I bought an H4D 40 and 35-90 back in May 2010 after waiting for the much delayed 60. I was advised at the time that the 40 was a superior camera to the 60 for my work as a landscape photographer. To make the drama of what has happened easier to read, I'll do a timeline.
May 2010: Bought H4D 40 and 35-90
Jun 2010 - July 2011: Light use only
August 2011: Went to Iceland for Hans Strand photo workshop. The camera started locking up regularly. Additionally, I started to experience many 'no lense attached' errors. On many occasions, I would only be able to take one shot before having to detach/reattach the lense.
September 2011 to mid 2012: Multiple returns of lenses and body to Sweden. Ultimately, my H4D was swapped along with the 35-90.
Mid 2012 - May 2013: Light use again. I had so little faith that I used my OM D for most things.
June 2013: With serious reservations, I took the H4D and 35-90 along with a borrowed 120 back to Iceland
It didn't take long before the problems started again. Multiple 'no lense errors' just kept happening. Additionally, I had an hour helicopter flight over the central highlands without doors. During this flight, I had 3 or 4 lockups requiring battery off/on sequences. In addition, I got a series of 19 frames which have EXIF and GPS data but are completely black. The feedback from Hasselblad is that the temperature was 0c at the time and that the range of the back is 0 t0 45c. An interesting response given that the other 250 or so frames were fine. I'm also struggling with how I can be within a range but that is the reason I get a fault. Hans Strand was in the same helicopter for 3 hours using a 50 with no issues at all.
Upon my return to Australia, I contacted CR Kennedy, the Australian distributor, and asked for a refund under the new Australian Consumer Protection laws. Unsurprisingly, they are stonewalling me. What really irks me is that they ignore most of what I say and leap on the helicopter flight as the cause of all issues. It really is quite puerile. My email had 'H4D 40 unfit for purpose' which they changed to 'Re: H4D 40 unfit for the extreme purpose you put this equipment through.' in their response.
When they came to swap my gear for a loaner while mine went back to Sweden, I demonstrated the 'no lense attached' problem multiple times on the loan camera in my lounge room at around 20c. Given that it is so easy to reproduce, I'm gobsmacked that Hasselblad don't know about it. They must be very dumb or ...
Anyway, I'm now preparing all of this for my solicitor. I'm really saddened by what has happened coupled with being very angry at being treated this way by CR Kennedy. I still think that the H4D 40 and 35-90 is an ideal combo for my work, but when it gets in the way of that work, it becomes impossible.
Here's the final email trail:
Dear Malcolm,
Thank you for your prompt response. My answers to your points are below.
I'm sorry that we have come to this position, as I have been a loyal customer for a number of years. I will now proceed with my claim under the Consumer Protection Laws.
Cheers,
Jeff
Landscape Photographer in Sydney, Australia - Jeff Grant
On 17/07/2013, at 3:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Jeff
1. A full report was sent to you with your equipment after inspection by Hasselblad - also refer Damon Rulach's email of 22/1/2012 - this suggested the problem may have been due to a faulty or improperly attached GIL optional accessory (GPS device). After the initial stage of testing of all your equipment by the factory was concluded, we replaced your H4D-40 camera and zoom lens in good faith.
Both times that I have reported the lense error fault, I have been asked to try without the GIL. Both times the same error occurs with or without the GIL
2. After the most recent issue, we sent Hasselblad tech support a raw file, and the metadata showed temperature was 0 degrees C at the time of capture, inside a helicopter - the operating range of the camera is 0-45 degrees C
If the temperature was 0, then I would still be within the operating range of 0-45. Interestingly, Hans Strand was in the same helicopter for three hours using an H4D 50 with no errors.
Note lithium batteries are known to fail in very cold weather. We understand these issues have only occurred during use of your equipment in cold conditions.
The helicopter flight was the only time that I was anywhere near 0 degrees.
3. The camera and lens is not designed for aerial work, that is why Hasselblad have an aerial version, which has securing screws between lens, body and digital back. It is possible that helicopter vibration caused a communication error between your back/body/lens.
I was in a very new helicopter with little vibration, handholding the H4D so my body would have absorbed most of the vibration.
4. We understand you had an opportunity to fully test the camera prior to purchase.
Agreed, but not really relevant, the fault was not immediately obvious, as I have said
5. We have loaned you equipment at no charge during all times your equipment has had to be serviced in Sweden.
Agreed, and I am grateful for that
6. We will ensure your equipment is sent to Sweden, to be fully tested and returned as soon as possible.
I understand that is happening. I have also been in contact with Ove Bengtson who has promised to look into the issue.
This is the full extent of the assistance I can offer you.
Kind regards,
Malcolm Kennedy
Managing Director
From: Jeff Grant <[email protected]>
To: Malcolm Kennedy <[email protected]>
Cc: Damon Rulach <[email protected]>, Shaun Medvedovsky <[email protected]>
Date: 17/07/2013 11:04 AM
Subject: H4D 40 unfit for purpose
Dear Mr Kennedy,
I am writing to you concerning a Hasselblad H4D 40 and 35-90 lense which I purchased from CR Kennedy on invoice 288794 on May 25, 2010. This equipment received light use until August, 2011when I took it to Iceland for a week's photography. During that week, I had hundreds of 'no lense' errors and many other lense errors and freezes. At times, the camera was unusable. I would take one image, the error would appear, I would remove and reattach the lense, take one image and start the sequence again.
Upon returning to Australia, the body and all my lenses had a number of trips back to Sweden. I was never given any reason for the failures and the body and 35-90 lense were both replaced in 2012. Again, I only made light use of the camera until early June when I returned to Iceland for two weeks of photography. The light use was largely because I had little faith in the reliability of the camera. I took the camera to Iceland because I wanted the best possible image quality. I reasoned that lightning would not strike twice.
That reasoning was soon proven to be incorrect. The 'no lense' errors were back with a vengeance. Additionally, during a helicopter flight I had a number of freezes and a sequence of 19 black frames. I can assure you that removing batteries to unfreeze a camera in a helicopter with no doors attached is a daunting task.
This experience has left me with no faith in the reliability of the H4D with any heavy lense attached. It is worth noting that I previously had an H3D which never showed this fault. I have now had it with both of my H4Ds and got the same error on a loan camera which Shaun gave me yesterday.
I have requested a refund of the full purchase price of the camera as I believe that it is unfit for purpose. The combination of an H4D and any heavy lense will produce the error. I have had the error on the 35-90, 120, 150 and 210 lenses.
I have written to Damon Rulach requesting the refund but this has been refused which, I believe, is in direct contradiction of Australian Consumer Law. I have gone along with returning my camera to Sweden, yet again, in the vain hope that someone may recognise the fault and be able to correct it. I really want my equipment to work. I have used Hasselblad equipment for years. The fact that I have put up with this drama for so long should give some idea of my commitment to the product.
I do not want to go through the formal complaint process and would much prefer to keep lawyers out of this. I hope that you will agree with this approach and approve the refund within the next few days.
Best wishes,
Jeff
Landscape Photographer in Sydney, Australia - Jeff Grant
May 2010: Bought H4D 40 and 35-90
Jun 2010 - July 2011: Light use only
August 2011: Went to Iceland for Hans Strand photo workshop. The camera started locking up regularly. Additionally, I started to experience many 'no lense attached' errors. On many occasions, I would only be able to take one shot before having to detach/reattach the lense.
September 2011 to mid 2012: Multiple returns of lenses and body to Sweden. Ultimately, my H4D was swapped along with the 35-90.
Mid 2012 - May 2013: Light use again. I had so little faith that I used my OM D for most things.
June 2013: With serious reservations, I took the H4D and 35-90 along with a borrowed 120 back to Iceland
It didn't take long before the problems started again. Multiple 'no lense errors' just kept happening. Additionally, I had an hour helicopter flight over the central highlands without doors. During this flight, I had 3 or 4 lockups requiring battery off/on sequences. In addition, I got a series of 19 frames which have EXIF and GPS data but are completely black. The feedback from Hasselblad is that the temperature was 0c at the time and that the range of the back is 0 t0 45c. An interesting response given that the other 250 or so frames were fine. I'm also struggling with how I can be within a range but that is the reason I get a fault. Hans Strand was in the same helicopter for 3 hours using a 50 with no issues at all.
Upon my return to Australia, I contacted CR Kennedy, the Australian distributor, and asked for a refund under the new Australian Consumer Protection laws. Unsurprisingly, they are stonewalling me. What really irks me is that they ignore most of what I say and leap on the helicopter flight as the cause of all issues. It really is quite puerile. My email had 'H4D 40 unfit for purpose' which they changed to 'Re: H4D 40 unfit for the extreme purpose you put this equipment through.' in their response.
When they came to swap my gear for a loaner while mine went back to Sweden, I demonstrated the 'no lense attached' problem multiple times on the loan camera in my lounge room at around 20c. Given that it is so easy to reproduce, I'm gobsmacked that Hasselblad don't know about it. They must be very dumb or ...
Anyway, I'm now preparing all of this for my solicitor. I'm really saddened by what has happened coupled with being very angry at being treated this way by CR Kennedy. I still think that the H4D 40 and 35-90 is an ideal combo for my work, but when it gets in the way of that work, it becomes impossible.
Here's the final email trail:
Dear Malcolm,
Thank you for your prompt response. My answers to your points are below.
I'm sorry that we have come to this position, as I have been a loyal customer for a number of years. I will now proceed with my claim under the Consumer Protection Laws.
Cheers,
Jeff
Landscape Photographer in Sydney, Australia - Jeff Grant
On 17/07/2013, at 3:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
Dear Jeff
1. A full report was sent to you with your equipment after inspection by Hasselblad - also refer Damon Rulach's email of 22/1/2012 - this suggested the problem may have been due to a faulty or improperly attached GIL optional accessory (GPS device). After the initial stage of testing of all your equipment by the factory was concluded, we replaced your H4D-40 camera and zoom lens in good faith.
Both times that I have reported the lense error fault, I have been asked to try without the GIL. Both times the same error occurs with or without the GIL
2. After the most recent issue, we sent Hasselblad tech support a raw file, and the metadata showed temperature was 0 degrees C at the time of capture, inside a helicopter - the operating range of the camera is 0-45 degrees C
If the temperature was 0, then I would still be within the operating range of 0-45. Interestingly, Hans Strand was in the same helicopter for three hours using an H4D 50 with no errors.
Note lithium batteries are known to fail in very cold weather. We understand these issues have only occurred during use of your equipment in cold conditions.
The helicopter flight was the only time that I was anywhere near 0 degrees.
3. The camera and lens is not designed for aerial work, that is why Hasselblad have an aerial version, which has securing screws between lens, body and digital back. It is possible that helicopter vibration caused a communication error between your back/body/lens.
I was in a very new helicopter with little vibration, handholding the H4D so my body would have absorbed most of the vibration.
4. We understand you had an opportunity to fully test the camera prior to purchase.
Agreed, but not really relevant, the fault was not immediately obvious, as I have said
5. We have loaned you equipment at no charge during all times your equipment has had to be serviced in Sweden.
Agreed, and I am grateful for that
6. We will ensure your equipment is sent to Sweden, to be fully tested and returned as soon as possible.
I understand that is happening. I have also been in contact with Ove Bengtson who has promised to look into the issue.
This is the full extent of the assistance I can offer you.
Kind regards,
Malcolm Kennedy
Managing Director
From: Jeff Grant <[email protected]>
To: Malcolm Kennedy <[email protected]>
Cc: Damon Rulach <[email protected]>, Shaun Medvedovsky <[email protected]>
Date: 17/07/2013 11:04 AM
Subject: H4D 40 unfit for purpose
Dear Mr Kennedy,
I am writing to you concerning a Hasselblad H4D 40 and 35-90 lense which I purchased from CR Kennedy on invoice 288794 on May 25, 2010. This equipment received light use until August, 2011when I took it to Iceland for a week's photography. During that week, I had hundreds of 'no lense' errors and many other lense errors and freezes. At times, the camera was unusable. I would take one image, the error would appear, I would remove and reattach the lense, take one image and start the sequence again.
Upon returning to Australia, the body and all my lenses had a number of trips back to Sweden. I was never given any reason for the failures and the body and 35-90 lense were both replaced in 2012. Again, I only made light use of the camera until early June when I returned to Iceland for two weeks of photography. The light use was largely because I had little faith in the reliability of the camera. I took the camera to Iceland because I wanted the best possible image quality. I reasoned that lightning would not strike twice.
That reasoning was soon proven to be incorrect. The 'no lense' errors were back with a vengeance. Additionally, during a helicopter flight I had a number of freezes and a sequence of 19 black frames. I can assure you that removing batteries to unfreeze a camera in a helicopter with no doors attached is a daunting task.
This experience has left me with no faith in the reliability of the H4D with any heavy lense attached. It is worth noting that I previously had an H3D which never showed this fault. I have now had it with both of my H4Ds and got the same error on a loan camera which Shaun gave me yesterday.
I have requested a refund of the full purchase price of the camera as I believe that it is unfit for purpose. The combination of an H4D and any heavy lense will produce the error. I have had the error on the 35-90, 120, 150 and 210 lenses.
I have written to Damon Rulach requesting the refund but this has been refused which, I believe, is in direct contradiction of Australian Consumer Law. I have gone along with returning my camera to Sweden, yet again, in the vain hope that someone may recognise the fault and be able to correct it. I really want my equipment to work. I have used Hasselblad equipment for years. The fact that I have put up with this drama for so long should give some idea of my commitment to the product.
I do not want to go through the formal complaint process and would much prefer to keep lawyers out of this. I hope that you will agree with this approach and approve the refund within the next few days.
Best wishes,
Jeff
Landscape Photographer in Sydney, Australia - Jeff Grant
