ability to get long term exclusives on some Dalsa sensor models has put Hasselblad at some disadvantage.
EDIT: in case I have come across as saying that sensor progress is the most critical thing, I am interested to note that Sinar Photography seems to have a tactic of building a market niche by doing different and potentially useful things with its "tethered multi-shot backs" and technical/view cameras. I like that, because usually any company not in the top two of its sector needs to look at areas that its bigger competitors do not serve so well.
-
Hi,
I don't think it is about MP but a lot of other things.
Personally I am mostly shooting landscape, essentially at base ISO and mostly on tripod and focus manually, if possible.
The question weather high MP-s are meaningful or not is interesting. With the P45+ I see lots of aliasing artifacts, going smaller pixels would help a lot. At this stage high MP backs are very expensive.
Regarding smaller formats, I am pretty much impressed by APS-C cameras, but we also see that full frame DSLRs are getting more affordable.
Mirrorless cameras are in my view a very good idea, and it makes a lot of sense to have lenses calculated for a smaller sensor size, like Fuji X does, because smaller formats need better lenses.
I don't think wedding photographers are the most demanding photographers, my guess is that honour would go to landscape and architecture shooters.
Best regards
Erik
Probably not but it has very good high ISO and 49 accurate focusing points...
And for an increasing number of wedding photographers (you know, these guys who used to shoot MF... and after that a FF DSLR...) it seems to get the job done, so who cares?
For shooting people you don't need 60-80 MP, even 40MP is probably overkill, 16-22 MP is more than sufficient, max 30 MP.
The niche in which MF is hiding is increasingly getting smaller...
-
I'll tell you a little secret.
Medium format still cameras are the bridge between analog film and digital, especially if you use a manual contax, or RZ, or V system.
Of the kids that work for me, they lust for a medium format camera . . . and the only reason they don't go that route is the cost.
Actually, they think they missed something not using analog film, so some shoot a little bit of film, but film really isn't that effective for a lot of work, so they stick with their D's dslrs.
I think . . .ok . . . I know that my medium format ccd cameras produce a different look than the glass smooth, global color dslr look, but before anybody screams . . . like everything that's personal opinion.
What I don't get the where is sensor development stuff talk comes from. Heck, we all used the same film stock for years and didn't send tweets to Kodak about where is 4,000 iso film without grain. (Well of course we didn't tweet), but you get my drift.
I think the downside of the Hasselblad talk came out of the Lunar, but it's not meant for me anymore than a a Louis Vuitton camera case, so I don't care, I hope they make a bunch of money off of it.
But . . . look on the Hasselblad site. They've got h3dII 31mpx bodies for 4 grand.
I might buy one just for those rare times I need a faster sync speed.
IMO
BC
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/assafa_rrg.jpg)
-
But . . . look on the Hasselblad site. They've got h3dII 31mpx bodies for 4 grand. Heck I might buy one just for those rare times I need a faster sync speed.
IMO
BC
(http://www.russellrutherford.com/assafa_rrg.jpg)
You got a link?
Edmund
-
You got a link?
Edmund
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1064797/husa_cert_preowned.pdf
There was a H4D-40 with 6 months warranty for around $7K...
-
http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/1064797/husa_cert_preowned.pdf
There was a H4D-40 with 6 months warranty for around $7K...
thx!
Edmund
-
Hasselblad hasn't invested a penny in R&D in many years and it is showing. And the Lunar product seems to be the only thing they have 'invested' in, even though that isn't R&D by my standards. It's really sad, unfortunately.
This is not true.
Around 10% of Hasselblad employees are working on Lunar/Stellar type projects. The rest of them are not just sitting around watching.
-
Hi,
I don't have the slightest idea, my questions are rather:
- Is the company profitable? Important for long time survival, you know!
- What about marketshare, is it constant, increasing or decreasing?
- Widening into new fields like archival photography and arial photography, what progress has been made.
Other than that, it is a question of lenses, lens quality, autofocusing ability and precision. All those areas may be something that Hasselblad is good at or not? I don't know. MPixels and MTF doesn't help if the lens is out of focus!
It seems that MF sensor are not in a rapid development, but PhaseOne cooperated with Dalsa in development of the IQ260 sensor. Got the impression that the main reason for Phase switching to Dalsa was the option to have input on development. The real step forward may be a modern CMOS design. Leica has invested development money in the CMOSIS sensor for the M (240). It may be possible that Phase is working on CMOS? Makes a lot of sense on technical cameras.
To me it seems that Hasselblad is reducing prices while Phase One is trying to develop MFDBs which command higher prices.
Best regards
Erik
This is not true.
Around 10% of Hasselblad employees are working on Lunar/Stellar type projects. The rest of them are not just sitting around watching.
-
This is not true.
Around 10% of Hasselblad employees are working on Lunar/Stellar type projects. The rest of them are not just sitting around watching.
+1000
;D
-
The issue of H vs. Phase prices may have something to do with branding. At the moment practically every brand is moving upmarket, the idea being that in many countries the population is fracturing into high net worth vs. low class. The middle class is getting squeezed. An interesting effect are rising luxury car sales - I seem to see a used Ferrari lot on every street corner over here in Paris, and fewer of those cheapo Porsches and sports BMW on the streets. So one could imagine that Phase's strategy of raising prices is just right - which doesn't make their product any more appropriate for general use than a Ferrari btw, but it does imply that there will be a market for coaching people driving Phase One backs - oh wait, the penny is dropping ...
I guess brand H is now in the worst possible position, too expensive for low-end SLR buyers, not enough of a luxury, and trying to sell decent still cameras to working photographers who are either running out of money or moving into big-campaign video like our friend with the name of a bird. Brand P is paying dealers to rope in the whales.
Edmund
Hi,
I don't have the slightest idea, my questions are rather:
- Is the company profitable? Important for long time survival, you know!
- What about marketshare, is it constant, increasing or decreasing?
- Widening into new fields like archival photography and arial photography, what progress has been made.
Other than that, it is a question of lenses, lens quality, autofocusing ability and precision. All those areas may be something that Hasselblad is good at or not? I don't know. MPixels and MTF doesn't help if the lens is out of focus!
It seems that MF sensor are not in a rapid development, but PhaseOne cooperated with Dalsa in development of the IQ260 sensor. Got the impression that the main reason for Phase switching to Dalsa was the option to have input on development. The real step forward may be a modern CMOS design. Leica has invested development money in the CMOSIS sensor for the M (240). It may be possible that Phase is working on CMOS? Makes a lot of sense on technical cameras.
To me it seems that Hasselblad is reducing prices while Phase One is trying to develop MFDBs which command higher prices.
Best regards
Erik
-
An interesting effect are rising luxury car sales - I seem to see a used Ferrari lot on every street corner over here in Paris, and fewer of those cheapo Porsches and sports BMW on the streets.
Really? That is frightening.
-
The issue of H vs. Phase prices may have something to do with branding. At the moment practically every brand is moving upmarket, the idea being that in many countries the population is fracturing into high net worth vs. low class. The middle class is getting squeezed. An interesting effect are rising luxury car sales - I seem to see a used Ferrari lot on every street corner over here in Paris, and fewer of those cheapo Porsches and sports BMW on the streets. So one could imagine that Phase's strategy of raising prices is just right - which doesn't make their product any more appropriate for general use than a Ferrari btw, but it does imply that there will be a market for coaching people driving Phase One backs - oh wait, the penny is dropping ...
I guess brand H is now in the worst possible position, too expensive for low-end SLR buyers, not enough of a luxury, and trying to sell decent still cameras to working photographers who are either running out of money or moving into big-campaign video like our friend with the name of a bird. Brand P is paying dealers to rope in the whales.
Edmund
Unfortunately I am afraid your analysis is spot on. Hasselblad is in a difficult postion. They have not been able to capitalize on their brand name the way Leica has. They are much more expensive than Pentax ($7K body alone), the cheapest MFD solution. And they are less expensive and perceived as less exclusive than Leica ($23K) and Phase One ($37K digital back alone, ouch). They seem to want to move into the same segment as Leica and Phase One but I believe more than those two companies they still have more actually working photograhers using the system. Tough spot indeed!
-
I guess brand H is now in the worst possible position, too expensive for low-end SLR buyers, not enough of a luxury, and trying to sell decent still cameras to working photographers who are either running out of money or moving into big-campaign video like our friend with the name of a bird. Brand P is paying dealers to rope in the whales.
Edmund
Same is happening over here, the gap between wealthy and 'poor' is widening. Middle class is being squeezed more and more.
Well, in that case it seems to make sense HB is raising their prices, beginning with the lenses... ;)
-
Unfortunately I am afraid your analysis is spot on. Hasselblad is in a difficult postion. They have not been able to capitalize on their brand name the way Leica has. They are much more expensive than Pentax ($7K body alone), the cheapest MFD solution. And they are less expensive and perceived as less exclusive than Leica ($23K) and Phase One ($37K digital back alone, ouch). They seem to want to move into the same segment as Leica and Phase One but I believe more than those two companies they still have more actually working photograhers using the system. Tough spot indeed!
I don't think it's right to use the word "exclusive" to describe Phase One's market positioning. At least if you're using the word the way I'm interpreting it "exclusivity = brand cache = ornamental purchase"
Yes they have an IQ280 which is positioned at the highest price point in MF (justifiably so IMO as the IQ2 is the best there is).
But they also play very heavily in the more entry-level market. We sold many more P+ refurb bundles than we expected to with the $8k back+body+lens (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/promotions/dt-exclusive-promos-p-series-bundles) as one of the top movers. I don't think any of these new customers were buying "exclusivity" - they just wanted medium format for it's traditional strengths (flash sync speed, lens quality, color, viewfinder size, tonality, dimensional rendering etc etc).
Phase has always insisted that they will not play the "collectors" or "special edition" cards. To say they are going the route of "exclusive" is - I think - missing the mark.
Ask a dozen people on the street if they know the name "Phase One" and you're more likely to find someone who knows about the fad diet (http://www.slimcapsule.com/blog/south-beach-diet-phase-one-just-fad-diet/) than the camera maker.
-
I don't think it's right to use the word "exclusive" to describe Phase One's market positioning. At least if you're using the word the way I'm interpreting it "exclusivity = brand cache = ornamental purchase"
Yes they have an IQ280 which is positioned at the highest price point in MF (justifiably so IMO as the IQ2 is the best there is).
But they also play very heavily in the more entry-level market. We sold many more P+ refurb bundles than we expected to with the $8k back+body+lens (https://digitaltransitions.com/blog/promotions/dt-exclusive-promos-p-series-bundles) as one of the top movers. I don't think any of these new customers were buying "exclusivity" - they just wanted medium format for it's traditional strengths (flash sync speed, lens quality, color, viewfinder size, tonality, dimensional rendering etc etc).
Phase has always insisted that they will not play the "collectors" or "special edition" cards. To say they are going the route of "exclusive" is - I think - missing the mark.
Ask a dozen people on the street if they know the name "Phase One" and you're more likely to find someone who knows about the fad diet (http://www.slimcapsule.com/blog/south-beach-diet-phase-one-just-fad-diet/) than the camera maker.
exclusive - definition of exclusive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia:
Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive
The cheapest last generation offering from Phase One was the IQ260 at $37K (without the camera body). This is almost double of the Leica S....
With all due respect I don't believe I am missing the mark...
Best, Joris.
-
Doug is a nice guy, don't hit him too hard. He knows as well as you that the whole point of an exclusive night club is that as you walk in you pass all the people who won't be let in :)
When I complained to an H exec about pricing, his companion, a blonde model, at the Photokina H booth party replied for him:
"In every area there will be elitist products".
Edmund
exclusive - definition of exclusive by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia:
Catering to a wealthy clientele; expensive
The cheapest last generation offering from Phase One was the IQ260 at $37K (without the camera body). This is almost double of the Leica S....
With all due respect I don't believe I am missing the mark...
Best, Joris.
-
Bottom line is that Phase One has concentrated on making the best Medium Format Digital Backs and they keep supporting the older generation backs. Because of that their effective product line is pretty large since even a P25+ can be considered somewhat part of it even though it is obviously not currently manufactured. The P40+ is still being made I believe and it is $14k new but much less refurbished or used. PhaseOne backs are basically form follow function designs so they are solid image recording devices plain and simple. Like film in a box. They have incorporated a lot more functionality in the IQ2 series but obviously the older models still lag a bit behind in the features department compared to a DSLR. But they are designed to be used in a wide variety of cameras. That makes them quite versatile since you can have one back and use it on many different camera platforms. Like it was mentioned they spend their money improving the backs not adding fancy materials in the name of looks or fancy colors and finishes. Also, can't leave out the CaptureOne software. It provides an awesome workflow specially when tethering is used.
Could they be more affordable? Of course. There is a point where lowering the price to a certain level would increase the customer base significantly, increase sales volume to a point that the backs become even more profitable. But, that might have worked better during a time when a lot of people still had their hands on medium format film cameras. That time is long gone. Right now they depend on their own camera platform (Mamiya/Phase) and the Hasselblad H. Tech cameras are a non issue since they can use adapters and is a much more open system.
Hasselblad has basically refined their H system. That is good news. Yes the Lunar is an embarrassing endeavor (in the eyes of most photography professionals and enthusiasts) but at least the H was not dropped.
-
The big dSLR system cameras used to be expensive because they were universal - anything a pro wanted to do with a camera he could do with a Nikon and the right accessory. This argument does not hold for digital backs - they simply cannot do liveview, video, really fast follow focus, multiple focus points, fast burst rates, integrated wifi or all those other strange things which the kids of the iPhone generation expect. In their eyes, like you say, and as James says, they are as modern as film :)
Edmund
Bottom line is that Phase One has concentrated on making the best Medium Format Digital Backs and they keep supporting the older generation backs. Because of that their effective product line is pretty large since even a P25+ can be considered somewhat part of it even though it is obviously not currently manufactured. The P40+ is still being made I believe and it is $14k new but much less refurbished or used. PhaseOne backs are basically form follow function designs so they are solid image recording devices plain and simple. Like film in a box. They have incorporated a lot more functionality in the IQ2 series but obviously the older models still lag a bit behind in the features department compared to a DSLR. But they are designed to be used in a wide variety of cameras. That makes them quite versatile since you can have one back and use it on many different camera platforms. Like it was mentioned they spend their money improving the backs not adding fancy materials in the name of looks or fancy colors and finishes. Also, can't leave out the CaptureOne software. It provides an awesome workflow specially when tethering is used.
Could they be more affordable? Of course. There is a point where lowering the price to a certain level would increase the customer base significantly, increase sales volume to a point that the backs become even more profitable. But, that might have worked better during a time when a lot of people still had their hands on medium format film cameras. That time is long gone. Right now they depend on their own camera platform (Mamiya/Phase) and the Hasselblad H. Tech cameras are a non issue since they can use adapters and is a much more open system.
Hasselblad has basically refined their H system. That is good news. Yes the Lunar is an embarrassing endeavor (in the eyes of most photography professionals and enthusiasts) but at least the H was not dropped.
-
The early DSLRs sucked. They were really bad in most things. That is why even though a lot of photojournalists ditched film (not all due to their own choice) a lot of photographers continued to use film. The Canon 1DS started to change the game. It was $8k and the Kodak DCS back was $12k, not a huge difference but the Kodak was better in the studio. The 1DS2 was THE dslr that converted a lot of the high end photographers from film to digital but again the backs were better for certain photographers although the price difference was pretty large even though the Canon was still $8k. The Canon provided excellent quality 16 mp files.
Still, if you want the very best image quality possible nothing beats the best 60 and 80mp digital backs. Whether that is a must for one's work is another topic entirely. But if you want it, it is available.
-
The early DSLRs sucked. They were really bad in most things. That is why even though a lot of photojournalists ditched film (not all due to their own choice) a lot of photographers continued to use film. The Canon 1DS started to change the game. It was $8k and the Kodak DCS back was $12k, not a huge difference but the Kodak was better in the studio. The 1DS2 was THE dslr that converted a lot of the high end photographers from film to digital but again the backs were better for certain photographers although the price difference was pretty large even though the Canon was still $8k. The Canon provided excellent quality 16 mp files.
Still, if you want the very best image quality possible nothing beats the best 60 and 80mp digital backs. Whether that is a must for one's work is another topic entirely. But if you want it, it is available.
Now why can't I get a back with the same sensor as in the Proback for $2K for my V-series Hassy? Digital backs seem to be the only electronics product that never becomes affordable.
The only company which has been decent in MF pricing so far is Pentax, but then Japan seems to be the only country left with a normal middle class.
BTW, the guys at Canon told me some years ago that the big problem they have with their pro bodies is that working pros cannot afford them anymore and are using the prosumer models.
Edmund
-
BTW, the guys at Canon told me some years ago that the big problem they have with their pro bodies is that working pros cannot afford them anymore and are using the prosumer models.
I think "don't want to pay more than they need" is more correct than "cannot afford". If your business is not profitable enough to allow you to buy a $6-7K Pro DSLR body you probably have other more serious problems with economy. But if you get the same job done with the same efficiency with lower cost tools, why pay more? This is how rational professionals think. Not all are that rational though.
Anyway, if you move to the amateur segment there's less rationalism and then you can sell luxury items etc to people that can afford it. Hasselblad seems to make a move in that direction.
Concerning digital back pricing I think that sensor area is still a problem, ie anything that needs a large contiguous chunk of silicon will be expensive, so the raw components for making a digital back is still relatively expensive. The digital back manufacturer probably needs to pay somewhere around $3K per sensor. Even with those prices backs could be sold cheaper though, say like a pro DSLR body ~$7K and aim for more volume instead, but that would require a different business model, and probably more DSLR-similar technology (ie live view, high ISO) to attract a larger mass of users.
Making MF just a slightly larger DSLR but otherwise the same would be a bit boring though I think... I would be more excited to see a 6x6 sensor back for vintage cameras (and the Hy6) or a tech camera friendly back priced for advanced amateurs (ie interested in photography rather than showing off with luxury items), there are a lot of landscape photography amateurs out there. Some of us go through the effort of buying second hand digital backs just to get something decent to a decent price, but say if I could get a CFV-50 with a little bit more modern GUI for ~$8K buying new would be an alternative.
-
Now why can't I get a back with the same sensor as in the Proback for $2K for my V-series Hassy? Digital backs seem to be the only electronics product that never becomes affordable.
\
You probably can find a proback for a contax or mamiya for 2k, less options for the V, but hey . . . you don't want to.
Kodak "loaned" me the proback so many times I thought I should name it and I only used it 1/10th of the time it was on set. Great idea, gone wrong. It overheated, the lcd view was goofy, the cost at 12k, later dropped to 8k was a non starter, given the fact the original 1ds gave you the same if better quality, in a real professional camera.
Heck, if your going to drop 2k, drop 4k on the 31mpx blad on their sale site. You'll have twice the camera, twice the file, better software and something you can really use for a long time.
In regards to the prices of new medium format equipment, it is what it is. Is it worth it . . . depends on the person. I don't think an Arriflex with optimo lenses are worth shooting web videos with, but a lot of people will disagree, so to each his own.
To me, Phase and Leaf have done wonders with their backs and it's kind of a shame they don't have the front end camera to match. I fear that by the time they do, Nikon will probably have an 45 mpx sensor dslr that will sell for $2,500.
Personally, if I shot mostly stills with a lot of light, I'd do the h5d because I like the camera, though truth be told don't need the camera.
Actually the only "cutting edge" equipment we add now is on the backside workflow, i.e. faster computers, graphic cards, software, drives. Our issue isn't in the shooting day, our issues come from the backend process since we shoot huge volumes of still and motion content.
But a proback, might as well just buy a film camera. Labs like Icon LA have the film to digital experience set up to be pretty painless.
IMO
BC