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 to be sold to Phase One...?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
In the film days MF systems cost around 3X the cost of 35mm. With the advent of the super MP FF bodies and the need for sharper glass, the prices are coming higher every year while MF bodies are coming down. Perhaps when DMF prices get to be again 3X the prices of FF, DMF survival will be guaranteed.
Eduardo
In the film days, a medium format negative was three to four times as large as a 35mm negative. The Sony MF sensor is around twice the size of a 35mm sensor. Still, all medium format cameras except Leica, which is the only one that was built as a digital system from the bottom, are roughly the same size as the 645 cameras they were built upon.
 

synn

New member
In the film days MF systems cost around 3X the cost of 35mm. With the advent of the super MP FF bodies and the need for sharper glass, the prices are coming higher every year while MF bodies are coming down. Perhaps when DMF prices get to be again 3X the prices of FF, DMF survival will be guaranteed.
Eduardo
Nikon D810: USD 2796.95
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 6786.95

Canon 5DSR: USD 3899.00
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 7889.00

Leaf Credo 40 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 13,995.00
Leaf Credo 50 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 27,995.00


Less than 2x and a bit more than 4x times, depending on what you want from 35mm and DMF respectively.
 

CSP

New member
Nikon D810: USD 2796.95
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 6786.95

Canon 5DSR: USD 3899.00
Zeiss Otus 55: USD 3990.00
Total: USD 7889.00

Leaf Credo 40 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 13,995.00
Leaf Credo 50 (With 645DF+ and 80mm LS): USD 27,995.00


Less than 2x and a bit more than 4x times, depending on what you want from 35mm and DMF respectively.
..but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price. btw. stefan is absolut right sony, canon and nikon high mp count cameras are the workhorses in professional photography this days. for me it is absolut ridiculous what people are able to see in digital mf files having shot every format from 8x10 to 35mm in my carrier. there is absolut nothing special except resolution with 645 and with todays offerings even this gap is almost closed too. enjoy your camera but don´t draw any conclusion how the pro market works or what pro photographers need from your experience.
 

synn

New member
..but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price.
If you believe this, good for you. You've saved yourself some money.
I apologize for having higher standards.

BTW, my post has nothing to do with what pro photographers want or need. It was a response to a post about pricing.
I know and have worked with several pros who use both systems and they have their own reasons for using what they use.
 

jlm

Workshop Member
there is this blanket, assumed implication that "pro" needs regarding image quality are universally more demanding of image quality. while that may be true for a portion of the pro market, i think generalizing is misleading. i would argue that the demands of the fine art photographer could be quite high, as they are driven by his own needs and perceptions, rather than those of a client, who may or may not have a sophisticated vision. furthermore, shooting conditions are typically completely different
 

Lars

Active member
Not really surprised if this merger happens. Both companies are essentially Danish (albeit with some Hasselblad manufacturing still in Sweden). Both companies see where the market is going - there is only room for so many players in the MF market.

Hasselblad should have seen this (the collapsing market/competition from FF) coming a long time ago and entered FF high end with Carl Zeiss partnership. Instead Sony is taking over that niche, going from consumer products to pro. [He said, with a firm grip on the rearview mirror.]
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
New story on Photo Rumors......???
It's interesting to go down below his post and read comments. It's clear that no one really knows what is going on. Even some of the pretty well known names. But everyone sure has an opinion on the state of the MF market. Probably one of the best kept secrets of photography.

Sadly I have to agree with Thom's predicdition of one the MF market continuing to be low volume high price. Current list price of just the XF body confirms this.

Only Pentax seems aimed at a growth/volume bid i.e. New XF + $400= 645Z.



Paul
 

Bill Caulfeild-Browne

Well-known member
The slow death of MF....?

I have a foot in both camps - Sony a7 series and Phase XF etc.

I feel that, as usual, it depends on what you do with your pictures.The vast majority of pro images will never be produced at more than a double, full page spread in a classy magazine. You don't even need 24 mpx for those, and 42 mpx is overkill (except for the ability to crop extensively).

But for those of us who want 60+ inch prints with the utmost quality, a good big'un will still trump a good little one. I have compared such prints (and I stress prints) and to my eye there is no contest. Whether my buyers can see the difference... well, I don't know. But I'm fortunate to take only the pictures I choose and I CAN see the difference.

I was frustrated 4 by 5 in. guy in a former life, forced to use 6x 6 cm for practical reasons. Now I love my a7/ii/r images - but I adore my MF shots. Just as most of us will never buy a Ferrari, most of us will not buy into MF - but I think there will always be a select few who will want that extra real estate that MF provides. (At a cost!)

Now, despite my aged bones, I must go and grab my tripod and 25 kg of gear....

Bill
 

fotografz

Well-known member
..but an otus & fullframe combination is equal or offers better image quality than your leaf /mamiya for 1/2 the price. btw. stefan is absolut right sony, canon and nikon high mp count cameras are the workhorses in professional photography this days. for me it is absolut ridiculous what people are able to see in digital mf files having shot every format from 8x10 to 35mm in my carrier. there is absolut nothing special except resolution with 645 and with todays offerings even this gap is almost closed too. enjoy your camera but don´t draw any conclusion how the pro market works or what pro photographers need from your experience.
I think speaking in absolutes like this is a very difficult thing to do when making comparisons. Whether Pro, Semi-Pro or Advanced Amateur, the standards, functional expectations, and actual aesthetic demands of each photographer can vary widely.

Add to this the shift in how photographic images are being used, where they are shown, and how they are being presented and/or sold, and that diversity becomes exponentially greater.

Drawing any conclusion regarding "how the professional market works" depends greatly on who, what and where. High resolution 35mm with more exotic glass may well be "the workhorses" in more cases than in past, but that erosion of MF has been generally true for a long time … even before the total domination by digital. Wedding/event/portrait Pros shifted from 2 1/4 to 35mm in the film era.

People marketing on the internet don't actually need 35MM digital with Otus Optics and most certainly not 43 or 50 meg FF. However, "need" and "want" are two entirely different things. That principle also applies to MFD.

In the case of really demanding professional work there are still a fair amount of shooters that "RENT" higher res, larger sensor MFD, and there are still a good number of fashion shooters using larger sensor cameras … the very target Leica positioned the S camera system toward and continues to do for good reason, (even if the majority of their buyers may not be professionals). That demanding archivists, institutions, and applied industrial applications select MFD is also a telling aspect regarding IQ.

MF has been a specialized tool for some time now, and I don't think that has changed. IMO, what has changed is the amount of work that demands that level of competence.

- Marc
 

synn

New member
It's interesting to go down below his post and read comments. It's clear that no one really knows what is going on. Even some of the pretty well known names. But everyone sure has an opinion on the state of the MF market. Probably one of the best kept secrets of photography.

Sadly I have to agree with Thom's predicdition of one the MF market continuing to be low volume high price. Current list price of just the XF body confirms this.

Only Pentax seems aimed at a growth/volume bid i.e. New XF + $400= 645Z.



Paul
As far as I am aware, MFD has always been a low volume, high margins market. While that market has shrunk, so has the entire interchangeable camera market. Everyone including canon and nikon have been slashing sales and profit projections quarter after quarter for some time now. Almost every other week, you see some sort of deal for their lenses, which was unheard of a few years ago. So no, I don't see any sort of mass exodus happening in MF. Sure, we see posts about how someone left MF behind for sony or whatever, but for every one of those posts, there are a dozen blogposts online about how someone left canikon behind for M43 or something. And then those who left M43 behind for the next iphone. And so on.

In every format, there are people who end up purchasing too much camera for their skill level and needs. At some point of time, they WILL downgrade and feel an incessant need to justify the downgrade. The thing is that MF is a significant investment, so MF downgraders tend to be louder than the rest. Apply some internet amplification and well... You know how it goes.

What HAS happened though is that the MF market has seen significant consolidation and reduction in the number of players. This is no different than what happened with 135 format when digital became a thing. Everyone and their grandma started making DSLRs, but in the end, only two figured out how to make money from it. The rest got marginalized, folded or got assimilated into larger corporations. And that was the status quo until some of the formerly marginalized players figured out that the mirror can be taken out. Then began the next gold rush with everyone and their grandma making mirror less systems. A few years down the line, only one of them had figured out how to make money off it. The rest have again become marginalized, assimilated or have unverified rumors about leaving the market (cough Samsung, cough).

Sounds familiar? It should, because that is exactly what is happening with MF. This is the natural order of progression. I hope at least 2 are left standing in the end though, because competition breeds innovation.

The scavengers can set the knives aside. This baby ain't dead.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
The MF market and the DSLR market will continue to shrink (but for different reasons) as long as the policies of the makers don't change....

The DSLR market will continue to shrink because the IQ improvement of later products is insignificant consider than the generation before it and additionally there is little of really helpful innovations applied that would give solutions to photographers... I believe that Sony's "α" mirrorless success in a shrinking market, is mainly because of offering solutions that Nikon or Canon couldn't since:

A. The camera is the best to use instead of an MFDB as an MFDB with a view camera.
B. The camera is compatible with the existing range of lenses one already owns.

On the MF market however, further than the insignificant improvements in IQ than what was offered 10 years ago, there is the additional drawback that the major makers (P1 & HB-H) have done everything to their power to:

A. Restrict the compatibility of their systems with the rest of the MF market.
B. To "vanish" the backs they where taking as part exchange from the 2nd hand market, thus narrowing the "basis" of existing users and also keeping the prices high since there is a premium on all the backs they sell for the trades that some of the customers will do.
C. But... (even more important than A&B above), is the fact that instead of directing their products towards adding abilities for tasks that one wouldn't be able to perform if using a DSLR instead, they ended up exactly to the opposite, which is "offer only larger DSLRs with little better performance"...

Now, as long as they'll continue to "close the systems", offer cameras for "pixel peepers" instead of photographers, make backs that have worst IQ with view cameras than if one uses an older back and look for customers that "shoot sunsets" and are rich, they will find more and more photographers to use their (older) Canons and Nikons to shoot the landscapes and use a Sony α7 on an Actus with old H-V or RZ-67 (or other) glass and do all tasks they need at 95% of performance and only a fruction of the cost....

P1 will never buy Hasselblad simply because... they have enough trouble of their own! Adding more, will double them! The only possible "savior" I can see for HB is Leica, where they can use the H5x platform as to use the Sinarbacks on and also the lens series on the "S" system via the S-adapter... but again they can do the same if they resurrect the Contax 645 since if they decide investing on Hasselblad, they 'll have to deal with two series of backs while they have one already with the Sinarbacks. I believe it will all clear out in a few months...

One thing is for sure, hi-end photography is better run by people that have passion for photography instead of "golden boys" of marketing crap... :loco: Let's all hope that Hasselblad will end up directed by photographers then... In fact I believe they could make it them selves out of this if they could get some photographers to replace the "golden boys" that brought the company to the financial position it now is... :banghead:
 

CSP

New member
In every format, there are people who end up purchasing too much camera for their skill level and needs. At some point of time, they WILL downgrade and feel an incessant need to justify the downgrade. The thing is that MF is a significant investment, so MF downgraders tend to be louder than the rest. Apply some internet amplification and well... You know how it goes.
you are really funny, what a twisted view ! i wonder where your expertise comes from, i own both a hasselblad DMF system as well as sony, cambo, zeiss & schneider and i'm very sure using the sony is not a downgrade :eek: when you talk to people in the industry it becomes very clear in what direction the pro market moves, ask someone at schneider kreuznach for example the lens manufacturer of your most loved toy. i would not be surprised if they leave the dmf lens market. for high end work light, composition and postproduction are the key skills you have to know not the camera and how to master it. the camera as center of great photography is such a amateurish view.....
 

Egor

Member
ummm....I'm a pro and we use MFD because its better in every step along the way when producing images for clients. Its that simple.
We tried Sony and the new Canon chips for our product and art repro clients. Sorry but they just aren't as good, no matter what anyone says. Believe me, I wish they were, I could care less about brands and pee contests.
MFD is more versatile, better color and res and IQ all the way down the line. Thats why any studio that is serious and charges big$$ uses it. It saves us money, thats why. Cameras and lenses don't cost as much as skilled post-proc talent and their time and their is at least 50% less time spent on MFD files than the smaller formats.
On our art-repro (we aren't high fallutin enough yet to call it "cultural heritage" but I like that phrase) the numbers are even better for MFD.

I know everyone here wants to believe that small format is every bit as good as MFD but it just isn't, not from a "professional" standpoint anyway.
We have tested ad nauseum in house, as well as talked to our peers (other shooters in the $1M/yr gross range) and they are all reaching the same conclusions. They all shoot MFD not because its fancy or big or impressive...but because it delivers and saves money.
 

gazwas

Active member
I know everyone here wants to believe that small format is every bit as good as MFD but it just isn't, not from a "professional" standpoint anyway.
We have tested ad nauseum in house, as well as talked to our peers (other shooters in the $1M/yr gross range) and they are all reaching the same conclusions. They all shoot MFD not because its fancy or big or impressive...but because it delivers and saves money.
Tell that to Hasselblad not to mention Rolleiflex, Bronica, Sinar, and Leaf to name but a few who'd probably say differently judging by the state of their finances over history - "...because it delivers and saves money" is not universally accepted amongst most professionals. Studios with big budgets or in niche fields (repro) get to use the most expensive equipment because they can. Probably the type of work demands the extra 5-10% more clout MFD offers which their clients demand and ultimately but most importantly pay for. The remaining 80% of professional photographers are obviously not feeling restricted by other formats lack of quality and choose to vote with their wallet and why venture capital firms are now in control of all (?) MFD manufacturers.

No one is saying there is not a place for MFD but the market at least amongst professional photographers must now be tiny.
 

CSP

New member
I know everyone here wants to believe that small format is every bit as good as MFD but it just isn't, not from a "professional" standpoint anyway..
there must be a reason why some see big difference others can´t see. maybe self fulfilling prophecy plays a roll ?
 

gazwas

Active member
there must be a reason why some see big difference others can´t see. maybe self fulfilling prophecy plays a roll ?
I'm not so sure with the latest CMOS backs but there are differences between the formats. However, like any product at the top of its game you have to look closely for those difference (A/B comparison) to see MFD's supremacy and as most clients would never notice (or compare) why pay the price of entry? Will a bride see the extra 5% more detail in her wedding dress or a editor see a minuscule extra sharpness in the editorial shots for a lifestyle magazine? I think those questions have already been answered considering the MFD market today compared to 20 years ago.
 

T.Dascalos

Not Available
ummm....I'm a pro and we use MFD because its better in every step along the way when producing images for clients. Its that simple.
Who said that it isn't better? ...what I said is that it's not better than older MF (especially with view cameras) and that it doesn't improve ones photography than if using a DSLR (or older MF)... There is a proof for that... Show me a picture that one couldn't do 10 years ago with the equipment that existed at those days and I'll "eat my tongue"... As simple as that! :OT:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top