Firmware 1.22.0 for Hasselblad X1D-50c

[BobShaw]

From the website hasselblad.com
The 1.22.0 firmware is a service and feature release for the X1D-50c camera that adds support for the new lenses XCD 65, XCD 80 and XCD 135 including X Converter 1,7. It also adds some new functionality and solves a few bugs.

There is also a lens firmware update for all XCD lenses.

[faberryman]

From the website hasselblad.com
The 1.22.0 firmware is a service and feature release for the X1D-50c camera that adds support for the new lenses XCD 65, XCD 80 and XCD 135 including X Converter 1,7. It also adds some new functionality and solves a few bugs.

Anyone know when the lenses will actually be released? They are still on preorder at B&H.

[BobShaw]

Anyone know when the lenses will actually be released? They are still on preorder at B&H.

I don't know but it appears that they could not be released until the firmware update to support them.

[eronald]

Anyone know when the lenses will actually be released? They are still on preorder at B&H.

People have been posting images and tests from the 80 for a couple of weeks on the H forum and the Facebook page. They seem happy with it, which seeing the price means it must be superb.

Hassy seem to be in a PR lockdown, and a fairly low profile, it may have something to do with the huge fraud at DJI which must have impacted the whole group.

Edmund

[Fotophil]

3I installed the latest 1.22 Firmware with no problems. I really appreciate the addition of the self timer function to the exposure bracketing function. I hope Hasselblad continues their support of the X1D with future firmware upgrades.

[Kirk_C]

People have been posting images and tests from the 80 for a couple of weeks on the H forum and the Facebook page. They seem happy with it, which seeing the price means it must be superb.

Hassy seem to be in a PR lockdown, and a fairly low profile, it may have something to do with the huge fraud at DJI which must have impacted the whole group.

Edmund

Every review of the 80 I've read says it's an outstanding lens. I'll be buying it when it's available, which I hope is soon.

The DJI fraud case involved a few employees and they've all been replaced. Your conjecture that it must have impacted Hasselblad is just that, conjecture and no facts.

https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-statement-on-employee-fraud-investigation

They haven't hesitated to release new DJI products.

https://www.dji.com/newsroom/news/dji-announces-pricing-and-availability-of-multilink-for-inspire-2-controllers

I think we're just seeing a typical Hasselblad stance of releasing new products when they're ready.

[faberryman]

Hassy seem to be in a PR lockdown, and a fairly low profile, it may have something to do with the huge fraud at DJI which must have impacted the whole group.

The only thing which could have been affected by the procurement fraud was price of drones, and once the mess is cleaned up, I doubt they will lower prices on them. Hasselblad is a drop in the bucket in DJI's operations.

[eronald]

The only thing which could have been affected by the procurement fraud was price of drones, and once the mess is cleaned up, I doubt they will lower prices on them. Hasselblad is a drop in the bucket in DJI's operations.

I think the supply of sensors and R&D funding depends on DJI - 100MP sensors because a good Sony customer would get them, R&D funding because obviously $150M would have easily funded the $2M or so which is needed for a new camera development. A drop in a bucket Hassy may be but it's easier to to tech dev if you get funded than if you are self-funding.

Edmund

[BobShaw]

The DJI fraud case involved a few employees and they've all been replaced. Your conjecture that it must have impacted Hasselblad is just that, conjecture and no facts.

From what I can see I agree.
Like all news, only bad news is reported.
The reports of $150M "loss" can not be accurate. They just made $150M less profit. They still reported a profit for the year but I don't know how much.
But, if the $150M was from over inflating purchase price of parts by 20% then the value of parts only was say $750M.
Given the nature of consumer electronics then the value of parts is small compared to the value of sales which would be many billions of dollars.
They have 75% of the drone market so that is a serious business. One source reported that the $150M was twice the size of the end of year bonuses. Gosh.
I think life will go on.

[BAB]

DJI made almost 3 billion in 2017 so 150 million is not much compared but internal stealing is another story.

[Kirk_C]

DJI made almost 3 billion in 2017 so 150 million is not much compared but internal stealing is another story.

From the limited details that are available approximately 45 employees 'inflated prices' of good from suppliers. So that would be the employees from DJI making deals with suppliers that involved kick backs to the employees. 'We'll buy your X instead of someone else's X if you raise the price 20% and pay it to me after DJI pays you.'

So not exactly stealing. Just simple fraud.

[hubell]

From the limited details that are available approximately 45 employees 'inflated prices' of good from suppliers. So that would be the employees from DJI making deals with suppliers that involved kick backs to the employees. 'We'll buy your X instead of someone else's X if you raise the price 20% and pay it to me after DJI pays you.'

So not exactly stealing. Just simple fraud.

Actually, it is a matter of semantics whether DJI sustained a "loss." They set their prices for sales of goods based upon the artificially higher price, just as if the inflated price was the "real" price. DJI actually paid the higher, inflated price. Thus, the profits DJI reported were accurate. They were not overstated. Now, it's possible that DJI would have charged the same prices for sales of goods to customers, even if it paid its suppliers lower prices that were not inflated. It's also possible it would have just lowered its prices. Who knows. The only way there is a truly a "loss" here is if DJI is forced to pay rebates of $150M to its customers, on the theory that they were overcharged. That seems like quite a stretch here. The customers pay what the customers are willing to pay, and there is no implicit understanding that the retail price is based upon any particular profit margin to the seller.