The Hasselblad H Discussion Thread

[carstenw]

My apologies for not starting on a positive note, but that is life.

In another Hasselblad thread, I wrote the following in response to a comment:

The 28mm and the 35-90mm zoom are HCD lenses (as opposed to HC) and won't cover full frame, i.e. they cannot cover the H4D-60, AFAIK, at least not at the same quality level. However, the difference is minimal, so they might still be acceptable for some uses.

Personally, I find it to be an acceptable limitation, although one does have to wonder about Hasselblad management's ability to foresee their own future. In short order they have moved from one full-frame definition to another (at least the 28mm lens's focal length is actually equivalent, on a 36x48mm sensor, and not the real focal length) and then back again, and in the short time in between, released two lenses which are not fully compatible with the latter definition. Not so impressive, but again, not so serious, in this case.

David Grover from Hasselblad jumped in:

Carsten,

Apologies for being a little bit aggressive but this is a muck raking post to me, regarding 'Hasselblad management's ability to foresee their own future'.

People forget that we do not alone make the H4D60. There are existing users of 22MP cameras and not forgetting the current 31,39 and 50 models. Therefore the 28mm and 35-90 are extremely useful to all those customers. They form a significantly larger proportion of users than potential 60 customers.

Should we therefore cancel those two lenses because they are 'only' compatible with 4 out of 5 sensors? No, I don't think so.

Also with regards to the 60 the 28mm only loses about 5% of sensor area and on the 35-90 it is only at the widest setting. There is no issue with quality level.

I have explained this many times before, but if you want to keep mentioning it, please go ahead.

The part of my comment which appears to have upset David is the questioning of Hasselblad's management's ability to see their own future.

David, I don't feel you have addressed that in your post. You ask if Hasselblad should cancel the two mentioned lenses, because they don't cover the 60 fully.

To me that misses the point. The built-in crop factor in those lenses is minimal. I postulate that if Hasselblad had known that they in such a short amount of time would also produce a near-full-frame sensor, they would not have designed two lenses with such a minimal crop factor, but made them cover full frame, be slightly larger, and cost slightly more. Then they would have worked across the entire range with no limitations. Hence my comment about Hasselblad management's ability to see their own future. There are other examples, but this one is a biggie.

---

David, I respect you and your work here, and I respect Hasselblad as a digital medium format company. I don't think that this means that I should not be able to post a negative comment.

For the record, my opinion (only) on Hasselblad positives (many I am lifting from Hasselblad owner commentary, since I have no experience myself):

- The most complete MF system today

- A lens range of near-uniform high quality (there are maybe one or two lenses not as strong as the rest; easy to work around)

- The brightest viewfinder in the business

- A very high degree of integration, with a single battery, etc.

- HTC15

but also some negatives:

- Grey on brown. What can I say, I find it horrendous. I have never heard a single positive comment on this. Photographers are boring and predictable, yes, but just give them the black camera they want. Somehow I am sure that you have asked for this personally

- Hasselblad switched from open to closed with no warning to existing owners, some of whom were caught out by this (read: H2+P1 back owners).

- Hasselblad announced a new full-frame format and released two lenses for it, only to revert to standard FF-645 notions in short order.

- Hasselblad has largely (not completely; see CFV-39 etc.) ignored their legacy users. I understand that at a certain time in Hasselblad's history, wrong priorities made the company nearly fail, and the new system saved them, but there are still untold thousands of V cameras and lenses out there, with owners who would like a bone thrown in their direction from time to time.

There is more on both sides, but I'll stop here.

 

[rmueller]

Hi Carsten,

Couple of comments:

1. I question the "be slightly larger, and cost slightly more" (well
all relative of course, at least to my wallet measures i question
the "cost slightly more")

2. The HCD 4/28 was introduced at Photokina 2006, means
more than 3 years of appreciation of that fine wide angle lens
before Hasselblad entered the FF645 market. So I don't get your
point here.

3. Hasselblad must have known they're going FF645 when the HCD
35-90 was introduced (both happened at photokina 2008), so
i wouldn't see it as "management ability to foresee their own
future".
In fact if you ever had a HC 50-110 in one hand and the HCD 35-90 in
the other, the 50-110 has the appeal of a bucket (sorry Dave) whereas
the 35-90 is slick and great to hold in the hand.

I'm not going FF645 in the foreseeable future, so i really appreciate the
HCD lenses (and as Dave mentioned, it's not that they don't work on the
H4D-60)

Just my 2 cents.

Ralf

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Well Carsten,

Lens design does not happen overnight. The 28mm and 35-90 were a long project, started before even Kodak or Dalsa promised to deliver larger / 645 sensors. If we could design and bring to production a lens within 6 months, then it could have been a different story. But no amount of seeing into the future, would have helped in this case.

Also 'making them be slightly larger' is no easy task. This would not make then just a bit more expensive but actually a lot more expensive. I have spoken to our lens designer about this at length, many times. There would also be an added weight penalty.

I don't have any issue with you posting negative comments, you of course can like or dislike whatever we make! ;-) But in cases where you are factually incorrect I feel I need to step in.

- Hasselblad has largely (not completely; see CFV-39 etc.) ignored their legacy users. I understand that at a certain time in Hasselblad's history, wrong priorities made the company nearly fail, and the new system saved them, but there are still untold thousands of V cameras and lenses out there, with owners who would like a bone thrown in their direction from time to time.


I have to disagree here.

We make the CFV39 as you pointed out and also the CF39 available in single and multi shot. Have really the only cable free solution and offer digital lens corrections on the V system too.

We sell all the Zeiss lenses they are still willing to make, service the cameras and sell new bodies. Phocus fully supports the CFV / CF range.

What more could we do in fact?

David

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Hi Carsten,

Couple of comments:

1. I question the "be slightly larger, and cost slightly more" (well
all relative of course, at least to my wallet measures i question
the "cost slightly more")

2. The HCD 4/28 was introduced at Photokina 2006, means
more than 3 years of appreciation of that fine wide angle lens
before Hasselblad entered the FF645 market. So I don't get your
point here.

3. Hasselblad must have known they're going FF645 when the HCD
35-90 was introduced (both happened at photokina 2008), so
i wouldn't see it as "management ability to foresee their own
future".
In fact if you ever had a HC 50-110 in one hand and the HCD 35-90 in
the other, the 50-110 has the appeal of a bucket (sorry Dave) whereas
the 35-90 is slick and great to hold in the hand.

I'm not going FF645 in the foreseeable future, so i really appreciate the
HCD lenses (and as Dave mentioned, it's not that they don't work on the
H4D-60)

Just my 2 cents.

Ralf

You are 100% correct on all your points, Ralf.

 

[Paratom]

Maybe Hasselblad should just have named them "dx"-lenses.

Seriously I also see nothing wrong-however it does clearly show that its hard to predict today what developments we can expect tomorrow and it does give me hope that I might be able to use a 6x6 sensor in the future not too far away from today. Would be great for al Hassy V-users and also for us Hy6-users.

 

[gdwhalen]

I just don't understand this constant harping on what could have been/should have been. It is almost like people take Hasselblads (or any other camera manufacturer) decisions personally. People, these camera's aren't designed JUST FOR YOU. There are always going to be compromises and near misses. Just the way life is. However, we as consumers, have the ultimate control in that we can choose to buy or not to buy. I was a huge Leica supporter. Owned almost every R lens they made but recently they dumped the R line from digital consideration so I dumped them. Technology changes so fast these days it is anyone's guess as to what is around the corner. Legacy complaints are almost irrelevant today if a camera company is going to stay competitive. Film days are over and so are "film days rules."

Get over it.

 

[KeithL]

Grey on brown. What can I say, I find it horrendous. I have never heard a single positive comment on this. Photographers are boring and predictable, yes, but just give them the black camera they want.

Carsten, I note with interest that this important issue hasn't yet been addressed here.

What can I say, as an H3D11 user I go to bed at night and I'm unable to sleep for worrying about the colour, in the mornings it's the first thing I think about. People openly laugh at my camera, I'm at the stage where I'm ashamed to be seen in public with it, people can be so cruel.

Please, don’t tell me that if this is the most "horrendous" thing I ever have to cope with then I'm going to lead a charmed life, it doesn't help.

 

[docmoore]

Keith,

Kata makes a couple of great rain covers for the camera...maybe we can get them to do a J Bond Titanium version. Then we could walk through the city square without a furtive glance at all those laughing at our cameras.:ROTFL:

Truth be told I always liked my 501 in chrome...and the color is pretty poor.

Bob

 

[robmac]

Well put folks.

It's bad enough to see the never-ending, infantile, utterly predictable and tiresome, "yeah, but ..." fanboyism vs reasoned and open-minded discussion on places like DPR and LUF.

When it's in a forum discussing $20K+ MFDBs all of whom lack AA filters, all of whom buy their sensors from the same 2-3 players, all of whom have (or will have) nice glass, that are supposedly shot/bought (and retailed) by folks who should be a bit more mature, experienced and professional than the average GWC (Guy With Camera) or GWCS (Guy With Camera Store) it's simply sad.

Being a die-hard fan of X is one thing but when the "but it's better than ___ because..." model that's being pushed hasn't been released yet, not been shot in anger by ANYONE without a Leica-centric vested interest and not so much as had a single RAW shot posted anywhere, such commentary is a lot of things, not the least of which premature.

 

[ptomsu]

The MF market is an area where we have a small number of great systems, some more mature and advanced as others, some more open as others, but none of them really being better or worse!

It comes to personal preferences, style, needs etc. to determine the right system. And as with all other systems once you are in you are caught - even more in MF as there is more money involved.

So finally buy what you need and what you can afford and do not complain about things which are not where. It is useless, stupid and does not move anything.

 

[paulmoore]

Hasselblad is a brand, that brand was bought in total by imacon..so I have been surprised and impressed over the past 6 years at how they have catered to the old V stuff given their digital non-legacy roots.
In fact most in the industry thinks of Hasselblad as being the same company of 10 years ago. Being a hasselblad digital user I would hope this forum is a place for free airing of constructive crits of all brands..subjectively pointing out a system's shortcomings( they all have them) should be welcomed by the shooters, I am sure it makes the factory guys squirm. Unless I am totally naive this forum is not a marketing venue for x,y or z..(besides the obvious workshops by known powers) It would be a shame to have those who think this as an open forum be shouted down and not post..We all have our biases but I want to hear all perspectives. All these systems are very close and it is our subject take on them that separates and defines the differences.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

All are welcome and all brands are welcome and it always was and will be that way. As long as it always follows the mantra of this forum.

"A place to exchange ideas, techniques, experiences AND images,
where the discussions are fun, respectful and geared toward the goal of
helping each other improve all aspects of our photography."

 

[carstenw]

Lens design does not happen overnight. The 28mm and 35-90 were a long project, started before even Kodak or Dalsa promised to deliver larger / 645 sensors. If we could design and bring to production a lens within 6 months, then it could have been a different story. But no amount of seeing into the future, would have helped in this case.

The design of the lenses is only half the story. The other half is what message is sent to users, and when. Do you have a date on when Hasselblad announced the new full format (36x48mm) and a date on when Hasselblad knew that full frame sensors were coming?

Also 'making them be slightly larger' is no easy task. This would not make then just a bit more expensive but actually a lot more expensive. I have spoken to our lens designer about this at length, many times. There would also be an added weight penalty.

Sure, I understand that, and the relationship is surely not linear. But when you are talking, your words, about a 5% difference in coverage, the difference on the overall lens design cannot be earthshaking.

We make the CFV39 as you pointed out and also the CF39 available in single and multi shot. Have really the only cable free solution and offer digital lens corrections on the V system too.

We sell all the Zeiss lenses they are still willing to make, service the cameras and sell new bodies. Phocus fully supports the CFV / CF range.

What more could we do in fact?

In fact, this item is more historical than current, since the CFV39 helped a lot, but I think that the thing to do at the time would have been to ensure a smooth transition from the F system to digital. In fact it took a very long time to get something decent going, and there are still loose corners, like the fact that you lose ISO ability with the FCC backs to go digital. The last few cameras were sold within such short time of digital rise, and the cost of those cameras were so high, that catering to the lowest common denominator (503CW) was a mistake. Anyway, water under the bridge.

My point in all of this is that when one looks at decisions past, one wonders what the next weird decision will be.

I don't want to say that Hasselblad is the primary culprit in this; Phase has certainly also done some odd things, and so on. Sadly the two companies which in my mind treat their customers with more respect (Leaf, Sinar) are also the two which aren't doing so well.

---

I find it curious that nearly all the rest of the comments in this thread fail to address any substantive issues, and instead attack the strawman of the colour scheme. I only said I didn't like it, and many others don't either; I never said that I would not buy a Hasselblad because of it. It is just that every time I would pick up the camera, I would think to myself "the colour scheme isn't important, just the results". Wouldn't it be much nicer to think "what a gorgeous camera, what great results" every time?

And of course someone managed to squeeze in the topic of Leica in this thread too. And so it goes, ho-hum.

 

[thomas]

The MF market is an area where we have a small number of great systems, some more mature and advanced as others, some more open as others

actually the systems are not great. Alltogther. All systems are missing certain acessories or lenses or whatever.
"Great" are some of the lenses, the IQ, the look.
As to "mature and advanced" I really have to say (as a Phase user) that Hasselblad clearly seems to be much more advanced than P1 (camera wise). They have different view finders (for me this would be very important), they calibrate the digital backs to the bodies and correct AF for focus shift. The new APL (?) feature is certainly interessting as well. I don't know if all these features work great, I'd assume they do to some extend, but there is simply nothing comparable from Phase (again: I'm talking about the camera side).
I use a Contax and focus manually all the time - so all this is not an issue for me personally. But if I would need AF I'd certainly consider Hasselblad rather than P1 (or an S2 ... if it finally works).

 

[Nick-T]

Couple of points.

Imacon did not take over Hasselblad. Shriro who owned Hasselblad bought Imacon for their digital expertise and merged the two companies.

Hasselblad have just released (at no charge) digital lense corrections for legacy Zeiss glass, I'd say that shows commitment.

FYI in Orlando I shot a few frames with a CFV39 mounted on one of the original test moon cameras..

Carsten if you are concerned about the future of V system tell all the thousands of friends using V system to keep buying it.

Nick-T

 

[carstenw]

I don't think there are thousands *buying* V system, but there are certainly thousands, if not tens of thousands of people *using* V systems who would like some options. The CFV39 was a great move from Hasselblad, and I hope it is successful, but it isn't square, so it doesn't necessarily have a true aim.

Personally, I love using my 500C and 2000FC/M and would dearly love to use a square sensor back. If Hasselblad would ever market a large-square-sensor back (read: minimal crop, 10% perhaps) which could be fitted to a 205FCC with full communication without nuking the ISO FCC back communication, that might be the end stop for my MF shopping. As much as I enjoy my Contax 645 AF, I still prefer my ancient Hasselblads, even if they are a bit arcane and quirky. I would miss the 35 and 120 lenses though.

Anyway, I am not certain that the market for such a piece is all that large, although it might be large enough. Once upon a time it would certainly have gotten a lot of interest, but a lot of years have passed since then.

 

[Nick-T]

Personally, I love using my 500C and 2000FC/M and would dearly love to use a square sensor back. If Hasselblad would ever market a large-square-sensor back (read: minimal crop, 10% perhaps) which could be fitted to a 205FCC with full communication without nuking the ISO FCC back communication, that might be the end stop for my MF shopping.

Here you go:

Big Shot

 

[carstenw]

I can also just buy a Hasselblad adapter for my e54LV and crop to 16MP. I was hoping for more resolution, I should have added, as well as an on-board battery and a screen for checking the exposure/histogram. The price also has to be more within normal range. Depending on its relationship to the CFV39, I would hope for the price to be somewhat proportional.

 

[paulmoore]

Couple of points.

Imacon did not take over Hasselblad. Shriro who owned Hasselblad bought Imacon for their digital expertise and merged the two companies.

Hasselblad have just released (at no charge) digital lense corrections for legacy Zeiss glass, I'd say that shows commitment.

FYI in Orlando I shot a few frames with a CFV39 mounted on one of the original test moon cameras..

Carsten if you are concerned about the future of V system tell all the thousands of friends using V system to keep buying it.

Nick-T

okay a merger.. tell us who of the two companies became president of the new Hasselblad ? Legacy or Imacon? I am sure many others were replaced as well.. my point was that while Hasselblad seems like the good ole hasselblad it is really quite new.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

I don't think there are thousands *buying* V system, but there are certainly thousands, if not tens of thousands of people *using* V systems who would like some options. The CFV39 was a great move from Hasselblad, and I hope it is successful, but it isn't square, so it doesn't necessarily have a true aim.

Personally, I love using my 500C and 2000FC/M and would dearly love to use a square sensor back. If Hasselblad would ever market a large-square-sensor back (read: minimal crop, 10% perhaps) which could be fitted to a 205FCC with full communication without nuking the ISO FCC back communication, that might be the end stop for my MF shopping. As much as I enjoy my Contax 645 AF, I still prefer my ancient Hasselblads, even if they are a bit arcane and quirky. I would miss the 35 and 120 lenses though.

Anyway, I am not certain that the market for such a piece is all that large, although it might be large enough. Once upon a time it would certainly have gotten a lot of interest, but a lot of years have passed since then.

Carsten, there will never ever be a square sensor to 6x6 from Kodak or Dalsa. So if this is your dream, I think you need to rethink it.

There is a square mode in the CFV so if you want to shoot square then you can.

This is as close as it will ever be.