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 acquired by DJI

jduncan

Active member
Compliments to Ming for his piece regarding this ridiculous story.

https://blog.mingthein.com/2017/01/09/on-the-whole-hasselblad-dji-thing/

I've read It too, surely he knows better the situation than many forumers...

Respect to Chinese people and greetings to Hasselblad that is showing his superiority not entering in this stupid debate.

Happy new Year !
I desagree, how many people read Ming T and how many read LL, plus F-stopers , plust Dpreview, plus petapixel, pluss ...

Also Kevin article is rational, so it includes a bunch of disclaimers "*Even so, without official confirmation, we are simply speculating."

The superiority angle (or mature as is called sometime) is not helping Hasselblad. Reality is being created, as I pointed it before. You even see "news" quoting two sources and both sources use only the LL as source.
But let see how it works.

This is another rational, nuanced take:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KlgT738MxA


Best regards,
 

algrove

Well-known member
I disagree on this... Why release a statement if there is no issue to release a statement for? ...just because KR is desperate to invent an issue through a questionable in its reasoning and presented facts "article" as to damage Hassy's reputation in favor of competition, isn't a reason for Hassy to release a statement.

Obviously Hassy misjudged the demand X1D would have (given the low volume of MF customers up to now and the different profile of cameras until the mirrorless cameras where introduced, which caused low marketing information) and ended up setting a target volume much lower than the demand. That's all... funds as to raise production where found, production volume will raise to the one required, Fuji GFX will soon come and raise the MF section of the market even further (to many tens of thousands) and everybody (but the makers that where happy with low market volume - insane prices) will be happy...
All good points except for the fact we are talking about it right now, as are others, and nipping the BS right now in the bud could be more helpful to Hasselbald than letting speculation endure.
 

Steve Hendrix

Well-known member
FWIW - I found Kevin's article interesting but did note that it felt a little personal, though Kevin typically injects personal feelings into his article. Certainly the Hasselblad vs Phase One fallout involved manufacturers as well as photographers and there were passionate feelings on both sides. I recall around the time of the H3D release, escorting Christian Poulsen, then Hasselblad CEO, a former boss and friend, into an informal get together with about 50 top photographers, most of them Phase One and Hasselblad users and believe me, he was lucky to get out with his skin. Courageous of him, to say the least.

The closed system, as it was called by Phase One, certainly was a controversial strategy. Whether Kevin should carry his passion from that time into the article is not for me to say. With that said, I don't know that many would disagree with his assessment of the strategies that led Hasselblad to this point. What was the temperature of the photographic world after the Hasselblad/Sony glam cam collaboration from Photokina 2012? Outrage.

Regarding the DJI/Hasselblad news, I think he asks some valid questions - questions that many others would be asking. Namely, what now, for one of the photographic industries iconic brands? There are questions, but there's always questions, these are just new ones. In present times, being a truly successful producer of photographic equipment in a sustained manner is a huge challenge. For so called legacy manufacturers, even more challenging. There have been notable casualties. Sometimes survival means your core business model may require an adjustment. This can be smart. This can also be sad, to some. Personally, I am not a sentimental person at all. The industry is the photographic industry. The objective of any successful company is to create and profitably sell photographic tools. The DJI partnership may enable Hasselblad products and whatever Hasselblad products stand for, to continue. In the past, that meant great products of exceptional quality. If that continues, I'm all for that. And to me, that's all that matters.


Steve Hendrix/CI
 

hcubell

Well-known member
FWIW - I found Kevin's article interesting but did note that it felt a little personal, though Kevin typically injects personal feelings into his article. Certainly the Hasselblad vs Phase One fallout involved manufacturers as well as photographers and there were passionate feelings on both sides. I recall around the time of the H3D release, escorting Christian Poulsen, then Hasselblad CEO, a former boss and friend, into an informal get together with about 50 top photographers, most of them Phase One and Hasselblad users and believe me, he was lucky to get out with his skin. Courageous of him, to say the least.

The closed system, as it was called by Phase One, certainly was a controversial strategy. Whether Kevin should carry his passion from that time into the article is not for me to say. With that said, I don't know that many would disagree with his assessment of the strategies that led Hasselblad to this point. What was the temperature of the photographic world after the Hasselblad/Sony glam cam collaboration from Photokina 2012? Outrage.

Regarding the DJI/Hasselblad news, I think he asks some valid questions - questions that many others would be asking. Namely, what now, for one of the photographic industries iconic brands? There are questions, but there's always questions, these are just new ones. In present times, being a truly successful producer of photographic equipment in a sustained manner is a huge challenge. For so called legacy manufacturers, even more challenging. There have been notable casualties. Sometimes survival means your core business model may require an adjustment. This can be smart. This can also be sad, to some. Personally, I am not a sentimental person at all. The industry is the photographic industry. The objective of any successful company is to create and profitably sell photographic tools. The DJI partnership may enable Hasselblad products and whatever Hasselblad products stand for, to continue. In the past, that meant great products of exceptional quality. If that continues, I'm all for that. And to me, that's all that matters.


Steve Hendrix/CI
Steve, I fully agree with your comments. You are one of the few people who has so fully lived the history between Hasselblad and Phase One on both sides of the fence and understand that there are there are two sides to every story. For anyone who questions why Hasselblad did what it did back in the day when it "closed" the H platform, they can look at Kevin Raber's "article" where he prominently displays a photo of the Contax medium format camera and laments its disappearance. Funny. Did it ever occurr to him that the fate of the Contax (and the Mamiya and Bronica as well) may have lead Hasselblad to believe that it faced an existential threat to the survival of the company, and needed to do something drastic?
How anyone who reads that "article" would not be left with the impression that Kevin chose to spin the "news" in a way that was negative and damaging to Hasselblad is beyond me. The "article" starts with a paean to his dream cameras as a young photographer, the original Hasselblads. It then recounts more recent history when Hasselblad "closed" the H platform and left poor Phase One out in the cold, and later tried to sell bling versions of a few Sony cameras. Then, we hear about the multiple delays in the shipments of the X1D. Finally, he addresses the supposed "acquistion" of Hasselblad by DJI. Now, the speculation begins. The subtext is that the barbarians are at the gate, prepared to rape and pillage the iconic Hasselblad brand. After all, these are Chinese business people who make DRONES, the equivalent in Kevin's mind of low margin toys. How can they be trusted?
Kevin Raber is free to write whatever he chooses to write. He doesn't OWE Hasseblad the obligation to spin his article in a way that is favorable to Hasselblad. He has every right to spin it negatively. But please, spare me the crap that he really cares about the vibrancy of the medium format digital market and how the survival of companies like Hasselblad is critical if there is to be competition in that market. Nobody who actually cares about that would ever have written the "article" that he wrote the way he wrote it. It may not have been his intention to cause irreparable harm to Hasselblad, but surely he had to know that it was likely to do so.
As you know, Steve, I am not a Hassy fanboy. I am totally brand agnostic. I use a Hasselblad H2 body with a Phase IQ 180 back. I will use whatever works best for me, no matter who makes it. Loyalty is appropriate for lots of things. Not camera companies.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
Hi,

I don't think Hasselblad had a future as supplier of cameras to Phase On. Very clearly, the digital backs are where money is. Also, if you buy a lens kit, it will last many years, backs used to be upgraded often.

We also need to keep in mind that Shriro Group, the owner of Hasselblad and Imacon merged the two companies into one, under Danish management (Imacon).

So, from Hasselblad's point the move made perfect sense. It was obviously bad for Phase One users. Phase One was forced into less profitable camera making business, so they acquired Mamiya. I don't think Mamiya was the big looser in that deal and I don't think manufacture was moved to Denmark, nor did Phase One start selling bling Mamiyas…

With time Phase One developed an excellent camera to heir excellent backs on and Hasselblad developed excellent backs to put on their excellnet cameras.

Phase One was acquired by Silverfleet, at least in some sense. Hasseblad got a majority investment from DJI, it seems.

Best regards
Erik



Steve, I fully agree with your comments. You are one of the few people who has so fully lived the history between Hasselblad and Phase One on both sides of the fence and understand that there are there are two sides to every story. For anyone who questions why Hasselblad did what it did back in the day when it "closed" the H platform, they can look at Kevin Raber's "article" where he prominently displays a photo of the Contax medium format camera and laments its disappearance. Funny. Did it ever occurr to him that the fate of the Contax (and the Mamiya and Bronica as well) may have lead Hasselblad to believe that it faced an existential threat to the survival of the company, and needed to do something drastic?
How anyone who reads that "article" would not be left with the impression that Kevin chose to spin the "news" in a way that was negative and damaging to Hasselblad is beyond me. The "article" starts with a paean to his dream cameras as a young photographer, the original Hasselblads. It then recounts more recent history when Hasselblad "closed" the H platform and left poor Phase One out in the cold, and later tried to sell bling versions of a few Sony cameras. Then, we hear about the multiple delays in the shipments of the X1D. Finally, he addresses the supposed "acquistion" of Hasselblad by DJI. Now, the speculation begins. The subtext is that the barbarians are at the gate, prepared to rape and pillage the iconic Hasselblad brand. After all, these are Chinese business people who make DRONES, the equivalent in Kevin's mind of low margin toys. How can they be trusted?
Kevin Raber is free to write whatever he chooses to write. He doesn't OWE Hasseblad the obligation to spin his article in a way that is favorable to Hasselblad. He has every right to spin it negatively. But please, spare me the crap that he really cares about the vibrancy of the medium format digital market and how the survival of companies like Hasselblad is critical if there is to be competition in that market. Nobody who actually cares about that would ever have written the "article" that he wrote the way he wrote it. It may not have been his intention to cause irreparable harm to Hasselblad, but surely he had to know that it was likely to do so.
As you know, Steve, I am not a Hassy fanboy. I am totally brand agnostic. I use a Hasselblad H2 body with a Phase IQ 180 back. I will use whatever works best for me, no matter who makes it. Loyalty is appropriate for lots of things. Not camera companies.
 

Nick-T

New member
First off, thanks to Steve Hendrix for his excellent post. I was with Christian when the "closed camera" announcement was made, and although it was absolutely controversial Christian's arguments were compelling. In a way I think he has been proven right, as MP counts rise technical faults become more apparent and one way to mitigate those is by having control over the front and back of the camera, much like Apple does controlling software *and* hardware, or Phase does with the XF.

I don't hear people complain about the XF or the Nikon D810 being a closed system so I think we can lay that one to rest.

And as for DJI and their increased shareholding, as I have said elsewhere this is a very positive move and rather than running for the hills as Mr Raber has suggested, Hasselblad employees are thrilled and happy to be working at a resurgent company that is in a better position than it has been for years.
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
How anyone who reads that "article" would not be left with the impression that Kevin chose to spin the "news" in a way that was negative and damaging to Hasselblad is beyond me.
I'm a little surprised by all the controversy Kevin's article has spawned. (well, maybe not. Just something about pounding out opinions on a keyboard in a room all by oneself that sometimes introduce a little emotion). I just re-read the article, and to be honest, I don't see any "sky is falling" spin at all.

As to whether it's accurate or not, he is quite connected and has a lot of sources throughout the industry. I don't believe he would have posted the article had he not been pretty much 100% confident of his sources. He may have risked some of those sources, but I can't blame him for not sitting on this any longer.

He does raise some common sense speculation that happens when any new investment group takes control of a company. Employees may be concerned. Or they may be elated. His basic premise is pretty simple, Hasselblad under the new CEO and management appears to be on the brink of a nice comeback, and a new product which is creating a new category in the MF world, but no money to ramp up production or even polish off the R&D and development in a timely way. The solution can't be loans or corporate bonds (hard to believe they would have the financial strength to issue any bonds other than at loan shark type rates). But DJI stepping up makes a lot of sense, to both DJI and Hasselblad, and I think Kevin spun it that way.

But there is a possibility that DJI has a different agenda, and the current product line and customer base may not be their primary concern. Doesn't make sense, but stranger things have happened with business buyouts.

I will say his comment "Not The Hasselblad It Used To Be " was maybe a little out of place. After all this happened many years ago. Perhaps DJI can help the company get back to a little more of what I think most want, some of the old Hasselblad magic.
 
Let's cease our pointless squabbling for a brief moment and remember why we are all here in the first place. To capture beautiful moments. I've been enjoying Wayne Fox's gallery for the past 10 minutes, and his images are stunning. I will go make myself a cup of tea and look through his gallery again.

http://www.landscapesbywaynefox.com
 

Dustbak

Member
I
* I avoid the fiscal issue because, I believe, does not pertain to Hasselblad. The interest you pay is a cost, so is subtracted from the company earnings to get the taxable income. That could move a company from one financial bracket to the other.
Stock is also counted toward 'own capital' which helps in obtaining bank credits/loans further down the road. You could do this with bonds too but what is the point for the lender to provide bonds that have the status and risk of own capital without the influence stocks have?
 

24mm

New member
I just read Kevin's article. And based on his speculations without justifications, I would strongly advice readers to take that with a spoonful of salt. :ROTFL:

If I were to speculated why he wrote it, I would simply say because DJI is a Chinese company ....

I would like to own Hasselblad shares, but unfortunately the company is privately held.
 

Iktinos

Not Available
I feel most posters (especially the ones that clearly not find it biased) fail to answer the basic motive behind KR's "article"...

I also believe, that the basic question on the motive behind it isn't asked at all... The question should be "Why KR wrote the article at all"? ..."what is the motive behind it"?

I haven't seen an article claiming "Not The Cambo It Used To Be", nor "Not The Arca It Used To Be" after Actus and Universallis were announced.

Then there are some sub-questions arising, the answer of which could "crystal clear" the motive behind the article:

1. Is the higher end market of the MF market (modular systems with camera + back mirrorbox combinations) up to the volume it used be before the X1D introduction and the GFX announcement? Or is it that the lower section of the market affected the higher end sales further?

2. What is the balance in sales between the two participants on the higher end of the market? Is it in favor of P1 as it used to be, or the introduction of motion picture RAW capability, the reduction in prices and the continuous upgrades of Phocus software (as well as the motion picture software introduction) has changed the balance in sales in favor of Hasselblad?

3. What is the minimum volume of market share required to ensure survival of a firm if it participates on the higher end of the market only?

I believe unless there are some "crystal clear" answers on the above, KR's and Lula's credibility (as well as the company that benefits from the possible influence of KR's "article") are (to say the least) under very serious questioning.

After all, many of us do know (and many more do suspect) the answer on the above asked questions...
 

Nick-T

New member
I posted this on Luminous but will re-post here as I think it's relevant:

Kevin of course has very good sources and it is true that DJI have increased their holding in Hasselblad. I suspect that contracts are still being sorted and that once the legal stuff is tied up we'll hear officially from Hasselblad/DJI.

What I objected in the article was the suggestion that the company is somehow a shadow of it's former self because of the involvement of a mere drone company. No one ever said "Oh RED cameras suck because the guy used to make sunglasses".

DJI is a very successful and technologically savvy company, I think they will bring a great deal to Hasselblad, and I think the scare-mongering around Chinese involvement is just that (don't forget Shriro is Chinese!).

2016 was a huge year for Hasselblad and I think this year will be even bigger, can't wait to get hold of my X1D!

Cheers
Nick-T
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Again I don't see Kevin as being as negative as many seem to feel. He's pretty factual, I don't recall him ever saying anything about the involvement of a Chinese Drone company will make Hasselblad a shadow of it's former self (like many great photo brands that happened some time ago), indeed while speculating concern, he certainly discusses the why's and needs of the company and offers that the increased interest by DJI was probably the best and maybe only option for Hasselblad to move forward. As I mention before his choice of headlines was probably poorly thought out because it applies to the company in general and it's history over the last several years, not really to just this one event. (and he maybe intended that, but most take it in the context of the one article).

But his concerns are legitimate. I don't think he's spinning it as a fundamental problem with DJI or Chinese ownership per say. But certainly there are differences in the two companies as well as in their management styles, which could negatively impact Hasselblad. And in any buyout a myriad of things can go wrong for the company being purchased. DJI is a big company now with rapidly changing market competition. They obviously see Hasselblad as a strategic investment to help themselves. What the strategy is remains to be seen. They could simply help the current management team move forward with financing and manufacturing prowess (certainly many of the cameras parts were already being made in China). But they could choose to shut down all Swedish operations and take over all design, manufacturing and marketing.

I have two DJI drones, and while well made, they are frought with idiosyncrasies and challenges. If I were to rate the quality level of the manufactured product of both companies as they stand now, DJI certainly wouldn't be equal to Hasselblad. That's not saying their bad or cheap, just not the same. But they are different products with different needs and different price points. Does that mean Hasselblad will end up with similar issues? So what does it mean? No one knows, but what happens going forward can easily be affected by how the two companies interact and work together and their is no guarantee everything will work out wonderfully.

Is there cause for concern? I think so. I don't think the sky is falling but I would be hesitant to order an X1D right now ... although admittedly I was already very hesitant because of the way they've handled the announcement and rollout so far. Seems prudent to see if they can right the ship. But personally i have more hope they will right the ship after reading his article than I did before.

For the past few months I have seen so many critical of Hasselblad and their failure to deliver product as promised... some of those are now criticizing Kevin. Seems like we all get offended way to easily when some one says something we don't agree with. Hasselblad has struggled for years, and there is no guarantee that DJI will ultimately be any benefit at all.

But I read into Kevin's article a cautious and guarded optimism that DJI may finally be what Hasselblad needs to turn things around.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
But his concerns are legitimate. I don't think he's spinning it as a fundamental problem with DJI or Chinese ownership per say. But certainly there are differences in the two companies as well as in their management styles, which could negatively impact Hasselblad. And in any buyout a myriad of things can go wrong for the company being purchased. DJI is a big company now with rapidly changing market competition. They obviously see Hasselblad as a strategic investment to help themselves. What the strategy is remains to be seen. They could simply help the current management team move forward with financing and manufacturing prowess (certainly many of the cameras parts were already being made in China). But they could choose to shut down all Swedish operations and take over all design, manufacturing and marketing.


Is there cause for concern? I think so. I don't think the sky is falling but I would be hesitant to order an X1D right now ... although admittedly I was already very hesitant because of the way they've handled the announcement and rollout so far. Seems prudent to see if they can right the ship. But personally i have more hope they will right the ship after reading his article than I did before.
.
As a point of comparison, in 2014, a private equity firm, Silverfleet Capital, loaded up Phase One with lots of debt and took it over in a leveraged buyout in which most of the ownership of the old stockholder group was cashed out. I don't recall hearing the same level of concern about what this would do to Phase One that we now hear about Hasselblad. And personally, compared to a strategic buyer of Hasselblad like DJI, I would be FAR more concerned where a company was loaded up with a bunch of debt that was used to finance the purchase price by a financial buyer that had a short term investment horizon. Has anyone speculated why it is Hasselblad and Fuji that have developed the game changers in medium format digital and not Phase One? Is it all the debt in Phase One? Is it that the PE firm has been unwilling to invest in the requisite R&D?
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
As a point of comparison, in 2014, a private equity firm, Silverfleet Capital, loaded up Phase One with lots of debt and took it over in a leveraged buyout in which most of the ownership of the old stockholder group was cashed out. I don't recall hearing the same level of concern about what this would do to Phase One that we now hear about Hasselblad. And personally, compared to a strategic buyer of Hasselblad like DJI, I would be FAR more concerned where a company was loaded up with a bunch of debt that was used to finance the purchase price by a financial buyer that had a short term investment horizon. Has anyone speculated why it is Hasselblad and Fuji that have developed the game changers in medium format digital and not Phase One? Is it all the debt in Phase One? Is it that the PE firm has been unwilling to invest in the requisite R&D?
Some good points. Actually there was (and still is) quite a bit of concern over Phase. LuLa went straight to the source with the CEO of Phase in a video shortly after where Henrik tried to ease concerns, although most familiar with PE firms I think remained unconvinced (and are still concerned). I would be surprised if Kevin didn't take the same approach with Hasselblad, but for reasons we'll never know an interview with Perry wasn't possible. Kevin's article sounded like he was frustrated because it seemed to be pretty common knowledge (he stated multiple reliable sources) but they wouldn't talk about it or formally announce it... and recently Hasselblad's communications policies have come under fire from a lot of people. Brings to mind that overused term "transparency". Certainly Hasselbad/DJI have the right to do what they want, but if the cat's out of the bag maybe it's better to get a head of things?

But there is a difference. In Phases case they were pulling out owner equity for their own security as well as acquiring some financial resources which PE firms have access to that small companies really don't, including lower interest on debt etc. Phase was in a similar position, capital for R&D on the new 100mp sensor, and ramp up production on new products like the XF and IQ3 series of backs. But the new owners were just that, investors, not a "strategic" buyer, and the "owners" ... the ones that design and build the camera I believe still have a decent size stake in the company. They may be in a minority position, but they stand to lose a lot of money if the company isn't successful. I actually think if Phase had announced that DJI had acquired a majority position, the tone and concern in the article would have been pretty much the same.

In this case we have a company that's been bouncing between several investor/owners (none of which appear to be key people within hasselblad), and management teams for years. Over the past several years that combination seems to have made several missteps. Personally I think the investment groups behind hasselblad were as much to blame as the company for those decisions ... (I saw the same thing in a firm I sold and the "board" decided to change things around because they thought they had a better idea). But it appears now the company has fixed those issues, and now are just cash strapped to get their product out the door. But DJI may or may not be the best suitor for Hasselblad, they may be best suitor to the PE firm whose only motivation is getting some of their investment back (and has already shown their poor judgement in the past).

Both situations are troublesome, both seem a little precarious to the future of the respective companies, but that doesn't mean either will turn out negative. On the surface Hasselblad (as we know it or hope it to be) seems more tenuous because we really don't know what DJI has in mind. good news it seems to at least given them a chance to succeed (which is what I got out of Kevin's article)

And in the long run we may find that Phase's situation does turn out worse ... in a year we may be talking about how DJI came in in the knick of time to restore hasselblad to solid footing and right the ship, and we also could be talking about SilverFleet wanting a payday from their investment in Phase and Phase not having the value to provide it. One scary part of using a PE firm is they look for big returns, and if they don't see it coming they will walk away and leave a company high and dry to prevent loosing more money on them. I'm not sure what the ratio is now, but I've heard they are happy if 2/3rd's of their investments work out. Scary. We're almost 3 years into the Phase/Silverfleet deal and things seem to be going well, but most PE firms want out in 3 to 5 years.

Hopefully both companies thrive, and continue to push each other. It appears that small format MF may be coming of age, and I will admit Phase has maybe dropped the ball on this one. May not be intentional, as they've had to put so much R&D into the XF platform they may not have been able to tackle a mirrorless version platform.

It would be a sad day to see either one or both falter or fail.
 

dchew

Well-known member
I too remember the sky is falling discussions when Silverfleet did the Phase deal. I don't think it was this big mainly because there is simply more passion for the Hasselblad brand. And also, perhaps Wayne is right in that Phase's more direct involvement in a response mitigated the conjecture.

I do feel that if Hasselblad can get through this pinch point in their history they will be the best-positioned company for the future of MF. If I had money to bet today, it would go to Hasselblad and/or Fuji, not Phase. I'm guessing a lot of the IQ3 purchasing is done and will fade. Most of the buying in 2017 will be through Hasselblad and Fuji.

Dave
 
Top