Hasselblad CFV-39 digital back and a missed opportunity to sell thousands of them.

[carstenw]

The Hy6 is still trickling out, so I hope that isn't the end of that story yet, but unfortunately it looks like Phase One is in charge of that decision and may not let it happen, so at some point in the future it may grind to a halt. I hope I am wrong, but there are no indications yet.

 

[BANKER1]

The Hy6 is still trickling out, so I hope that isn't the end of that story yet, but unfortunately it looks like Phase One is in charge of that decision and may not let it happen, so at some point in the future it may grind to a halt. I hope I am wrong, but there are no indications yet.

If, as Marc said, the HY6 is the best MFD ever designed (I certainly respect his judgement) AND "Phase One is in charge of that decision", why would Phase One need to design a new camera (as rumor has it)? Why, oh why, do they not use that camera? There must be something I am missing here.

By the way, I do not have a dog in this fight, I am just curious. But I am interested, because I want Hasselblad to succeed as I do with all MFD manufacturers.

Greg

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Because they also own Mamiya and have a much larger established user base using Mamiya based cameras and lenses. The Hy6 is great -- I had one. But the S2 is a much better dedicated MFD camera in my opinion. I also think the Hy6 was primarily geared towards WLF use (although it does have 45 and 90 finders), which most users no longer desire. That combined with the fact that it is a 6x6 camera with only 645 backs, expensive third party lenses, and the fairly unreliable company producing it (gone bankrupt several times in the last few years) led Phase to buy it out along with Leaf to kill it before it had a chance to develop. It is a superb camera in some ways, but it is an oddball in several senses, and it simply did not make sense for Phase to embrace it wholeheartedly as a compliment or replacement for the DF.

 

[carstenw]

The Hy6 does have some real advantages over the Mamiya system though:

- Waist level finder as an option.
- It is possible to rotate the sensor and keep the camera in the same orientation.
- You can shoot 6x6 film on it (as well as 645 of course).
- Access to the excellent Zeiss and Schneider lenses.
- A mature system with many system components, such as electronically connected bellows and tubes.
- Focus bracketing.

I am probably missing some here, since it is late and I want to go to bed. Anyway, the point is that Phase could decide to develop it and flank their competition with two systems I think if I re-entered digital medium format (which I am obviously thinking about if I hang out here), then it would be the Hy6. The S2 is nice, but a bit limited (no tech camera option) and much more expensive. It works for some, for me I am less sure.

 

[GrahamWelland]

The S2 is nice, but a bit limited (no tech camera option) and much more expensive. It works for some, for me I am less sure.

Sorry for the :OT: but I see the tech camera limitation come up quite often. I would presume that in many cases if you can afford a complete S2 outfit and the required technical camera & lenses, then it wouldn't be a quantum financial leap these days to have a separate 28mp+ back just for the tech camera.

I know it's nice to be able to use the same back for both DSLR and the tech but maybe, just maybe, it's artificially restrictive to think that you have to do it.

Just saying ... :talk028:

 

[Uaiomex]

DOES LEAF OWN A PERENNIAL PATENT ON REVOLVING SENSORS?
Otherwise I don't understand why aren't they more common in digital backs. I swear that revolving sensors were the first thing that came to my mind since the first time I gave them a good though about 15 years ago.

Hasseblad has missed so many opportunities regarding the V system, it's not even funny. Twice Hasselblad missed to implement a rotating sensor in the rectangular CFV backs. Just as it was possible to manufacture one horizontal 645 and one vertical 645 film backs, I see no reason for Hasselblad to put a revolving mechanism inside the CFV's and lose the connection with the camera.

The biggest asset ever known to mankind regarding medium format photography was owned by Hasselblad with the hundreds of thousands of V cameras in good working condition all around the globe just waiting for the right back at the right price. Never happened. In the meantime, all those owners that didn't have the economic possibilities (most of them) to jump to digital medium format opted for FF dslr's and that treasure started to vanish in their own bare hands.

The Hy6 is the best MF camera ever. Releasing a camera with 3 different names was a really bad idea. The economy didn't help either. This partial failure doesn't prove that square bodies that never flip for orientation and with interchangeable finders that allow multiple forms and positions for shooting are out of fashion.
Leica has proven with the M9 that superior designs are timeless. Who really thinks that autofocus is totally necessary when working with a big mate screen? I don't. Those awesome CF Zeiss lenses may be a little old and not for today's demanding standards but I'm sure this glass is up to the demands of a 48X36 sensor with 40 or even 50 megapixels. Perhaps even more. Of course, the bigger the sensor the less demand on the glass (till they become real FF).

Companies sometimes must let some of their products to compete against each other. Kodak failed to take their digital technology to real commercial success for fear of risking their film manufacturing. Well, Nikon and Canon took care of that.
Hasselblad's fate is not so dreadful. Hasselblad still is a real powerhouse of photography and the commercial leader in digital medium format. Too bad they failed to see this treasure and decided to put all the eggs in one mediocre basket. I say mediocre and I haven't even shot once with an H camera but I think that 30+ years shooting as a pro should be enough to know this. I believe that the V system is a higher form of photographic practice.

It was supposed to be easier to make the jump to digital with a camera that I already owned and with the lenses I already owned but unluckily for me and many many others this was not the case.
Thanks for reading my little rant. (once again).
Eduardo

 

[BANKER1]

Because they also own Mamiya and have a much larger established user base using Mamiya based cameras and lenses. The Hy6 is great -- I had one. But the S2 is a much better dedicated MFD camera in my opinion. I also think the Hy6 was primarily geared towards WLF use (although it does have 45 and 90 finders), which most users no longer desire. That combined with the fact that it is a 6x6 camera with only 645 backs, expensive third party lenses, and the fairly unreliable company producing it (gone bankrupt several times in the last few years) led Phase to buy it out along with Leaf to kill it before it had a chance to develop. It is a superb camera in some ways, but it is an oddball in several senses, and it simply did not make sense for Phase to embrace it wholeheartedly as a compliment or replacement for the DF.

Stewart, you have some good and compelling points. However, how hard would it be to re-engineer the lens mount as an alternative to the cost involved in building a totally new camera from scratch? Slap a Mamiya nameplate on it and call it good. They do not have to be built by the company that went bankrupt. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I remain unconvinced. If it is pride that keeps them from accepting the HY6, then I can understand that (however stupid that may be), but it simply sounds like bad business practice to dump it. Maybe the new Phase One camera will have some engineering adopted from the HY6. That may be a very good outcome.

Greg

 

[fotografz]

Stewart, you have some good and compelling points. However, how hard would it be to re-engineer the lens mount as an alternative to the cost involved in building a totally new camera from scratch? Slap a Mamiya nameplate on it and call it good. They do not have to be built by the company that went bankrupt. I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I remain unconvinced. If it is pride that keeps them from accepting the HY6, then I can understand that (however stupid that may be), but it simply sounds like bad business practice to dump it. Maybe the new Phase One camera will have some engineering adopted from the HY6. That may be a very good outcome.

Greg

Greg, I think the issue is the same for the Hasselblad V cameras (including one of my all time favorite cameras the 203FE), as well as the 6X7 cameras ... the whole system is geared toward the square format in an age when sensors are 645, or a crop of 645. 6X6 and 6X7 Prism finders and all that get pretty bulky. The removable prism finder for the 645 H camera is much smaller and pretty low profile in comparison.

I seriously doubt Phase will use the Hy6 as a base for a new camera ... maybe some of the tech, but the form factor would seem problematic.

The real loss in the burn-off of MF cameras was the demise of the Contax 645. If that had kept going in the same innovative manner that it started, I wonder who would still be standing today?

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Sorry for the :OT: but I see the tech camera limitation come up quite often. I would presume that in many cases if you can afford a complete S2 outfit and the required technical camera & lenses, then it wouldn't be a quantum financial leap these days to have a separate 28mp+ back just for the tech camera.

I know it's nice to be able to use the same back for both DSLR and the tech but maybe, just maybe, it's artificially restrictive to think that you have to do it.

Just saying ... :talk028:

Just a matter of time before someone adapts the S2 to a view camera and works out the issues like those versions that took a Canon or Nikon camera ... David Farkas and the boys down in Florida are already on the case with a Arca Swiss 6X9. Looks promising.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Kodak didn't fear losing their film manufacturing, they didn't want to lose all their sensor business to Dalsa by making digital backs that competed with Imacon and Phase One ... who until recently used Kodak sensors. In the end, it didn't help.

Hasselblad has always priced the CF and CFV backs to high IMO ... at least for V owners. Adding a rotating sensor would have made them even more expensive, and I'm not sure the mechanical trigger for the CFV back would work then, but I'm not an engineer.

Maybe a new low profile 90º prism finder could have been designed that allowed the back to be removed.

30 years working doesn't mean squat if you've never even tried the H camera for any extended period of time. Or a Phase One system for that matter. I loved the V cameras ... but I don't miss them one bit. All the stuff you can do with the new Hs and P1s is a refreshing, and opens whole new worlds of working relationships with the tools. However, I guess it depends on the way one works.

-Marc

 

[Uaiomex]

Really? :salute:
Eduardo

30 years working doesn't mean squat if you've never even tried the H camera for any extended period of time.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

Really? :salute:
Eduardo

Yes, Really :salute: ... at least when it comes to today's systems cameras. I think comparative pronouncements are valid opinions when one has actually worked with a kit for a while, especially now.

I used a V system pretty steadily for over 40 years and was stubbornly convinced that about it, even when digital started taking over. My first move actually was reluctantly adding a Contax 645 while still shooting film, and then onto digital with the Contax and the V kit. Wasn't until a studio owner friend of mine convinced me to at least try the H that I started realizing my stubbornness was ill founded.

That doesn't mean anyone's mind will necessariiy be changed, nor that one has to even try something new if they are comfortable as is ... Nostalgia and Ludditism aside, I just think one can over-estimate their entrenched comparative opinion without trying something first.

Just My Opinion, YMMV.

-Marc

 

[fotografz]

If we step back and assess the marketing landscape, I wonder how wise it really would be to continue supporting legacy systems, or even to update legacy systems? Conceptually it seems like "Hit the digital ball, and drag the old system."

I honestly think the zillion V cameras are in the hands of film users more than digital, or at least more are used with older digital backs. It's a great kit for not a lot of money ... but when it comes to shelling out $25K to $35K for a new back ... ????

Perhaps the Vs and Hy6s and that sort, have seen their day in the sun, and the sun has moved on? Falling back on such past glories seems like jumping the shark, and is a signal of an impending demise.

Hasselblad is sure to bring forth a H5D, and Phase One has revealed development of a new camera ... Leica already introduced a new paradigm, and Pentax moved into the low price/ high value position.

As 35mm DSLRs move up in IQ (debatable to some, not to others), the MFD systems must become more high value ... smaller, faster, more diverse or more dedicated, even more "familiar", while maintaining absolute IQ superiority in every measure.

For luddites, die-hards and lovers of the simple life, there will always be the Vs, Rolleis, and Mamiya RZs to satisfy their working needs and passions for that type of shooting experience ... but I seriously doubt that is where growth and advancement in photographic tools will come from.

-Marc

 

[carstenw]

I generally agree with your judgement of H and V and so on, but I do disagree with your statements about the Hy6 belonging with the V. The only thing they have in common is the 6x6cm negative. The Hy6 is more advanced than even some of the surviving 645 digital systems, and has quite a large system around it, including some great Zeiss and Schneider lenses, manual and autofocus, built-in metering and a modern operational scheme, electronic support for digital backs from the start, and so on. The main problem with that camera is and has been its lack of a financially solid, sensible company with good marketing, and distribution.

Btw, I am not sure that Phase One owns all the right to it. I think they own some of them, but not all of it. For example, I do believe that DHW retains the rights to make and sell the camera with film backs. I am not sure how to find out the truth about this though.

I think that Phase's reason for not wanting to push the Hy6 comes down to a mix of not controlling the whole ecosystem, pride and stubbornness. They have done good work with the Mamiya system, but at the time that they started it was the weakest system of them all. Only the DF body and the new Mamiya and Schneider lenses have started to add some parity.

 

[dougpeterson]

They have done good work with the Mamiya system, but at the time that they started it was the weakest system of them all. Only the DF body and the new Mamiya and Schneider lenses have started to add some parity.

I think that's a fair assessment. In some ways they've taken leadership (sync at 1/1600th, built in flash trigger, legacy AF lens support, both LS and FP options etc), in other ways they're still a step behind (no WLF, no very-wide or super-wide LS lens, etc), in a few ways they are very far behind (very funky order of operations to use Live View with the DF).

But notably it's been less than 3 years since Phase One took over leadership of Mamiya's R+D. That is a huge amount of progress in 3 years (at least relative to other medium format ventures in the past decade).

Projecting forward the next 3 years "Team Phase One" (Mamiya, Phase, Schneider, Leaf) things look bright indeed.

Doug Peterson (e-mail Me)
__________________

Head of Technical Services, Capture Integration
Phase One Partner of the Year
Leaf, Leica, Cambo, Arca Swiss, Canon, Apple, Profoto, Broncolor, Eizo & More

National: 877.217.9870 *| *Cell: 740.707.2183
Newsletter | RSS Feed
Buy Capture One 6 at 10% off

 

[fotografz]

I generally agree with your judgement of H and V and so on, but I do disagree with your statements about the Hy6 belonging with the V. The only thing they have in common is the 6x6cm negative. The Hy6 is more advanced than even some of the surviving 645 digital systems, and has quite a large system around it, including some great Zeiss and Schneider lenses, manual and autofocus, built-in metering and a modern operational scheme, electronic support for digital backs from the start, and so on. The main problem with that camera is and has been its lack of a financially solid, sensible company with good marketing, and distribution.

Btw, I am not sure that Phase One owns all the right to it. I think they own some of them, but not all of it. For example, I do believe that DHW retains the rights to make and sell the camera with film backs. I am not sure how to find out the truth about this though.

I think that Phase's reason for not wanting to push the Hy6 comes down to a mix of not controlling the whole ecosystem, pride and stubbornness. They have done good work with the Mamiya system, but at the time that they started it was the weakest system of them all. Only the DF body and the new Mamiya and Schneider lenses have started to add some parity.

Don't disagree regarding the Hy6 in theory, except I think they absolutely shot themselves in the foot when that kit was introduced. At the time I was shooting a Mamiya and almost brand new Leaf Aptus7s, (RZ and AFD-III mount). I demoed the Leaf AFi, and my existing back could not be used on it or the mount changed, and Leaf basically refused to take a trade, or make an allowance the wasn't an insult to their own product value. Then there were no film backs, no rotating back, hard to find or fit a prism finder, and prisms were gigantic anyway. It all seemed quite a patch work.

I just don't think that's the path MFD is heading. More streamlined less bulky, more diverse, faster, new technologies, probably all new bodies for Hasselblad and Phase One.

I'll tell you one massive error that Hasselblad has made with the H4D IMO ... and hopefully they'll rectify it with a H5D. Every H users already has full coverage in LS lenses from 28mm to 300mm ... all they had to do is make the H a dual shutter camera. THAT is the big opportunity they missed, not making a more reasonably priced high meg CFV back with a rotating sensor which I think are mutually exclusive concepts anyway.

Just my 2¢.

-Marc

 

[vieri]

...not making a more reasonably priced high meg CFV back with a rotating sensor which I think are mutually exclusive concepts anyway.

Just my 2¢.

-Marc

Marc, I have to disagree with you. Wanting support for the V system has nothing to do with being a luddite or against technology's development; just makes a lot of business sense, whilst Hasselblad's choices since they got digital apparently didn't, if one sees their results compared to those of Phamiya; think about their position on open vs closed system and the various turns on that issue, not last the H4X (finally!) but with the bizarre decision to sell it only to H1/H2 updaters (why oh why!?!?), the development of the 28 for cropped sensors not foreseeing that sensors would get bigger (no Einstein needed to figure that one out), etc. This has nothing to do with the quality of their cameras and products, which are great; it has everything to do with their management and business decisions.
So, back to the OP's point, making the existing CFV 50 a rotating back, leaving the trigger mechanism where it is (or getting rid of it, a cable solution works better anyway in practice - though less elegant aesthetically - than the one they have now), and keeping it at the same price the CFV sells now would make for almost no R&D costs and would sell a ton - even if for some years only as you say, maybe, which is however debatable IMO. With that money, develop whatever technology you like for the H, while keeping two different lines of cameras alive in the meantime. The V system per se - I mean, a simple box with various prisms/backs/etc - is still a very competitive one IMHO for a lot of application where AF is not needed; plus, it's a fact that the V is the most popular MF system out there as far as units sold historically and bodies/lenses available on the market.
Not supporting it completely? Of course I see your point on that, in fact I think that not supporting it completely and just moving on would have been an acceptable choice, a poor one IMHO but a sound choice compare to what they actually did (look at what Leica did with the R, not dissimilar, and how it did end after the Module R: lot of unhappy users there); to keep supporting it as they are doing now, on the other end, with a back that is basically unusable on the very camera it has been designed to work with (unless you only shoot in landscape all the time!), makes no sense at all.

One last thing worth thinking about: if what I said above wouldn't make any sense, why do you think Leaf invested in developing and building the R backs in V mount? Well, for me personally the answer is very simple, I have one on order which is supposed to get here next week. I would have got an Hasselblad back instead, but alas there wasn't one properly designed; and I am pretty sure I am not the only one. That's lot of money that Hasselblad is not collecting, while others reap the benefits of poor business & development decisions.

 

[carstenw]

I have to think that just as there was always support for different size systems and different form factors, that would continue today. The slow exclusion of everything but the 645 form factor is a loss of richness in the eco system. I much prefer the form factor of 6x6cm systems to the 645 systems, for example, and I know of people who prefer the 6x7cm cameras. Why does everything have to be so damn uniform?

 

[carstenw]

making the existing CFV 50 a rotating back, leaving the trigger mechanism where it is (or getting rid of it, a cable solution works better anyway in practice - though less elegant aesthetically - than the one they have now), and keeping it at the same price the CFV sells now would make for almost no R&D costs and would sell a ton - even if for some years only as you say, maybe, which is however debatable IMO.

Vieri, while I generally agree with you, I find it a bit bizarre to want more but not to want to pay for more. I think it is entirely reasonable for such a back to cost somewhat more, because it can't be free to develop a rotating mechanism which is strong, accurate, lasts long, and maintains flatness in a sensor of this resolution.

 

[NicholasRab]

I've been following this conversation with a bit of interest, as I have been considering the V platform for my upcoming back purchase. Primarily I am buying a new back for a tech cam, and keeping the dslr for longer work. It seems like for a smallish outlay for the v system (I already have a 50 cfi) I can have the ability to do slower, considered work with a back with longer lenses when needed.

I'm starting to wonder if the v mount is the wrong choice, and I should be considering the mamiya 645. I owned an H3D and though the h series lenses were great, that is not a camera for me.