Hasselblad discontinues the H?

[Paul Spinnler]

Right. That was the great idea of the previous owner based in Germany, Ventizz Capital. Their acquisition was based on what they thought was a great plan to dress up Sony cameras which they estimated would triple Hasselblad's revenue and they would then cash out in a few years and sell the company at a big profit.

They didn't triple the revenue, they crippled the company financially in the space of a few years. Fortunately DJI intervened with capital to fund a new direction for the company with a successful mirrorless system as demand for DSLR cameras was dying.

Being owned by a private equity firm with no experience in the photo industry doesn't automatically mean disaster will follow, but the track record for that scenario has plenty of big losses and mistakes attached to it.

Again "baloney". And sugarcoating XXL for Shenzen.

The way, without knowledge of the details or the reality of PE, you paint in rosy colors DJI's ownership as a contrast to everything before is exaggerated.

Private equity never decides the strategy alone. It is with the management team that a strategy is defined and implemented. They might replace managers, but usually, it is symbiotic at the beginning as it would be foolish to not sit down and discuss value levers with the people already in the company (usually via many interviews before defining a mid-term and long-term strategy). If anything, the managers made mistakes and that specific PE wasn't able to turn things around with the amount of capital available for that investment.

To paint prior owners as bad and DJI as the white knight in shining armor is one-sided. Markets can change very fast, CEOs can work off of wrong assumptions, and then it is too easy to attribute everything to the "PE ownership" as such. It shows a complete lack of understanding of how investing works and is again some armchair wannabe authority babble. DJI is a strategic investor that is extracting maximum value out of the brand and often employees prefer private equity ownership as a strategic investor will incorporate the existing, extract the valuable stuff and fire unnecessary staff due to duplication.

The "luxury brand principle", ie being a broker for parts, adding design and a logo on it, and selling it at a higher price segment is a proven business strategy and Leica (with the SL line which is based on Panasonic tech) and even an Alpa, which basically provides a good metallic frame for Rodenstock glass and digibacks, is quite successful – it is the execution that counts.

In the case of Hasselblad for example - for my taste - the design was just plain bad and the execution was sloppy. They could have done way more to justify the up-sell than to commission an extravagant Italian design firm. Leica also learned from their re-badged smaller cameras that you need to put in a bit more work on the design and feature side if you piggyback off of an existing design. The SL is quite successful because it is sufficiently differentiated that people still buy it.

And with regards to DJI - they shut down H, Flextight, extracted IP (e.g. colour science) for their drones, exited the professional market to sell a prosumer digicam with off-the-shelf Sony sensors, cut service centers, Hasselblad Masters is it coming back? ... in my view a bit of their identity as one of the stalwart companies manufacturing highest-end professional photography cameras has been lost and it remains to be seen whether DJI makes further cuts and optimizations and whether the future is that rosy in this cutthroat market / difficult environment.

It marks a big shift that they killed off the H. And with regards to the 50 megapixel back – believe it or not, but it is NOT selling like hot pancakes. Maybe Steve can chime in whether he really is inundated by demand on this one.

 

[TechTalk]

Don't forget the XPan/TX2

I'm glad you mentioned it. It's a good example of how multi-company collaboration should work as it was a successful product. It's also a good example of a company which has a particular type of manufacturing capability, such as camera or lens manufacturing, choosing to outsource the manufacturing of some products to another company; which may be done for a variety of reasons. It's also a good example of internet myth spreading and becoming internet fact based on assumptions and widespread repetition.

The lenses for the Hasselblad XPan, also sold as the Fuji TX-1/TX-2 in Japan, were branded as Hasselblad or Fujinon lenses. It was so often repeated that the XPan/TX lenses were made by Fuji, that it became accepted as a fact. We later learned, during the introduction of the Hasselblad X1D and the first XCD lenses, that the Hasselblad XPan and Fuji TX lenses were actually manufactured by Nittoh for both companies. Why manufacturing by Nittoh instead of Fujinon? I don't know, but the practice of outsourcing camera or lens manufacturing is quite common, even though a company may have their own manufacturing capability. It's also common to outsource manufacturing of major components as well.

It's now fairly well known that Cosina in Japan has manufactured cameras and lenses for a variety of well known and prestigious brands. Cosina manufactured the medium format GF670 for Fuji. Cosina also sold the same camera as the Voigtlander Bessa III outside of Japan. Fuji is not alone as Cosina has also manufactured cameras for Nikon, Canon, and Olympus among others. Cosina also manufactures several Zeiss lenses. Cross-branding in lens manufacturing is very widespread.

Anyone looking for national purity or brand purity in manufacturing should look someplace other than the camera and lens business, though I'm not sure where you would find it.

 

[TechTalk]

The way, without knowledge of the details or the reality of PE, you paint in rosy colors DJI's ownership as a contrast to everything before is exaggerated.

Private equity never decides the strategy alone. It is with the management team that a strategy is defined and implemented. They might replace managers, but usually, it is symbiotic at the beginning as it would be foolish to not sit down and discuss value levers with the people already in the company (usually via many interviews before defining a mid-term and long-term strategy). If anything, the managers made mistakes and that specific PE wasn't able to turn things around with the amount of capital available for that investment.

...It shows a complete lack of understanding of how investing works and is again some armchair wannabe authority babble.

In the case of the Sony rebadging, the CEO destined for the task was Dr. Larry Hansen; who had been the CEO of Carl Zeiss Asia Pacific for several years prior to joining Hasselblad as CEO. At Carl Zeiss, he oversaw the licensing and use of Zeiss trademarks or manufacturing for Zeiss by Cosina (Zeiss lenses), Kyocera (Contax cameras and lenses), and of course Sony and others.

For the marketing of Hasselblad rebranded Sony products; he was the ideal candidate to lead that plan with his experience as CEO for Carl Zeiss Asia Pacific. We know how that plan turned out... not well at all.

By the way... Dr. Larry Hansen was appointed CEO at Hasselblad in 2009 by Shriro Group, the Hong Kong based distributor for Hasselblad and other photographic brands in Asia for decades. It was Shriro Group who rescued the company after a Swiss private equity firm had mismanaged Hasselblad to the verge of bankruptcy. Shriro, however, did not give approval for the rebranding scheme under their corporate stewardship. That was the great plan which Ventizz bought into as a great moneymaking concept with Hansen leading the charge — triple revenue with rebranded product and cash out for a big payday. The decisions made by corporate boards with responsibility for supervising independent operating subsidiaries of holding companies, such as Hasselblad or Leica, are crucial to setting the right direction and financing that direction.

 

[TechTalk]

In the case of Hasselblad for example - for my taste - the design was just plain bad and the execution was sloppy. They could have done way more to justify the up-sell than to commission an extravagant Italian design firm.

That's true. The rebadged Sony cameras were not designed at Hasselblad in Sweden. A new design center in Italy was opened to design those cameras. It was led by Luca Alessandrini, who was named as the New Business Development Director. He wasn't exactly the Jony Ive of new camera designs from which they planned to reap big rewards.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

It marks a big shift that they killed off the H. And with regards to the 50 megapixel back – believe it or not, but it is NOT selling like hot pancakes. Maybe Steve can chime in whether he really is inundated by demand on this one.

It's really not fair to pick on unit sales at this stage of a 50 megapixel digital back almost 2 years after launch. When the 907x launched we did extremely well, sold many 907x kits. Successful product. Many expect a 907x II 100c later this year, so it's natural that 50mp 907x sales have flattened. If they do come out with a 907x II 100c, I expect great success.

For that matter, our Fuji GFX 100s unit sales out number our GFX 50s MK II unit sales by a factor of at least 6-7-8 to 1.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[TechTalk]

And with regards to DJI - they shut down H, Flextight...

It marks a big shift that they killed off the H.

If you think it would be a good business plan to manufacture a medium format DSLR camera system today, the field is wide open and available for the taking with little competition. The consumer demand, on the other hand, is nearly nonexistent. The same is true of high-end desktop film scanners.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

It's really not fair to pick on unit sales at this stage of a 50 megapixel digital back almost 2 years after launch. When the 907x launched we did extremely well, sold many 907x kits. Successful product. Many expect a 907x II 100c later this year, so it's natural that 50mp 907x sales have flattened. If they do come out with a 907x II 100c, I expect great success.

For that matter, our Fuji GFX 100s unit sales out number our GFX 50s MK II unit sales by a factor of at least 6-7-8 to 1.


Steve Hendrix/CI

That's clear - I was more responding to the point that I apparently mention unsubstituted sales ranges. The 500 figure was mentioned to me by an industry insider and I believe it. It is shockingly low and would explain hesitation on the 100-megapixel given the difficult environment. But who knows, maybe it is soon released. I wanted to respond to the allegation that I throw stuff in the room which is not the case.

Hasselblad's backs also have some disadvantages compared to the P1 backs – namely no x shutter alternative for tech cam use ... which is not ideal when copal shutters are out of stock everywhere.

I also wonder how bad the situation at P1 is. They apparently had an XT XL and TC-like compact XT ready to go, but they have not seen the light of the day ... This means back sales must be very low ... as I still think P1 would rationally release a new product if they'd think the market is there ... the market changed within a blink of an eye it feels like after the pandemic.

And why not release an IQ4+ with upgraded SoC and offer factory upgrades to existing users for 10k a pop – better battery, WifI, additional I/O, more on board chops ... could be nice? Just a sign of life from P1 for the photography world, pls.? There is a historic precedent for this with the P45+?

 

[TechTalk]

...and even an Alpa, which basically provides a good metallic frame for Rodenstock glass and digibacks, is quite successful...

Alpa is another fine company who outsources their product manufacturing. For their cameras, manufacturing is done by Seitz. Seitz cites Alpa as their "most important single customer". It appears to be a fruitful partnership.

If you scroll thru the Seitz history timeline, beginning in 1996 you can see the first Alpa prototype. There are a number of other Alpa models featured as you scroll further. Seitz and Alpa have a great collaboration in producing products.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Alpa is another fine company who outsources their product manufacturing. For their cameras, manufacturing is done by Seitz. Seitz cites Alpa as their "most important single customer". It appears to be a fruitful partnership.

If you scroll thru the Seitz history timeline, beginning in 1996 you can see the first Alpa prototype. There are a number of other Alpa models featured as you scroll further. Seitz and Alpa have a great collaboration in producing products.

This is what I meant – Alpa is a broker with a luxury pricing strategy - they outsource all design and manufacturing and manage marketing / sales and customer care. The point was that Hasselblad's management failed in the execution of a viable strategy, something which is not forcibly the fault of private equity who decides on the broad aspects of a strategy, meaning there's still ample room for management to mismanage the capital it received.

It starts with greenlighting an extravagant design departure, for example.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

That's clear - I was more responding to the point that I apparently mention unsubstituted sales ranges. The 500 figure was mentioned to me by an industry insider and I believe it. It is shockingly low and would explain hesitation on the 100-megapixel given the difficult environment. But who knows, maybe it is soon released. I wanted to respond to the allegation that I throw stuff in the room which is not the case.

Ok, but you did clearly say the below, so I responded directly to that statement, which was sort of stating the obvious:

"And with regards to the 50 megapixel back – believe it or not, but it is NOT selling like hot pancakes. Maybe Steve can chime in whether he really is inundated by demand on this one."

500 total units does sound a bit low, based on what I know from our own sales and what I would project from that worldwide. Nonetheless, in the heyday, 2000 units was a good annual number for a digital back manufacturer, of course that was at a much higher price point. I would think that Hasselblad/DJI went in with their eyes pretty wide open with the 907x in terms of what sort of numbers they expected. After all, they'd already offered the 50mp CFV v1.0 and I'm sure the numbers could not have been much more than that, if that even, for that model. If they didn't quite hit what they were expecting, I can't imagine they were too far off.

While the digital back market exists, it is not that large, as for this product it is mostly comprised of legacy Hasselblad V system users and tech or view camera users. While there are a lot of Hasselblad V system users who still own their equipment, the number of them who would plunk down $6k - $9k for a digital back is not really that many. And I have to feel that Hasselblad/DJI knows this.

From that standpoint, I'll portray the 907x project as a success - especially if it is - so far - a profitable venture.

And so the question becomes what does the 907x project represent to them? Is it profitable? Maybe. Does it help extend a branch to their large legacy user base - yes. At some point, does the idea of a digital back become not viable and they find a way to path at least some of those users over to the X2D./X3D, etc. Maybe? Who can say.




Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[TechTalk]

...It starts with greenlighting an extravagant design departure, for example.

Doug Peterson, yourself, and anyone else can keep on beating that rebadged horse, but it died 9 years ago in May of 2014. But, as long as you can keep swinging, the target is not moving... or breathing.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Thanks, Steve – I hope for the sake of the market that they come out with a 100-megapixel back. Really do.

 

[TechTalk]

...I would think that Hasselblad/DJI went in with their eyes pretty wide open with the 907x in terms of what sort of numbers they expected...

...While the digital back market exists, it is not that large, as for this product it is mostly comprised of legacy Hasselblad V system users and tech or view camera users. While there are a lot of Hasselblad V system users who still own their equipment, the number of them who would plunk down $6k - $9k for a digital back is not really that many. And I have to feel that Hasselblad/DJI knows this.

From that standpoint, I'll portray the 907x project as a success - especially if it is - so far - a profitable venture.

And so the question becomes what does the 907x project represent to them? Is it profitable? Maybe. Does it help extend a branch to their large legacy user base - yes. At some point, does the idea of a digital back become not viable and they find a way to path at least some of those users over to the X2D./X3D, etc. Maybe? Who can say.

Steve Hendrix/CI

I pay attention to what you have to say Steve. You're an actual industry insider, who is always worth listening to due to your balanced viewpoint as much as your experience.

I think Hasselblad did approach the 907X 50C with their eyes wide open. I think their knowledge and awareness of the market is why they didn't just bring out another updated digital back alone, but combined the 907X camera with it as the unique bridge to other options offering broader reach and appeal. The combination enhances both the uniqueness and versatility considerably. It's a case of the sum being greater than the parts for the ways in which it can be configured.

Based on the images I've seen posted here, as well as users elsewhere, It looks like there are a number of photographers using the 907X + CFV II 50C with native XCD lenses or adapted lenses, in addition to those using it as a conventional digital back. But that's just based on my observation. You know your customers better than anyone else.

 

[richardman]

BTW, none of the five photographers who use the CFV II 50C that I spoke of use it with a tech cam. We either use it with the 907x or with the V camera. FWIW.

 

[Steve Hendrix]

Based on the images I've seen posted here, as well as users elsewhere, It looks like there are a number of photographers using the 907X + CFV II 50C with native XCD lenses or adapted lenses, in addition to those using it as a conventional digital back. But that's just based on my observation. You know your customers better than anyone else.

Quite a few of my clients really wanted to buy only the CFV 50c II, not the whole 907x/50c II kit and were initially frustrated at having to spend the extra $$ on the X component. But I don't really think they would have saved much if the components were split, and I think it was a good idea for Hasselblad to offer it only as a kit. Most seem to have come to terms with it.

Let's be honest. A lot of Hasselblad V users are .... older... (and wiser!). And eyesight seems to have a certain optimal lifespan. I mean, this is the feedback that I have gotten for years. So a system that allows the use of auto focus lenses is not a bad thing! And I think the 907x system does a nice job of bridging Hasselblad V users to potentially X body users down the line.


Steve Hendrix/CI

 

[hcubell]

By the way... Dr. Larry Hansen was appointed CEO at Hasselblad in 2009 by Shriro Group, the Hong Kong based distributor for Hasselblad and other photographic brands in Asia for decades. It was Shriro Group who rescued the company after a Swiss private equity firm had mismanaged Hasselblad to the verge of bankruptcy. Shriro, however, did not give approval for the rebranding scheme under their corporate stewardship. That was the great plan which Ventizz bought into as a great moneymaking concept with Hansen leading the charge — triple revenue with rebranded product and cash out for a big payday. The decisions made by corporate boards with responsibility for supervising independent operating subsidiaries of holding companies, such as Hasselblad or Leica, are crucial to setting the right direction and financing that direction.

Very, very interesting. It was not DJI that drove Hasselblad to the verge of bankruptcy; DJI actually provided the critical capital and fostered the brilliant strategic direction that rescued Hasselblad from the verge of bankruptcy. The owner that actually drove Hasselblad to the brink of bankruptcy was actually Ventizz. So, it was not Shenzen, it was....DUSSELDORF!!! That must explain these constant, poorly disguised, racist references to Shenzen as if it were Nazi Berlin, which is the way many Americans after World War II viewed anything made in Germany and refused to buy it. It's not DJI that owns Hasselblad and is plundering its IP; it's "Shenzen."

 

[richardman]

Very, very interesting. It was not DJI that drove Hasselblad to the verge of bankruptcy; DJI actually provided the critical capital and fostered the brilliant strategic direction that rescued Hasselblad from the verge of bankruptcy. The owner that actually drove Hasselblad to the brink of bankruptcy was actually Ventizz. So, it was not Shenzen, it was....DUSSELDORF!!! That must explain these constant, poorly disguised, racist references to Shenzen as if it were Nazi Berlin, which is the way many Americans after World War II viewed anything made in Germany and refused to buy it. It's not DJI that owns Hasselblad and is plundering its IP; it's "Shenzen."

I'm really glad that you said it, and not me As a Hong Kong Chinese American, I wish the worst for the CCP ;-P but some of these "DJI ruins Hasselblad" does has a tone of what you said above.

 

[MGrayson]

Oh, the threads we’d be locking,
And the angry comments blocking,
If we only had a Mod….

 

[Paul Spinnler]

Oh, the threads we’d be locking,
And the angry comments blocking,
If we only had a Mod….

Agree, for the sake of peace I have deleted my response to Howard. I do not appreciate insinuations of racism, but it doesn’t make sense to argue with someone with a limited understanding.

Howard - DJI is called Shenzen DJI in its shortened form and DJI in short form. Look it up. I want to call out realities and add a more realistic perspective to the narrative of DJI being this fantastic white knight. They got immensely valuable IP out of this deal and do not forget that DJI is state funded in parts and a key technology partner for military and civilian surveillance drones.

 

[TechTalk]

Typical manufacturing of digital/electronic products consists of testing and assembly of components which may be manufactured in multiple places around the globe by multiple manufacturers. Individual electronic components can be sourced from manufacturers globally and assembled onto a printed circuit board (PCB) by companies who produce finished PCB assemblies in many places. Manufacturing occurs when the various electronic and mechanical components are brought together, like the preassembled components on a PCB or flex circuits, and are assembled together inside a product housing to make a finished product to be sold. This is how electronic products, like modern digital mirrorless cameras, are manufactured every day. Much of the assembly is done by hand due to the finesse sometimes required in assembling specific components together in tight spaces.

This is what Hasselblad does. Components arrive and are checked and tested and assembled together into a camera with a sensor which has undergone an extensive calibration process. I don't know or care who makes the LCD panel, or where the EVF is made, or which processors or SSD are being used in the final assembly where it's all tucked away inside and out of sight. This overall manufacturing process is not unusual.

When a fairly conventional manufacturing process like this is described as:

DJI is now selling a pro-sumer camera out of Shenzen with some in-between step in Sweden (final assembly, calibration, etc.) for the optics.

DJI will in the end have their X system and that's it, mainly produced in China with some final assembly or QC step in Sweden for "optics" vis a vis the consumer.

Hassy HQ in Sweden probably also slowly disintegrating ...

Hasselblad is a marketing front for a Chinese prosumer camera brand at this stage and DJI has done what was to be expected from the getgo: move production to China...

Don't be too surprised if there are people who think it represents a rather narrow and rigid perspective from their point of view and take exception to the method and manner in which it's being described.