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 price increase

fotografz

Well-known member
Except Hasselblad's cameras and lenses have actually been made by Fuji in Japan since roughly 2002, and that's why some people call them Fujiblads, Хассельблать.... Скорее?)))
As well, all Zeiss DSLR lenses are actually made by Cosina, so they're not the only ones outsourcing.

As nikonf quipped, Hass really may be a marketing company as besides that and "product development", they likely don't make any of their own products...

Edit: Not saying their cameras are bad by any means, I regularly see plenty of wonderful images here shot with H cameras, maybe a majority of them in fact.
The H cameras are made in Sweden. The lenses and viewfinder are made by Fuji in Japan using Hasselblad's designs. When service is required, the camera is sent to Sweden not Japan.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
As much as I suffer from larger-sensor envy, the results from the IQ140 on a tech camera are just fabulous. I don't have the need (or wall space) to print larger than 20x24. From that standpoint, a 35mm tech camera would probably be just my thing.

But....

I may be a koolaid drinking fanboi, but with the exception of the Leica M9, I still haven't seen a 35mm or smaller sensor with the attractive qualities of the IQ series. It's probable that this is a post-processing issue, and that I could get that I-just-want-to-stare-at-this-forever feeling from a modern Canon/Nikon/Sony sensor. Is it CCD vs. CMOS? Dalsa vs. Sony? Brand-induced hypnosis? I dunno...

So, yes. Make a smaller tech camera, but keep the sensor wonderful!

--Matt
I prefer the taste of the Kool-Aid also ... I cancelled my Leica M240, and have passed on 2 other opportunities to get one. Nice camera, okay images, but IMO the magic evaporated in terms of look and feel.
 

PeterA

Well-known member
I prefer the taste of the Kool-Aid also ... I cancelled my Leica M240, and have passed on 2 other opportunities to get one. Nice camera, okay images, but IMO the magic evaporated in terms of look and feel.
Not that you'd be worried Marc - but you aren't alone.... -:)
 

RVB

Member
The H cameras are made in Sweden. The lenses and viewfinder are made by Fuji in Japan using Hasselblad's designs. When service is required, the camera is sent to Sweden not Japan.
Marc,the lenses are designed by Per Nordlund..
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Most companies do this nowadays. Maybe is that camera companies has been late in the adoption of manufacturing outsourcing.

A quick look at the mobile industry (one of the few that with a massive grow nowadays ) will show that.

Hasselblad did try to lower the prices when the H4D was introduced. The idea was jumpstart the sales. Like a bunch of things that they have tried they reversed themselves.

I have to accept that, in the forums (at least on Lula) the reception of the H4D was super negative. In particular about true focus.

In any case, I believe that Hasselblad issue is related to the sensors, no the camera. As long as they don't have a sensor manufacturing partner the suffering and bleeding will continue.

If Kodak was alive they will probably have a H5D-75 and a H5D-300ms and we will not be having this conversation.

The problem is the new owners don't seem to be attacking the main issues that we see, as Photography lovers. They see just one issue: profit.

Best regards,

J. Duncan
Actually, like many companies in the shrinking niche photographic equipment business, the only issue is ... survival. Profits are the only path to that ... camera companies can't apply for non-profit status with the IRS ;)

BTW, my H4D/40 was one of the best cameras I ever owned, and I used it to make nice business profits as well as enjoyed it for personal projects. It is gone now because I retired.

- Marc
 

jduncan

Active member
True, but what a fine zoom it is.
The 35-90 is a very good lens to. I believe that the difference is that Leica is a collectable item. Some pros use Leica. Leica lenses are superb. But even the pros that use Leica know that the resale value is not just related to the quality.

The H5D is not, in general, a collectible.

Best regards,

James
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
It will be difficult for any MF manufacturer to survive without tight bonds to someone with market share, technology and capital. Maybe the only survivors will be Leica and Pentax plus someone who can make digital backs for those with special needs, like technical cams :eek:

I wouldn't be surprised if Kodak Alaris is a better investment proposition than Hasselblad these days.
 

tjv

Active member
If I was lucky enough to have an H4D, I'd use it and enjoy doing so.

With regard to who designs and builds Hasselblad H cameras and lenses, I would think the old myths of the past should have been put to rest by now. Most of the misinformation seems to come from a select few internet sites who's writers felt disenfranchised from the brand when Hasselblad "closed" the system. That and because H doesn't seem to give them special treatment.
 

JorisV

New member
Most of the misinformation seems to come from a select few internet sites who's writers felt disenfranchised from the brand when Hasselblad "closed" the system. That and because H doesn't seem to give them special treatment.
Talking about hitting the nail on the head!!!
 
H4X with a Phase 1 back is the way I went several years ago and it's the best of both worlds. True Focus in my opinion is the best new technology in medium format in many years. The eyes are sharp in 95% of my images.
 

BANKER1

Member
Interesting discussion. Everyone knows that everyone increases prices. Hasselblad makes great lenses (with shutters). They even improved lenses that did not stand up to modern sensors. Imagine that. The disappointment I had with Hasselblad when they introduced the Lunar does not blind me to the obvious value of the lenses relative to their price.

Greg
 

tcdeveau

Well-known member
Just to chime in I'm pretty happy with my H4D-40 and 35-90mm. I've done some landscape stuff with it recently that I'm really happy with. Made prints up to 5' wide that are perfectly fine to me. True focus and really clean long exposures (up to 4+ min compared to 1-2mins with the Phase IQ, except p45+/260) are great as are the 35-90mm. I shoot 95% stopped down on tripod (minimizing the advantage of primes), so having a 35-90 option is ideal for travel landscape photography...only have to carry one lens (although sometimes wider/longer is needed). Phase/Schneider really needs to make their own now that Hassy and Leica both have a zoom in this range IMO.

Prices go up with everything as stated previously. Regardless of whether H products products are made/designed in Japan or Sweden, it's a good system. It's not a perfect system but no system is. We're talking about price increases, but Hasselblad also has great CPO deals and just had a 30% off sale (they had an H4D-40 for ~$7100 with a 6 month factory warranty for example). When I researched what MFD system to buy, at the 40mp level at least, I found my $$ could go a LOT further for my needs with a used H4D-40 kit than a used IQ140 kit. Also, buying used, I could sell and take a much much smaller hit financially if I needed to. All of the lenses that are subject to the price increase can be bought used with a couple hundred or less clicks for waaaaaaay less than MSRP anyway.

No idea what Hasselblad is doing with the Lunar and Stellar...they are obviously not marketing towards photographers, rather people with money who take pictures. Whether you agree or disagree with their current corporate strategy (or lack thereof?) shouldn't take away from the fact that the H-system is still a good system more than capable of producing great images.
Todd
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Talking about hitting the nail on the head!!!
With a sledge hammer :ROTFL:

I read one rambling "In Depth" H comparison report on one unnamed site from a "credentialed" blow hard that was filled with so many inaccurate statements that it wasn't worth responding to because it was obvious there was malice driving it.

- Marc
 
The D800 sensor is made by Sony.
Yes, it is, but the all electronics behind it are made by Nikon, otherwise Sony would have their own camera with the same sensor of same performance in one of their cameras... And in fact that did once.
Remember the Nikon D3X and Sony A900? Both had the exact same 24.6mp sensor in them, but the Nikon ran circles around the Sony in terms of noise and dynamic range.
In fact, the A900 was even worse than the 5D2 in high-ISO performance, while the D3X was superior. So yes, same sensor, but not really.
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Yes, it is, but the all electronics behind it are made by Nikon, otherwise Sony would have their own camera with the same sensor of same performance in one of their cameras... And in fact that did once.
Remember the Nikon D3X and Sony A900? Both had the exact same 24.6mp sensor in them, but the Nikon ran circles around the Sony in terms of noise and dynamic range.
In fact, the A900 was even worse than the 5D2 in high-ISO performance, while the D3X was superior. So yes, same sensor, but not really.
Yes, understood. Each company adds their approach to the base sensor info. But that wasn't the point was it? It was about who made their own sensors. Sony and Canon do, Nikon and Leica do not.

However, since I used both the D3X and Sony A900 side-by-side I will dispute the D3X verses A900 comparison you present. Nikon chose to produce a very flat file with a somewhat better high ISO performance that required considerable time in post to get anything decent from ... where Sony chose to concentrate on midtone response and truer color fidelity especially regarding skin tones right out of the camera. Subsequent firmware for the A900 improved the ISO a bit and helped the noise issues.

To this day you can find many photographers that use the A900 as a benchmark for color and tonal response, where the D3X is a benchmark for nothing. Not to mention the A900 was 1/3 the price of the D3X. In post, the A900 ran circles around the D3X including taking a nap and having diner, taking in a movie, and then still winning. :ROTFL: In other words, a nice Nikon camera for those with oodles of discretionary time to waste at the computer. The D3X was one of the worse 35mm DSLRs for people photography, portraits, weddings and events I ever owned, and I was glad to be rid of it.

As always ... IMHO.

- Marc
 
Yes, understood. Each company adds their approach to the base sensor info. But that wasn't the point was it? It was about who made their own sensors. Sony and Canon do, Nikon and Leica do not.

However, since I used both the D3X and Sony A900 side-by-side I will dispute the D3X verses A900 comparison you present. Nikon chose to produce a very flat file with a somewhat better high ISO performance that required considerable time in post to get anything decent from ... where Sony chose to concentrate on midtone response and truer color fidelity especially regarding skin tones right out of the camera. Subsequent firmware for the A900 improved the ISO a bit and helped the noise issues.

To this day you can find many photographers that use the A900 as a benchmark for color and tonal response, where the D3X is a benchmark for nothing. Not to mention the A900 was 1/3 the price of the D3X. In post, the A900 ran circles around the D3X including taking a nap and having diner, taking in a movie, and then still winning. :ROTFL: In other words, a nice Nikon camera for those with oodles of discretionary time to waste at the computer. The D3X was one of the worse 35mm DSLRs for people photography, portraits, weddings and events I ever owned, and I was glad to be rid of it.

As always ... IMHO.

- Marc
Interesting, you seem to be the first person to not like that camera, well... I have owned neither so I respect your opinion.
To this day you can find many photographers that use the A900 as a benchmark for color and tonal response
No wonder I didn't know about that, no one talks about how great the tones and colors are in their images except you guys, everyone else is shooting charts. :watch:
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Interesting difference of opinion with regards to A900 vs. D3X. I like both, but mostly prefer the colours of the D3X. When they become cheap enough, and if I haven't sold all my Nikon gear in the meantime, I'll buy one :)

Hasselblad should of course become cheaper, not dearer, but lenses seldom do.
 
Top