Litigation Involving Phase One and Hasselblad

[FlashDB]

I wonder if the completed and revolutionary new Phase One camera which will eventually turn up will indeed still be open? Given that there are now only two players left in the MFDB world, why would they bother leaving the camera open? I know they say that they are comitted to open platform but I suppose 'blad said the same thing until they closed it...

I've been wondering exactly the same, especially after seeing the interview with Kevin Raber, Yair and Michael. Kevin as vice president of Phase US does not seem to know if his IQ series will be available for the H platform!?
Furthermore it seemed as if he, despite the fact that Michael asked him repeatedly were unable to provide an answer to weather or not the IQ series will be supported on H3/H4 blad's (around 12 min. into the video). Very fishy indeed in my opinion..

/David

Contax & P25
H3DII-39
H2

[michael]

I've been wondering exactly the same, especially after seeing the interview with Kevin Raber, Yair and Michael. Kevin as vice president of Phase US does not seem to know if his IQ series will be available for the H platform!?
Furthermore it seemed as if he, despite the fact that Michael asked him repeatedly were unable to provide an answer to weather or not the IQ series will be supported on H3/H4 blad's (around 12 min. into the video). Very fishy indeed in my opinion..

Are you really that unsophisticated that you can't appreciate that one day after a new product is announced, during an unrehearsed interview, Kevin might not have every detail at his fingertips? Really?!

When Phase's management in Denmark saw the interview online they contact me (and Kevin) to let us know that they would in fact be making the IQ backs in H1 / H2 mount. H3 and H4 are a no-go for anyone because Hasselblad won't allow it.

Nothing "fishy". No conspiracy. Just the realities of corporate communications during a very hectic period.

Shessh

Michael

[bcooter]

Are you really that .........snip.........Shessh

Michael

Michael,

With all due respect, In light of the recent court case, I got the impression from your question that you were asking if there would be a phase back on the newer Hasselblad bodies.  I'll admit that might be a reach, but still that's the impression I got.

I also got the impression that Mr. Raber's hesitation was because I'm sure there is a lot of behind the scenes talk at Phase about which direction they should go.

If they offer the back in a H mount, does that cannibalize their Mamiya sales in bodies, lenses and accessories.  If they don't offer the new backs in a H mount, does that stunt the potential sales of the backs?

Granted this is all conjecture, but I'll bet those questions have gone around Phase management for some time and i think you have to admit there is a lot of contradictory and confusing information out there.

The video interview you did was nice and appreciated, but there were no hard questions asked, or answered. 

Take Leaf for example, there was a Leaf rep, with the same exact sensor and camera body with a Leaf back, though the price is $10,000 less.

Will Leaf be positioned as the lower priced Phase brand, will Leaf eventually have a new high rez screen of their own, will Leaf even continue to update Leaf Capture software?

Then how about the Mamiya system.   There is talk from Phase sales people of a new Mamiya body.  Will that be soon, or years down the line?  Will it have the same interface as the older body so a user's investment in the back is secured, or will they have to upgrade both backs and bodies?

Medium format has always been less than transparent on future plans and let's be honest a lot of people got stung on the Leaf AFI and with Phase having to upgrade to a new Mamiya DF  just to use the new lenses at full features and the 90 degree grip.

These backs are high investment items and a little more clarity would go a long way to stopping conjecture from both the users and the sellers.

There is a lot of video out there as sales material to push the new Phase backs.  That's natural for new product introductions, but I think a lot of people would like to see some longer term questions asked and hopefully answered, especially when two of the Phase company principles are present.

IMO

BC

[Kitty]

Canon and Nikon are good examples of closed systems: integrated design has possible advantages along with its disadvantages.

Also what is the closed Kodak system you refer too? In MF, Kodak made only backs, and they were usable with a variety of MF bodies. In 35mm digital Kodak's system was if anything more open than Canon's and Nikon's, in that Kodak made bodies for both Canon and Nikon lens mounts.

It is true Kodak makes the digital 35mm camera base on Nikon or Canon. So you can use Nikon or Canon lens.

But that is all. No 3rd party accessories or software support. For example to change the HD is so expensive.
Their Minilab is also closed system. So once Nikon and Canon start making their own digicam.
Their is choice for the consumer. Once they go they never look back again.

Even Nikon or Canon has 3rd party lens and accessories.

[FlashDB]

Are you really that unsophisticated that you can't appreciate that one day after a new product is announced, during an unrehearsed interview, Kevin might not have every detail at his fingertips? Really?!
When Phase's management in Denmark saw the interview online they contact me (and Kevin) to let us know that they would in fact be making the IQ backs in H1 / H2 mount. H3 and H4 are a no-go for anyone because Hasselblad won't allow it.
Nothing "fishy". No conspiracy. Just the realities of corporate communications during a very hectic period.

Shessh

Michael

What a passionate answer Michael!

I noticed your passion for Hasselblad cameras during the interview and would myself as a fan of their products have loved to mount my P25 (your more sophisticated than me so yours is probably bigger) on a brand new H4. I however also respect and as a customer see the advantages of the decisions Hasselblade made some years back.
So the resent court case seems to have come out in their favor..or?

/David

Contax & P25
H3DII-39
H2

[fredjeang]

Listening to the interview, I doubt Leaf will continue to update the Leaf Capture but Capture one would serve both units. I'm sure I've heard that at one point in the interview. It makes sense in a way but that would be nice if confirmed.
It does not seems that Leaf is going to be a Lexus remake but indeed Phase will have the "luxury" label and Leaf the "affordable". At least they clearly established the tendency on 2 backs, being fair that the only difference is generational but price gap is big.
The only company who does a proper body so far is Hasselblad.

It's like manufacturers are completly broken into pieces, a coherent system will belong to a sort of lego between various brands? looks a little bit like a chaos and more and more DIY.

I don't like that.

[Nick-T]

It's like manufacturers are completly broken into pieces, a coherent system will belong to a sort of lego between various brands? looks a little bit like a chaos and more and more DIY.

I don't like that.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think both companies, Phase/Leaf and Hasselblad are pursuing integration, Hasselblad just had a head-start with their own (and in my opinion superior to the Phase/Mamiya) camera. I notethat the IQ backs can be turned on via the camera power-on (much like the Hasselblads) due to better back/body interface. I very much look forward to a rumoured new body from Phase just as I did the AFi/Hy6 as it can only lead to more competition/innovation.

Like it or not, tighter integration between back/body (or closing the system if you wish) does lead to better results. Hasselblad's DAC corrections are amazing, and a dividend of that integration. If you haven't seen the results get someone to show you the distortion correction using the HTS on an H3D/H4D.

Finally if as I hope Phase are indeed working on a body you can bet they will be looking for similar benefits by closing integrating the new body with their (excellent) backs.

Nick-T

[fredjeang]

I'm not sure I agree with that. I think both companies, Phase/Leaf and Hasselblad are pursuing integration, Hasselblad just had a head-start with their own (and in my opinion superior to the Phase/Mamiya) camera. I notethat the IQ backs can be turned on via the camera power-on (much like the Hasselblads) due to better back/body interface. I very much look forward to a rumoured new body from Phase just as I did the AFi/Hy6 as it can only lead to more competition/innovation.

Like it or not, tighter integration between back/body (or closing the system if you wish) does lead to better results. Hasselblad's DAC corrections are amazing, and a dividend of that integration. If you haven't seen the results get someone to show you the distortion correction using the HTS on an H3D/H4D.

Finally if as I hope Phase are indeed working on a body you can bet they will be looking for similar benefits by closing integrating the new body with their (excellent) backs.

Nick-T

Nick, I agree. I may have expressed myself badly, english sometimes is hard for me. I'm NOT in favor of messing backs with bodies. Simply because there will always be a looser and I think too many lost so far. I'm in favor of closed or integrated if you prefer systems. The chaos I mentioneed was in the case we start to broke systems into pieces. I think it will damage the manufacturers and not sure at all will benefit the user.
It's too easy for Phase, doing excellent backs and deplorable bodies (ok not deplorable but rather bad) to relly on others. They deserve to put their engineers at work and go out with a great body once for awhile. It's amazing that the Contax is still a must after all those years.

[David Watson]

Nick has really hit the nail on the head and I agree with him that it is almost certainly inevitable that the Phase System will be eventually be totally closed (sorry integrated).  The bottom line is that all the MF suppliers effectively have closed systems - Hasselblad, Phase/Mamiya, Leica and Pentax - and the fact that Phase has products which fit obsolete MF cameras is entirely for their benefit.  Where do you go when your H1/2, Rollei or V series body finally packs up?  You will certainly not be throwing away the investment in an expensive Phase back.  Phase One as an open system?  It's a myth.

[Schewe]

Nick has really hit the nail on the head and I agree with him that it is almost certainly inevitable that the Phase System will be eventually be totally closed (sorry integrated).

Integrated doesn't mean closed...already there's more integration between the P1 645 FD and the P65+ than is capable with the previous P1 camera. Doesn't equate to being closed...it just means there's greater integration–which is a good thing.

Obviously, there can be benefits for users of integrated equipment systems but that's a far cry from saying no, you CAN'T use this back on THIS camera.

[Nick-T]

So Jeff can I grab a Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool! Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?

Nick-T

[bcooter]

So Jeff can I grab a Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool! Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?

Nick-T

Hasselblad caught a lot of s**t when they closed off their camera and I for one wasn't that wild about it.

But then I put myself in their shoes.  

I get a call a few times a year where a good client wants to use part of my crew, or retouch team or someone to usually fix some other photographer's project.  I'm all for helping a client, but I'm not a production company that works for other photographers, we work in a closed loop, because that's where the creative control and profit for my company is generated.  I would not have much success if I took my hard earned equity and gave it away to my competitors at a smaller profit than my business model dictates.

So with that in mind can anyone blame Hasselblad for wanting the whole piece of the pie?  

Let's be honest, The AFI went semi-bust and hurt a lot of early adopters in the process.  Contax went down, Bronica never got a foothold in digital and Mamiya was left languishing in the corner with their ZD camera and back.  All of this was like some kind of comedy of errors.  The AFI could have been a great camera, though for some reason nobody wanted to feature the Rolliflex name and for some reason F+H just couldn't come out with a complete autofocus lens line in time.  The fact that Contax was left on the table nobody understood and Mamiya was the last one standing without a partner.

As much as Phase has improved the Mamiya to the DF, it's still not close to the 10 year old H series and it must have cost Hasselblad a lot to develop that camera so quickly and complete.  This gives Hasselblad one hell of a strong position.

Phase One always has held a strong industry position with their software, but it won't process a Hasselblad file and until Phase acquired Leaf, it wouldn't see those files either.  That's a closed system especially since software is 1/2 of the equation in the world of medium format.

Anyway the goal of all business is to hold a strong industry position and I don't think any of us that run a business have a problem understanding that.

IMO

BC

[Schewe]

So Jeff can I grab a Leaf Phase Afi and put my hasselblad back on it? cool!

You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?

Do you think the new Phase body will accept Hasselblad backs when it appears?

Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?

[bcooter]

You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?

Excuse me for answering for Nick, but I've shot in most studios in most major markets in the world and have seen a lot of different equipment used.

I believe that Hasselblad and Sinar were the only two companies that made backs with interchangeable mounts for most popular cameras.

Whether they still do this I don't know, but I've seen a lot of different backs (including hasselblad) on H series camera, but never have seen a Hasselblad back on any other platform and kind of wonder why anyone would want to, since the H series is the standard for most rental studios in most of the world.

Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?

Please see above.

Actually I don't understand why any Phase user would have a problem with this.  Leaf users especially, because Leaf through their contact with the MAC (Mamiya America Corp), always pushed the Mamiya brand first, then later Leaf featured the AFI.

In regards to Hasselblad or Phase making backs for the original HY6/AFI I don't think it was expertise, I believe that F+H wanted a specific buy in price (somebody correct me if I'm wrong) and I believe Phase probably opted out of that.

Once again when it comes to the world of medium format competitors sharing, the only company that really shared their platform was Hasselblad and Mamiya with most professionals and studios going with the Hasselblad.   Leaf didn't give Phase a share of their AFI's, Phase didn't process other medium format companies files and once Leica came out with a semi competitor to Phase it seemed that close relationship went from the talk of Leica lenses for Phase bodies, then it ended.  

IMO

BC

[Dustbak]

You could if Hasselblad knew how to make backs with multiple system mounts, do they?

Again, they could if Hasselblad offered a back with various mounts, do they?

Yes, Hasselblad does. The question is whether they are allowed to make a mount for the AFI as well. Are they?

[yaya]

Yes, Hasselblad does. The question is whether they are allowed to make a mount for the AFI as well. Are they?

Let's say they are allowed, would they then go and invest in such a project knowing that the relatively small install base is already covered by Leaf? I doubt it...

[Dustbak]

Oh. I am convinced they would spare themselves the effort.

[Gigi]

At the risk of adding more flame to the fire, here's a thought: there is a generational shift happening in the back/body/lens combinations. Older ideas of openness are giving way, and we shouldn't be surprised. Happy, maybe not, but....

The basic MF/LF model with which we started was an interchangeable back, such as  the Hassy V where backs were simply swopped out. Simple, clear and very flexible. And we all thought our digital backs should do the same: one back, many platforms is but a modification of this approach, although the priority shifted to the back, not the platform. But it is a good model - and the early Hassy backs (I-adapter) and Sinar followed this. It probably wasn't as simple as that - as different cameras had different elec signalling, but it was possible. Phase even did it - but you sent the back for re-config.

The push now is integration: integration of software and hardware is now so critical that flexibility of switching backs around is being sacrificed. Hassy goes closed. Manufacturers and system designers might be saying they can't hold the needed quality levels with  bits and pieces moving around. Certainly, the new software with the lenses from Hassy shows the benefits of keeping it all in one house. This is just like  smaller bodied cameras, made bigger and better.  

Things tighten up elsewhere, such as the S2. Leica, wanting their famously tight tolerances, wouldn't go down the DMR route again, and have an open body/back: You can almost hear them from afar: "make it once, align it right, and close it up". Who's to argue?  

More critically, if a manufacturer is responsible for the functioning of an expensive piece of kit (meaning it has to work, or the photog gets really upset), they will want control over the integration of all the pieces. Having different makers pointing fingers at each other is no one's idea of fun. Remember Michael's MFDB tests of a few years ago, where the measurement of success was how few times the system locked up?    

The systems get more tightly integrated, performance goes up, sacrificing along the way system flexibility (mix and match components). But this makes good business sense and we get better working products, hopefully for lower costs.

Is it the only way? Probably not. Some of us make do with the other approaches - Afi, Contax, H1/2, etc. They work and work well, and suggest that this other approach (more resources spent on cross-platform flexibility) works as well. But lets not kid ourselves and be surprised at the trend.  

[Nick-T]

Let's say they are allowed, would they then go and invest in such a project knowing that the relatively small install base is already covered by Leaf? I doubt it...

Yaya
Is it me or did you just duck the question?

ARE Hasselblad allowed to mount backs on the AFi??

[yaya]

Yaya
Is it me or did you just duck the question?

ARE Hasselblad allowed to mount backs on the AFi??

AFAIK they've never asked