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!
Let me quote from Steve's post:You sure lecture. Maybe YOU try to read what Steve said more carefully. Is his post negative to you?
First, Steve mentioned that 100 units of X1D per month was realistic. Ramping up from that is a long process and not over night, as you must know if you any manufacturing experience as many on this thread do have. I hope they can do it sooner than later from their current total capacity.
Next I have no pre-order for the Fuji GFX in place, but I might have a pre-order for for this camera.
Why wonder, why not ask him?I have to wonder, if Kevin Raber had got wind of a new finance deal for Phase One, would he have published prior to any announcement from his former employer and without their approval?
You sure lecture. Maybe YOU try to read what Steve said more carefully. Is his post negative to you?
First, Steve mentioned that 100 units of X1D per month was realistic. Ramping up from that is a long process and not over night, as you must know if you any manufacturing experience as many on this thread do have. I hope they can do it sooner than later from their current total capacity.
Next I have no pre-order for the Fuji GFX in place, but I might have a pre-order for for this camera.
I agree with you that we don't know that Kevin's intent was to spread FUD about HB and the X1D in order to benefit his former employer. However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did). That inevitably leads to speculation as to why Kevin wrote the article the way he wrote it. Clearly, he could have communicated the "news" about the change of control in a neutral way.I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.
If that is what you conclude from Kevin's article that's your choice, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I personally see it different and that's fine too (I hope )I agree with you that we don't know that Kevin's intent was to spread FUD about HB and the X1D in order to benefit his former employer. However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did). That inevitably leads to speculation as to why Kevin wrote the article the way he wrote it. Clearly, he could have communicated the "news" about the change of control in a neutral way.
It's also worth noting that, in his video review of the X1D, Kevin states toward the end that he would not buy an X1D now because there is another player about to enter into this space with a competing offering. Doesn't that strike you as a textbook case of spreading FUD? And of reporting rumors, which Kevin says he doesn't do.
There is always a motive behind posts. If a post fails to its reasoning and additionally the intention to harm the subject's reputation is obvious, it's natural for readers to suggest the MAL reasoning behind the "article".I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.
I addition I would say that ....nobody.... in this thread (or in the equivalent threads on LuLa) has any facts or hard evidence that Kevin Raber's intention was to spread FUD on Hasselblad in order to promote his previous employer (Phase One) or another MF brand (Fuji). I have no problem with people who disagree with Kevin's opinion in the article he wrote, that's not the point. But trying to reinforce this differing opinion by personally attacking Kevin and speculating on his intentions in my mind only weakens the case that person is trying to make.
I don't think re-reading or re-posting Kevin's article is going to make a difference, without repeating myself I'll just quote what I said in an earlier post:I feel like citing Kevin Raber's post last paragraphs without further comments.
It just reminds me of a quote from John Lubbock "What we see mainly depends what we look for"
But, what if there is no obvious intention to harm the subjects reputation? Then there should be no damage to the credibility of the author, then speculation about his intentions are no more than that, a speculation without proof. The author cannot be held accountable for things he didn't say.There is always a motive behind posts. If a post fails to its reasoning and additionally the intention to harm the subject's reputation is obvious, it's natural for readers to suggest the MAL reasoning behind the "article".
Certainly "articles" like that mainly damage the reputation/credibility of the "author" (and media) behind it, but as a natural consequence, they hurt the reputation/credibility of the one that is accused (from the readers of the "article") that would benefit from it.
One can't post a questionable "article" and then ask the public to prove the motive, the motive can only be speculated by the public after the "article" has been proven to be of Mal intentions. This is common sense.
Nothing wrong with the public reaction, the one that wrote the "article" is also responsible for the consequences it creates against him, his business, or the side that the "article" may have intended to favor.
What a suitable quote for a photography forum."What we see mainly depends what we look for"
hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.However, I believe that Kevin either knew or should have known that the way his article was written..."not the old Hasselblad"...would have the effect of spreading FUD (which it did).
Most Astute Comment postedhasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.
Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...
It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.
I think I have been quite clear that Kevin has every right to write his article the way he wants. He is free to spin the supposed news about DJI assuming majority ownership any way he wants. However, I have every right to call the article out for what I believe it was...a very negatively slanted piece that could not have been more effective in spreading FUD than if Phase One or Fuji had written it. As with most things in life, the glass can be seen as half full or half empty. One could have described the change of control in favor of DJI as a major, positive development, which I believe it is (assuming the rumor is true). Or, you could discuss it in the context of closing the H system, selling Lunars and Stellers, and employees running for the exits, and the iconic brand now being owned by, of all things, a Chinese maker of drones that may further debase the brand. It was his choice. Your points above strike me as an extended justification for the article being so negative... sort of, hey, they got what they deserve.hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.
Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...
It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.
I think I have been quite clear that Kevin has every right to write his article the way he wants. He is free to spin the supposed news about DJI assuming majority ownership any way he wants. However, I have every right to call the article out for what I believe it was...a very negatively slanted piece that could not have been more effective in spreading FUD than if Phase One or Fuji had written it. As with most things in life, the glass can be seen as half full or half empty. One could have described the change of control in favor of DJI as a major, positive development, which I believe it is (assuming the rumor is true). Or, you could discuss it in the context of closing the H system, selling Lunars and Stellers, and employees running for the exits, and the iconic brand now being owned by, of all things, a Chinese maker of drones that may further debase the brand. It was his choice. Your points above strike me as an extended justification for the article being so negative... sort of, hey, they got what they deserve.
I have already registered my opinion at LuLa about Kevin Raber's article. I don't think there is much to be gained at this point in a further discussion of Kevin Raber's article. There are many who see it the way I see it. There are many who do not. Such is life. However, to be frank in response to your ad hominem remarks, I will say that if you spent less time posting here, there, and everywhere at a rate that makes me wonder if there are multiple Erik Kaffehrs, you might have some time to understand the difference between criticism that is based upon one's opinion about the tone or slant of an article and slander.Hi,
I don't think personal attacks are substantiated. If you have issues with Kevin Raber's article you can post on the relevant forum at LuLa.
Constructive comments are another thing but nothing is gained from slander.
Best regards
Erik
I found this post as annoying as I did with KR's "article", I guess what it means, is (according to KR) that for Hasselblad "to be the Hasselblad it used to be", or (as you say) "not to be in a position that can't be worst", they shouldn't be doing the following that "the competition does (IYO) right":hasselblad hasn't been the Hasselblad of old for a great many years. They've been the target of many threads wondering what is going on.
Regarding Kevin and his association with Phase, I've known Kevin for quite some time , and he is very much like Micheal, he really just calls things as he sees them - sometimes more directly than others think he should. He has no loyalty to phase and I don't think he had any intention of trying to "damage" Hasselblad. I'm not sure he could even make it worse anyway ... there are a lot of really ticked off people and for the past few months countless discussions about the failed promises and speculation have been ongoing. It's not his job to do what Hasselblad wishes, and I still don't understand why they haven't issued a release or information. Perhaps they feel it's nobodies business but theirs, and I guess from one perspective that might be true, but it seems a poor PR move. To be perfectly fair, Hasselblad has done an incredibly poor job of communicating with customers and being honest about their situation ...
It's interesting how culture has changed, it's almost like if someone says something we disagree with or don't like, we think they shouldn't have said it so we didn't have to hear it.