Hasselblad Lunar

[Shashin]

Look I know it is fashionable to talk tough an insult people and industries that you don't know and have never worked in, but I am getting a little tired of the rants.

BTW, the Xpan/TX-1 was killed by changing environmental policy in Europe that required no mercury and lead in electronic components. Retooling the production line to keep the Xpan/TX-1 going was just not economically viable--easy to figure out as sales were known. BTW, I am all for the environmental changes. No one knows how long the Xpan/TX-1 would have been in production anyway as the world was going to digital--Fuji does not make any of the medium-format film cameras from that period and so the writing was on the wall. Just because you want a digital Xpan does not actually prove it would have been economically viable.

Reverse engineering a film camera for digital use is not that easy. Especially when it revolves around a very old system, particularly if that system is mostly mechanical.

The Lunar is a dumb mistake, but it must have been one hell of a party when they decided to do it--I personally don't think the hangover was worth it.

I have no idea why people are angry--you don't actually have to buy one. The only people who will suffer are Hasselblad. This is obviously a move to grow Hasselblad and probably stems from the dumb marketing idea that brand is what sells as well as a confusion between quality and luxury. Maybe Hasselblad will go under and this just accelerates the process.

Today the camera business is a tough one with few manufacturers making money. If Sony breaks up their company, we may also lose the Sony/Minolta heritage as the breakup is done to enrich the stockholders and not for the good of the company. Who knows, in 10 years there will only be three camera companies--Apple, Samsung, and Nokia.

 

[Swissblad]

I don't. And not because is in error, but because it means that at that moment the Hasselblad administrative board have no direction.
The problem is not the Lunnar, It is the questions it rises on the company direction.

I think you misunderstood my point - I think the Looney is a bad joke - but its very sad that HB is going down the tube due to bad management decisions.

 

[BANKER1]

When they introduced the Lunar at Potokina, I wasn't angry, I was furious. We owners have a right to be mad since we depend on Hasselblad to keep our gear going. And, yes I don't have to buy that abomination. But, more than anything, I saw such a dumb move as another step in the process of killing a company with tremendous heritage and value. Marc had some very salient points that make a lot of sense to me. Your answers make sense to me too, but most companies find ways to overcome hurdles that come their way. Now, I just find myself sad for all the great employees who work so hard for Hasselblad.

Greg

 

[Shashin]

Greg, I totally agree, the employees are the ones that really suffer from bad management.

But we live in a market economy. Stuff happens. I guess I could get angry and move on, or I could just move on. I don't think anyone goes out to make a bad move to annoy the customers. But the Lunar has no impact on the MFD owners--it is not like own one. I am sure it makes no impact in MFD sales. Whether it is the straw that breaks the camels back is unknown because we don't know if Hasselblad can absorb the loss. But if this threatens Hassalblad, then it might not have been able to survive anyway.

To our lost heritage:

Konica
Minolta
Contax
Bonica
Deardorff
Graflex
Kodak
Alpa (the original one)
Pannon (the maker of the Widelux)
Noblex
Art Panorama
Voightlander (the original one)

And the list goes on...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Reverse engineering a film camera for digital use is not that easy. Especially when it revolves around a very old system, particularly if that system is mostly mechanical.

Most early DSLR were film bodies with electronics implanted. Nikon F100, Fuji S1/2/3, the Kodaks etc. My Fuji S3 has all the proven weaknesses of the Nikon F/N80 installed, in addition to introducing a few new ones. Photographers accepted these solutions 10 years ago, since those were obviously pioneering days. Even Pentax managed to transfer the old 645 over to the digital age. Some even claim it's a good camera

I have no idea why people are angry--you don't actually have to buy one. The only people who will suffer are Hasselblad. This is obviously a move to grow Hasselblad and probably stems from the dumb marketing idea that brand is what sells as well as a confusion between quality and luxury. Maybe Hasselblad will go under and this just accelerates the process.

People are angry because the downfall could have been avoided and because what used to be a great company fades from the camera market more because of bad management than anything else. But maybe it became irreversible with the introduction of the H-series. The H-series is not a bad camera as such, but it never appealed to the hobby photographers with generous wallets like the 500/200 series did. While the design may have looked fashionable for a couple of hours during the late nineties, it's simply a very ugly camera by most standards. This has little to do with photographic values, but perceived esthetic and collectors values. I doubt that Leica would have existed today if they hadn't stayed true to their design heritage. Even CaNikon would struggle to keep their pro series alive without wealthy hobbyists.

Earlier this year, Hasselblad killed the remains of their heritage, the 500 series, with a pen stroke. Why? Because they hadn't bothered to keep it alive. I'm 100% with Marc here; their potential was with the old systems and the development of them.

It's interesting to compare with Nikon. There's a thick, red line of heritage from the first F up until the latest, greatest D4 and D800. There are many reasons why Nikon and the F-mount have survived successfully as long as they have, but consistency and willingness to look in the back mirror now and then is clearly one of those reasons. They were also willing to talk with competent outside resources, like Giugiaro, at a relatively early stage, to ensure that their design philosophy could survive over time.

As for the list of lost heritage: Yes, there are many gonners, but Hasselblad used to be one of the flagships and they had a more loyal following than most. Hopefully, there are people with money and a passion for photography who can take over when the champagne bottles have been emptied and collected after the Lunar parties. It would be great to see Marc's 203FE reborn digitally.

 

[fotografz]

Look I know it is fashionable to talk tough an insult people and industries that you don't know and have never worked in, but I am getting a little tired of the rants.

BTW, the Xpan/TX-1 was killed by changing environmental policy in Europe that required no mercury and lead in electronic components. Retooling the production line to keep the Xpan/TX-1 going was just not economically viable--easy to figure out as sales were known. BTW, I am all for the environmental changes. No one knows how long the Xpan/TX-1 would have been in production anyway as the world was going to digital--Fuji does not make any of the medium-format film cameras from that period and so the writing was on the wall. Just because you want a digital Xpan does not actually prove it would have been economically viable.

Reverse engineering a film camera for digital use is not that easy. Especially when it revolves around a very old system, particularly if that system is mostly mechanical.

The Lunar is a dumb mistake, but it must have been one hell of a party when they decided to do it--I personally don't think the hangover was worth it.

I have no idea why people are angry--you don't actually have to buy one. The only people who will suffer are Hasselblad. This is obviously a move to grow Hasselblad and probably stems from the dumb marketing idea that brand is what sells as well as a confusion between quality and luxury. Maybe Hasselblad will go under and this just accelerates the process.

Today the camera business is a tough one with few manufacturers making money. If Sony breaks up their company, we may also lose the Sony/Minolta heritage as the breakup is done to enrich the stockholders and not for the good of the company. Who knows, in 10 years there will only be three camera companies--Apple, Samsung, and Nokia.

Sorry, but who cares if you are tired of the rants ... did you invest a couple hundred thousand K into a company's system just to watch Hasselblad fall further and further behind on their core product, while driving the high value Brand heritage into the ground with the Lunar camera fiasco?

The X-Pan excuse you offer is BS. I didn't suggest they should have done it back then, do it NOW! If they can ask $7K for a gaudy re-skined $1K camera with a crappy kit lens ... they could have co-engineered a new X-Pan with their partner Fuji who IS good at smaller cameras ... a unique new version of a X-Pan branded camera for the digital age. Instead, they are trying to rip off the photographers who'd lay out that kind of money for a jewelry-joke ... while minimizing any real effort on their part ... it's a get rich quick scheme perpetrated by a bunch of bean counters, and it is apparently backfiring on them.

Hasselblad would not have had to reverse engineer the 200 series camera ... you could/can put a CFV digital back on it by disabling one thing on that camera: the e-film component. Otherwise, with a little effort it could've been as modern an electronic camera as there is available today ... and the DB could have been updated with an optional rotating sensor like Leaf already has. Leaf did it, Hasselblad didn't. The 200 cameras could have been the Hy6, with one difference, a huge existing base of loyal and rabidly dedicated V users with existing Zeiss lenses. Any one who has ever extensively shot with a 200 series camera knows exactly what I mean.

Another thing I suggested year after year after year ... make the H system dual shutter. Never happened. So who does it? ... Phase One ... on an existing camera that even required users to purchase all new LS lenses ($$$) ... where with the H system all the lenses are already Leaf Shutter! Then Leica does the same thing, and even reverse engineered the H mount to use Hasselblad lenses on their S camera in CS or FP mode with a flip of a switch. Meanwhile, what Hassey users get is the Lunar.

Small company? So is Leica. The difference is that a camera nut bought the company, and he ferociously protected their heritage ... and acted with courage.

- Marc

 

[fotografz]

Greg, I totally agree, the employees are the ones that really suffer from bad management.

But we live in a market economy. Stuff happens. I guess I could get angry and move on, or I could just move on. I don't think anyone goes out to make a bad move to annoy the customers. But the Lunar has no impact on the MFD owners--it is not like own one. I am sure it makes no impact in MFD sales. Whether it is the straw that breaks the camels back is unknown because we don't know if Hasselblad can absorb the loss. But if this threatens Hassalblad, then it might not have been able to survive anyway.

To our lost heritage:

Konica
Minolta
Contax
Bonica
Deardorff
Graflex
Kodak
Alpa (the original one)
Pannon (the maker of the Widelux)
Noblex
Art Panorama
Voightlander (the original one)

And the list goes on...

I think you are dead wrong in the assumption that blatantly dangerous moves as stupid as this one have no effect on over-all sales of any company, let alone one with a knowledgable base of users like MFD companies have.

For 10 years I upgraded from one HD model to the next. As loyal a user as you can hope for. I was poised to get a H5D/200 and even had my Purchase Order in. As more info on the H5D was revealed, it slowly dawned on me that they had not really improved the H5 for the amount I'd be paying, and why became obvious when the Lunar was announced ... that's where the H5D R&D cash went.

Had the Lunar been something of substance, something in line with the Brand's heritage. I most likely would have stayed the course, with an understanding that they were diversifying the product line-up to keep healthy. There is nothing of substance to the Lunar, and it is a stake in the heart of the Brand's heritage.

Leica now has all that money that would have been Hasselblad's.

I'm not alone in this believe, and action. The general Hasselblad community is NOT happy, and are very cautious about any further investment in the brand.

- Marc

 

[BANKER1]

Marc,

Your are right on point. I was waiting on a breakthrough camera or at the very least a full frame 35 mirrorless camera utilizing Zeiss/Leica (maybe even auto focus) lenses from Hasselblad at Photokina. My excuses to purchase a new camera were being formed to break to my wife. After the announcement, I put my order in for a Leica M which will be delivered to me this coming week. That is the only time I can remember when she actually encouraged me to buy a camera.

There is only a slight chance I will invest any more money in Hasselblad equipment, and that is the sentiment of most Hasselblad customers who comment on photography forums. Hasselblad customers are well informed and understand how the Lunar decision will impact the future of the company. Unlike you, I do feel the H5 system is more improved than you indicate, but those improvements went unnoticed due to the firestorm created by Hasselblad's introduction of the Lunar. It would be interesting to see the chart of Hasselblad sales since Photokina and see how deep the drop really is.

On most of your points, we are on the same page. But, as always, you were able to communicate your thoughts better than I.

Greg

 

[fotografz]

Marc,

Your are right on point. I was waiting on a breakthrough camera or at the very least a full frame 35 mirrorless camera utilizing Zeiss/Leica (maybe even auto focus) lenses from Hasselblad at Photokina. My excuses to purchase a new camera were being formed to break to my wife. After the announcement, I put my order in for a Leica M which will be delivered to me this coming week. That is the only time I can remember when she actually encouraged me to buy a camera.

There is only a slight chance I will invest any more money in Hasselblad equipment, and that is the sentiment of most Hasselblad customers who comment on photography forums. Hasselblad customers are well informed and understand how the Lunar decision will impact the future of the company. Unlike you, I do feel the H5 system is more improved than you indicate, but those improvements went unnoticed due to the firestorm created by Hasselblad's introduction of the Lunar. It would be interesting to see the chart of Hasselblad sales since Photokina and see how deep the drop really is.

On most of your points, we are on the same page. But, as always, you were able to communicate your thoughts better than I.

Greg

I don't debate that the H5 camera is an improvement. But you can't just buy a camera, it has to come with a DB. It was the degree of DB improvements for the cost involved that came into question. Paying $16K to $23K for a new camera body is a bit steep :shocked:. I already had a H4D/60 so was anticipating more innovations to better keep pace with Phase One's excellent DBs.

When I moved from a H3D-II/31 to a H4D/40, both the camera (True Focus, APL, etc) and newer technology DB combined was worth it ... same for the H3D-II/39 to a H4D/60. IMO, the H5 with a similar digital back technology wasn't. My heart wanted the H5 but my bratty business brain said absolutely not :ROTFL:

- Marc

 

[Swissblad]

I'm with Marc and Greg here - I was eyeing a H5 - a big move up form a H3 - but the looney direction of HB stopped me - it would be a big investment in a company with an uncertain future.
Like many, I'll be looking a Leica a lot more closely.

 

[Swissblad]

Look Just because you want a digital Xpan does not actually prove it would have been economically viable.

.

Judging by the prices that used Xpans go for - my feeling is that there would have been a market - small - but dedicated.

After all, how many Leica Monochromes are being sold?

Like most Xpan users I know, I would have jumped at the chance.

But who knows, perhaps Fuji will come to the rescue.

 

[GrahamWelland]

To be honest there would be a slow but steady market for a FILM XPan let alone a digital one.

I think that there are plenty of people that would go for a digital panoramic camera if there was one (not counting Seitz etc). However, I can understand the point of view that the big camera names probably take and that is that high resolution sensors allow for pano crops or that there are plenty of digital alternatives to producing panos via stitching vs the film approach. I'd still buy one for the shooting ease, compositional rigor and simplicity.

 

[rmueller]

Same here, i put some >12000 Euro aside for an upgrade from my H3DII
to H5D in late 2012. That money is now gone into a nice brown leather
bag with a Leica MM, 21, 35 and 50 mm lens inside. HB doesn't get a cent
from me until it is known where this company is going.
Meanwhile, my H3DII is still doing well and hopefully will continue to do
so in the next 5+ years.

So now count the $$ that are lost for HB from this thread alone.

Regards Ralf

I'm with Marc and Greg here - I was eyeing a H5 - a big move up form a H3 - but the looney direction of HB stopped me - it would be a big investment in a company with an uncertain future.
Like many, I'll be looking a Leica a lot more closely.

 

[Swissblad]

Same here, i put some >12000 Euro aside for an upgrade from my H3DII
to H5D in late 2012. That money is now gone into a nice brown leather
bag with a Leica MM, 21, 35 and 50 mm lens inside. HB doesn't get a cent
from me until it is known where this company is going.
Meanwhile, my H3DII is still doing well and hopefully will continue to do
so in the next 5+ years.

So now count the $$ that are lost for HB from this thread alone.

Regards Ralf

I hope somebody from HB marketing reads this thread!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Still moving along it seems:

Simone Zeffiro attends launch of the Hasselblad Lunar luxury camera in Italy*|*Luxurious Magazine

In the article, you can read that "The Hasselblad has a high ISO value and a medium shutter time, an area where other high level cameras usually fall down, ...". No wonder that it costs $7,000 then :loco:

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Oh, and on their FB page Hasselblad link to this review of the Lunar. The reviewer doesn't seem to have actually held the camera, but he's seen pictures of it and is very impressed with its performance. Must be good then.

The Hasselblad (@hasselbladlunar) Lunar DSLR Is One Fly Ass Camera | Sugar Cayne

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

On their FB page as well as on the Lunar website, Hasselblad mention Images-Photo as their most important seller of the Lunar in France with 7 outlets (only 2 other shops are mentioned). On the FB page, they say that "If you happen to be in Paris, why not stop by Images-Photo (18 Bld des Filles du Calvaire, Paris) to take a look at the new Lunar camera. www.images-photo.com".

At their Paris website, Images Photo list 203 - two hundred and three - different mirrorless cameras and camera kits, but not the Lunar. In fact, the Lunar seems to be the only mirrorless camera that they don't list. Those guys list the Pentax K-01 in 8 different versions, so the list must be rather complete, but maybe Hasselblad forgot to tell them that they are selected for the honorable task of selling this revolutionary, new camera.

 

[simonclivehughes]

Perhaps they'll just keep this up until next April and then announce it was all a joke.

Of course, we all know that already.

Cheers,

 

[Swissblad]

Difficult to find anybody willing to list the looney on their website.

Here is one looney offer:

HASSELBLAD LUNAR CAMERA KIT (BLACK LEATHER/TITANIUM)

Order now - 1st come - 1st served.
I wonder if "served" is as in English veterinary usage

 

[KeithL]

But the Lunar has no impact on the MFD owners--it is not like own one. I am sure it makes no impact in MFD sales

You're just wrong.

The pot I put aside for further Hasselblad investment has now gone to another manufacturer.

I'm not alone.