The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Hasselblad Lunar

fotografz

Well-known member
Two very nice ideas, Marc. I especially like the second one - I'm assuming that by mirrorless you mean something with the fast CMOS technology of a Sony NEX or Fuji X camera.

As for a digital X-Pan...I don't know of any outfit making photographic sensors with a dimension as long as 65mm.

Ray
Yep, CMOS mirrorless 36 X 36 using Zeiss AF lenses :)

The X-Pan coulda been 56 wide like the Leaf backs are ...
 

gazwas

Active member
Maybe this sort of stuff is the future and the highly anticipated new Phase One camera will infact be a high-res Sony (?) CMOS chipped luxury FF 35mm camera??

No sensor manufacturers are jumping to make large CMOS chips and while the new IQ260 chip has some new features, IQ increase was more of a skip than a jump thus forcing MFD manufacturers to rethink their future product road map.

Sobering thought!
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Maybe this sort of stuff is the future and the highly anticipated new Phase One camera will infact be a high-res Sony (?) CMOS chipped luxury FF 35mm camera??

No sensor manufacturers are jumping to make large CMOS chips and while the new IQ260 chip has some new features, IQ increase was more of a skip than a jump thus forcing MFD manufacturers to rethink their future product road map.
In case anyone is wondering there is not one thing in this post which is accurate :).

Phase One is employee owned and the employees have zero interest in becoming a luxury brand. Not the marketing team, not R+D, not management.

And P1 is always working on the future, including obvious and less obvious paths.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
These would be great products Marc .. the question is who would make the sensor's?

Rob
Again, these are just "Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda" pipe dreams ...

Leica just forged a new relationship with a sensor maker for the M240 camera. As far as I know, it's a custom design just for them. With the imaging abilities of sensors today, a 36 X 36 square would have been a more appropriate "Lunar" camera and restored Hasselblad's square format mode ... maybe elegant grey leather with silver piping like a Nasa V, :)

Oh well ...

- Marc
 

gazwas

Active member
In case anyone is wondering there is not one thing in this post which is accurate :).
Doug relax, not one thing in my post suggests any of what I said was fact.

What I will say though is who would ever have expected Hasselblad to release a rebadged Sony compact camera........?

.... and in the same way I didn't expect Phase One to release the IQ2 without CMOS and the lame DF+........?

Dissapointment all round IMO but at least we're allowed to snipe at the Lunar without repercussion.
 

Ken_R

New member
I have been very busy as of late but I felt I had to reply here.

I don't think one can compare the trajectory of the Phase One IQ series products with a rebadge of a Sony compact camera by Hasselblad.

Hasselblad lost a LOT of credibility doing that although the Lunar is what it is. A luxury item. It can be used as a camera but most of the cost is into making it a luxury piece.

The Phase One backs and specially the IQ series are very serious hard core photography tools. The IQ2's are an evolution of the large CCD chip back. They seem well sorted out and the highest realization of a product of that type.

Honestly the only things missing are: great high iso full resolution performance and high quality live view. (and clean long exposures on the 80mp sensor). Not long ago the list was much longer.

I am sure the next generation will take care of the remaining items. As they are now, the backs are superb.

The Lunar, well, it can be compared to a birkin bag, for photography people.
 

gazwas

Active member
I don't think one can compare the trajectory of the Phase One IQ series products with a rebadge of a Sony compact camera by Hasselblad.
I agree that the Phase backs are superb products but I think while we balk at the Lunar, its attempting to find a market for itself where the fact that its so expensive makes it desirable to some. With that I find similarities to the whole MFD ecosystem where it has become more of a rich boys club of photography rather than a necessity.

I'm sure few of us need to shoot with a MFD over other cameras (formats) but I wanted the best. However, I'd be the first to admit that part of that attraction was because it was so expensive and that made it so special and desirable.

While we can all sit back with the knowledge we are the top tier as we all have large CCD's in our cameras and pass judgement over a camera that is more about looks and the person holding it than anything else, a piece of me feels a bit hypocritical.
 

fmueller

Active member
I wanted the best quality I could afford. While my cash outlay may signal my seriousness, I'd be just as happy with the same equipment at half the price---or less. What drove me to the MFDB and the tech cam was a love of exquisite detail and that love goes all the way back to the film days when I was willing to work with sheet film for that same effect. I don't find it essential all the time but at other times it is the icing on the cake.

I agree that the Phase backs are superb products but I think while we balk at the Lunar, its attempting to find a market for itself where the fact that its so expensive makes it desirable to some. With that I find similarities to the whole MFD ecosystem where it has become more of a rich boys club of photography rather than a necessity.

I'm sure few of us need to shoot with a MFD over other cameras (formats) but I wanted the best. However, I'd be the first to admit that part of that attraction was because it was so expensive and that made it so special and desirable.

While we can all sit back with the knowledge we are the top tier as we all have large CCD's in our cameras and pass judgement over a camera that is more about looks and the person holding it than anything else, a piece of me feels a bit hypocritical.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
I agree that the Phase backs are superb products but I think while we balk at the Lunar, its attempting to find a market for itself where the fact that its so expensive makes it desirable to some. With that I find similarities to the whole MFD ecosystem where it has become more of a rich boys club of photography rather than a necessity.

I'm sure few of us need to shoot with a MFD over other cameras (formats) but I wanted the best. However, I'd be the first to admit that part of that attraction was because it was so expensive and that made it so special and desirable.

While we can all sit back with the knowledge we are the top tier as we all have large CCD's in our cameras and pass judgement over a camera that is more about looks and the person holding it than anything else, a piece of me feels a bit hypocritical.
I see it differently. If I may explain ...

While I'm sure there are those who fit the description of "Rich Boys Club of Photography", I'd hazard a guess that there are many advanced amateurs who made a financial stretch to get into MFD ... perhaps at the sacrifice of other nice things in life. Many who quietly go about making images with a passion for photography, and a love of the MFD process as much as the results.

Then there are the more practical practitioners, (on this forum represented by folks like me, Guy and others), who make/made money from MFD tools. For many, many years, I charged a digital capture fee for every job because I bought my gear rather than rented it. In a sense, I paid less of my own money than most have to in order to get into MFD, or to upgrade every 2 years ... until the economy collapsed ... and then I decided to retire anyway.

Now, I am much more like the advanced amateur in that I enjoy shooting for the sake of it, and do so with my S2 kit at every opportunity. I sold all of the big gun Hasselblad H4D/60 stuff because it had served its purpose, and am using the extra cash to get the other things in life I had sacrificed to build and equip a commercial studio.

Personally, I don't prance around toni locations with my Leica dangling at my side. I go off on my own and enjoy making some photos ... with a finely made tactile tool, and excellent lenses with image making qualities I appreciate. The whole process is therapeutic, and creatively involving. If I didn't have the money for this tool, I'd use another ... but I do have the money, so I do.

- Marc
 

gazwas

Active member
Marc, I think much of what you say is very true but more in tune with how the world was and the reason why many professionals and amateurs (myself included) chose the path of a large financial commitment in MFD.

The lines now are vey blurred in the image capture of today and while there are still people who want BIG prints, (Gerald springs to mind who sadly was chased away) much of the work, especially in the professional market never see anything over A4 and is increasingly web based.

I enjoy using my Arca and Phase back in very much the same way you use your S2 for fun and apart from the Architectural stuff I shoot (where the Arca comes onto its own) everything else is shot on a smaller format (professionally)..... just no need for bigger reproduction and the quality is staggering if lighting is right.

If then MFD is ever becoming a enthusiasts, luxury format, maybe Hasselblad can nip the bud early in the smaller formats as we all start converting to our iPhones as cameras of choice?

I won't ever buy a Lunar but I do get the idea behind the concept.
 

cyron123

Member
Hi,
i think the NEX7 is a good camera and the lunar is a shell for luxuary people like the diamond case for the iphone for 25.000$. And this case was sold too!

But i my eyes, hasselblad is a traditional company and the lunar doesn't fit to there image.
cyron
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Amazon may not be the final scale of availability, but what makes it a bit more serious is that B&H does not even list it.........

Maybe as a camera collector, those sold on Amazon could have been a good investment, maybe they have pulled the plug now...

Probably a good decision........ cheers, have a moontini, Alcohol sometimes helps.....:cool:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
On colette.fr (I believe Colette was the launch venue in France), there's a "Notify me when available" button.

If it's indeed pulled, the question is how much damage it has done to their reputation as well as to their economy. Ventizz Capital Fund IV is obviously in this for the money only, and if they don't see a potential of re-gaining what is lost, they'll probably throw them out faster than you can say Hasselblad. The question then will be if there are any takers, either someone with enough money and knowledge to develop them further or someone who can keep the 503CW alive for the enthusiast market. Fuji would be the obvious partner of course.

But these are all worthless theories until something with substance appears on the horizon. Maybe they just forgot to skin the cat for the Persian Fur version ;)
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Sorry for another rant, but this thing really angers me. I can understand it if Hasselblad was feeling that their traditional market was disappearing, but there are more respectable ways to go under than this.

One thing that hasn't been focused much on is the fact that there are outright lies in the Lunar marketing material:

"For the first time the market now has a camera embracing traditional Hasselblad state-of-the-art image capture combined with stunning Italian design features."

The "state-of-the-art" image capture in the Lunar is 100% Sony technology. Apparently, Zeiss hasn't allowed the use of their lenses for this, so even the lenses are 100% Sony. Furthermore, Italian design isn't something new to high end photography. All Nikon single digit F and D models since the F3 and at least some of the three digit D models are designed by Giugiaro's Italdesign. Giugiaro is probably the most successful industrial designer ever, and his signature can be found on anything from luxury items to tractors.

"Italian Design Swedish Tradition"

But there is no Swedish Tradition embedded in the Lunar. Again, it's a 100% Japanese product with an Italian coating.

"A Legend Reinvented"

What legend? The NEX 7? The only thing the Lunar has (had?) in common with previous Hasselblad cameras is the logo, but except for the replicas that Hasselblad made later, I don't think the actual Apollo cameras had logos.

"Dr. Larry Hansen, Hasselblad Chairman and CEO said: It has always been my ambition to enable all fans of the iconic Hasselblad brand to have an opportunity to own one of our cameras."

If that was the case, why did they "develop" a run-of-the-mill Japanese camera and sell it for a price that made it unobtainable for anybody but those with the biggest bank accounts?

--

The potential customers for these cameras were rich people. Some of those know the Hasselblad brand, some don't. For those who don't, the Hasselblad logo has no value, so why pay $7,000 for it? Those who do mostly know about photography and have probably uncovered Hasselblad's gamble a long time ago. The logical result: There are hardly any potential customers for this camera.
 

Swissblad

Well-known member
The potential customers for these cameras were rich people. Some of those know the Hasselblad brand, some don't. For those who don't, the Hasselblad logo has no value, so why pay $7,000 for it? Those who do mostly know about photography and have probably uncovered Hasselblad's gamble a long time ago. The logical result: There are hardly any potential customers for this camera.
:ROTFL:

Love that.
 

jduncan

Active member
:ROTFL:

Love that.

I don't. And not because is in error, but because it means that at that moment the Hasselblad administrative board have no direction.

We have to remember that they were so happy with this product, so confident that it will be a hit that they center Photokina around the new device.

The H5D was not the star, it was the Lunnar.

Even worse there is no connect between the Lunar and the H5D no share components etc.

I don't know what were they thinking ( :dh2:) but It's as frustrating as it can get.

The problem is not the Lunnar, It is the questions it rises on the company direction.

Best regards,
James
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Hasselblad hasn't had their finger on the pulse of the market for over a decade ... yet they still succeeded in spite of themselves, probably due solely to the H series camera having little competition at the time, when Contax went bye, bye, and Phase One had to use the then terrible Mamiya 645. This time it is different.

Look back at what they jettisoned, and what moves they made. Not all the mis-steps, just a few highlights:

In the face of increasing market demand for more automation, when even Leica capitulated and made a more automated M, Hasselblad stops building the 200 series camera ... the 203FE being one of the best, most versatile cameras I've ever owned. Thus, offing the perfect engineering candidate to take into the digital age.

The highly regarded XPan ... at the very least a product concept and brand name that could have been brought into the digital age using a different method for panos, or whatever ... gets killed for some vague "parts" reason. It is replaced by nothing ... the profit margin on nothing ... is nothing. At least it kept the Hasselblad heritage intact. Loved that camera, a one of a kind.

Hasselblad has a Hollywood plastic surgeon give the dull grey H a cosmetic face lift, tweaks a few existing functions (some so minor that even they can't fully describe the improvements) and announces the H5D like it was some sort of Wowzer! ... the H R&D cash having been spent on developing the Lunatic camera so transparently inadequate, and obviously not a Hasselblad in any sense of the brand's heritage or physical make.

Hasselblad stops making the 500 series 503CW because no one is buying new ones. No one is buying new ones because they haven't change the damned thing in 30 years. Nor have they made updated accessories that could have helped use it with a digital back. Another engineering masterpiece to the dustbin out of laziness, and misguided, ill-informed, non-photographic management.

The intention as outlined at Photokina is/was to have a 35mm Lunatic version of the Sony A99 ... I have a A99 and trust me it is not a Hasselblad in any sense of the word ... or at least what that word used to stand for.

- Marc
 
Top