I was referring to high end equipment. Is that not pretty obvious what it means? (Yes, I know that any piece of photographic equipment can be used for professional purposes – and often is – but you know what kind of equipment I am referring to.)
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 discontinues the H?
- Thread starter jduncan
- Start date
richardman
Well-known member
My comment re: "some people think Hassy lost its way because it's DJI now" is perfectly validated by the comments posted hence ;-)
Anyway, it's the same outcries when Contax made the great Zeiss cameras, or Leica DARED to move some camera production to a different European country, or gasp, to Canada!! Remember the bruhaha when Cosina bought the Voigtlander brand? A great German name soiled by a foreign owner...
Anyone is free to have such nationalistic based pride. Companies come and go. I actually do have a Flextight, besides my SWC/M, 203FE, CFV II 50C back (and the oft-forgotten 907x camera). Love them, and I wish all camera companies best of luck in the marketplace.
Anyway, it's the same outcries when Contax made the great Zeiss cameras, or Leica DARED to move some camera production to a different European country, or gasp, to Canada!! Remember the bruhaha when Cosina bought the Voigtlander brand? A great German name soiled by a foreign owner...
Anyone is free to have such nationalistic based pride. Companies come and go. I actually do have a Flextight, besides my SWC/M, 203FE, CFV II 50C back (and the oft-forgotten 907x camera). Love them, and I wish all camera companies best of luck in the marketplace.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Well, yes, Of course, I do have a sense of what high end means. It's not about what I would mean by it, it is about what you meant by it.
You made this comment with regard to the H system and the X system:
"Hasselblad no longer sells a system wide solution for traditional professional photographers working in a studio or on location with high end kit."
I'd be interested to know what you meant by that.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Prestige? Country of origin? Exclusivity?
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Well I have no idea what was meant. What piqued my interest was the demarcation that was made where Hassleblad H was high end, but Hassleblad X was not.
Steve Hendrix/CI
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I think one aspect of it all is that as technology marched on the crop mfd camera systems became more compact and as a result one aspect of the old days, namely that the pros use more expensive and bigger, more "impressive" cameras, has sort of been equalized.
Simply speaking ten years ago you'd walk into a pro photographer's studio and he'd have these huge Profoto flash systems, a Hassy with a large body and humongous lenses tethered to some roll wagon and now you essentially have super small battery-powered flash systems, and mirrorless crop MFD systems which have the same or better IQ as the clunky H counterpart. And to top it all off, it is priced at 10k instead of 40k.
So now you have the situation that well-off "amateurs" looking for a more high-end digital camera might just buy the same camera to snap pictures of their dogs, kids and backyards which the pro in his fancy loft photo studio uses. The "wow" differentiator of high end MFD has been lost if anyone can buy the same equipment the pro uses for just a few thousand bucks as in the case of for example a Fuji camera.
The lines have been blurred as the main differentiator now is not the expensive camera, but more your ability to get your camera in front of interesting subjects.
It is a world where prosumers are can be "pros" in terms of gear and pros use "prosumer cameras" to shoot "pro" things.
Essentially today anyone can order an X quickly online whereas in the old days it was a real event to trial a MFD camera meaning you'd go to a pro dealer and got shown the fancy 40k back with 20k camera and lenses on top in a personal demo. Ordering an X system is almost like ordering a Leica - don't need to get a personal demo in a "pro store" ... it is just a more expensive camera than average. You pull your credit card and a few days later your shiny X is on your doorstep ready to shoot your backyard or next holiday trip.
I think this is a monumental shift for a camera manufacturer which for a long time was positioned at a totally different price level, unattainable for most "prosumers".
Simply speaking ten years ago you'd walk into a pro photographer's studio and he'd have these huge Profoto flash systems, a Hassy with a large body and humongous lenses tethered to some roll wagon and now you essentially have super small battery-powered flash systems, and mirrorless crop MFD systems which have the same or better IQ as the clunky H counterpart. And to top it all off, it is priced at 10k instead of 40k.
So now you have the situation that well-off "amateurs" looking for a more high-end digital camera might just buy the same camera to snap pictures of their dogs, kids and backyards which the pro in his fancy loft photo studio uses. The "wow" differentiator of high end MFD has been lost if anyone can buy the same equipment the pro uses for just a few thousand bucks as in the case of for example a Fuji camera.
The lines have been blurred as the main differentiator now is not the expensive camera, but more your ability to get your camera in front of interesting subjects.
It is a world where prosumers are can be "pros" in terms of gear and pros use "prosumer cameras" to shoot "pro" things.
Essentially today anyone can order an X quickly online whereas in the old days it was a real event to trial a MFD camera meaning you'd go to a pro dealer and got shown the fancy 40k back with 20k camera and lenses on top in a personal demo. Ordering an X system is almost like ordering a Leica - don't need to get a personal demo in a "pro store" ... it is just a more expensive camera than average. You pull your credit card and a few days later your shiny X is on your doorstep ready to shoot your backyard or next holiday trip.
I think this is a monumental shift for a camera manufacturer which for a long time was positioned at a totally different price level, unattainable for most "prosumers".
Last edited:
These days most items having electronic componenets rely on national and mostly international suppliers. Even Leica does not have ability to produce some essential parts to complete their products.
I dont care how a product is made as long as it fulfills consumer expectations.
Just curious to know, DJI shook hands with Hasselblad, ABC and XYZ could have done !
Actually I didn't say the H system was high end and the X system wasn't but I can see why you might have inferred that. I said that Hasselblad no longer provides a complete system for the professional photographer using what I referred to as high end kit. By that, I simply meant the old school photographers working out of a studio and/or on location with assistant(s) and a whole bunch of lighting, etc and for whom the cost of gear isn't a primary concern (either because they will be renting some or all of it and/or be busy enough with a decent enough day rate to easily amortise the cost).
If you want me to demarcate between the H and X systems I would suggest that the difference is between one system designed for maximum functionality and another system with inherent compromises designed to satisfy narrower photographic demands. The X system is terrific but has quite obvious compromises as a system – cropped sensor, no multi-shot capability, no extension tubes, no cable release (X2D), narrower range of lenses (longest focal length 135mm + extender), etc. Yes, I know that various adapters exist to utilise H and V lenses and some H system accessories (none of which is now sold new by Hasselblad) but that really just makes my point .
TechTalk
Well-known member
Assertions citing no source and offering zero evidence is known as gossip and should be given consideration and weight equal to the proof provided... none.
There is no 100 megapixel version of the X-system back currently. Is one in development? I don't know, but it would seem logical based on recent history with the X1D II and 907X 50C. I guess we'll just have to wait and see what develops.
Clearly, the 907X 50C is a different design concept. It's ability to natively function as an X-system camera with the 907X and XCD lenses; bridge the H-system with two different lens adapters offering the versatility of two different focal lengths and maximum apertures from each H lens; as well as provide a seamless cable-free digital back for V-system cameras is quite unique. One product which bridges and links to three different systems, from three different eras, in three different ways — that is its unique value and selling proposition.
Last edited:
TechTalk
Well-known member
...from yet another European private equity firm which had run the company into the ground with poor decision making and even worse short-term strategy and direction, leaving it damaged and close to bankruptcy; and by providing the neccessary capital to launch and buildout a new system in the one viable camera category left with sufficient activity, returned the company to a sound and profitable financial position with a product line that can be grown and sustained.
Last edited:
Disclaimer: For 30 years I was an Associate Creative Director/Art Director for a number of well-known international advertising agencies. I dealt with A-level commercial photographers on a regular basis. These are generalizations, I'm sure there were exceptions.
During the pre-digital era, all table top was either 4x5 or 8x10, usually Sinar cameras and Broncolor or Speedotron strobes. Profoto hadn't made much if any inroads at that time. Medium format was Hasselblad or Mamiya. 35mm was pretty much not even in the picture (except for action situations). Studios were expansive, with coves, client lounges and professional kitchens. Most of which was to impress the agency and clients that they were getting the best for the top dollar they were spending. Digital started making an appearance with the Canon 5D, Nikon wasn't much of a player at that time for digital. Medium format digital was non-existent. I think the first time I had a photographer use one was in 2007, a Hasselblad h5D I think. Canon ruled the digital roost.
From speaking with some of the commercial photographers I knew at the time, today's clients (and agency art directors) don't have a clue and could care less what equipment is being used.
Steve Hendrix
Well-known member
Yes, and for nearly 30 years (we're both aging ourselves) I have worked with top photographers as a solution provider, in fact at one time worked for SinarBron USA (and Imacon, and Phase One). Digital solutions were not mainstream, but many of the large catalog houses began moving there in the mid 1990's as they recognized the ROI and time3 to market advantage. Back then, you could make an argument against the cost of film, today that argument is null and void. Certainly the equipment being used today is typically not a factor with regard to hiring preference, though that is due in large part to the advancement in quality of 35mm systems. Medium or large format traditionally yes, had a recognition as a superior and often necessary quality quotient. But today's 35mm systems easily exceed that.
Once in a while, though, I do get a comment from a client, in fact just last week, about the equipment they used (and importantly, owned vs rented) being a tangible part of the deciding factor for their winning bids. It's rare, but it does happen. Typically I say that is so far from the reason to own and use a medium format system that it hardly merits consideration. 2007 would likely have been Hasselblad H3D (back in the Poulsen days).
Steve Hendrix/CI
richardman
Well-known member
BTW, including myself, I know five people personally, and independently, bought the 907x / CFV II 50C. Three of us really only use the CFV back, and two others use the 907x, It's a brilliant concept.
Yes there are only two choises, Phase or CFV, CFV or Phase. I already have M645 Phase, but need CFV.
Paul Spinnler
Well-known member
I think this may the core aspect - for today's generation medium format digital is not the aspirational tool anymore. It is only a specific generation of photographers - mid 2000s until late 2010s - which may be infatuated with tech cams and tech cam lenses ... I get that it may be just fine for someone entering the photography world to save up for a Z9, for example. Its lenses are super sharp, it does RAW video and is just an incredible photo machine.
TechTalk
Well-known member
You're absolutely correct about Hasselblad history. Hasselblad has always been a small company. They have always relied on collaboration with other companies to create a complete and functional camera system, some in Sweden and some in other countries. From the very beginning, Hasselblad has combined their own capabilities with designers, engineers, and manufacturers outside the company; without which the V, XPan, H, and X systems could not have existed.
The V system's iconic design, which defined the character of every camera for decades and still influences current design, came from industrial designer Sixten Sason commissioned to design the 1600F. Sixten Sason designed a variety of other consumer products, but is best known for his work with Saab. The H1 relied on collaboration with electronics engineers at Fujitsu for processors and Teleca Systems AB for firmware, software, and interface design. Hasselblad designers and engineers collaborate internally and externally to create and bring into production a system of cameras, lenses, and accessories over which Hasselblad exercises selection and control wherever they are produced.
Optical components have always come from various outside companies. Lenses have been sourced from Kodak, Zeiss, Schneider, Rodenstock, Fuji, and Nittoh. Prism finders have come from companies like Hensoldt in Wetzlar or Fuji in Japan. Lenses for the H and X systems are assembled with shutters designed and manufactured by Hasselblad. For many years, the V bellows was made by Novoflex. Other accessory items have been sourced from a variety of manufacturers. Cameras have always been produced in Sweden with component parts from a variety of suppliers — as they are today.
Each succeeding generation of cameras have been increasingly driven and controlled by electronics. So, it should come as no surprise that an X-system camera is driven by preassembled circuit boards which combine an assortment of electronic components, like other cameras of its type. Circuit boards and other components like electronic viewfinders are shipped to Sweden for testing and assembly with sensors which undergo an unusually extensive calibration process. The cameras are manufactured in the same headquarters and factory building they have occupied for 20 years. The processes change as the camera types change, but the final results are Hasselblad's.
TechTalk
Well-known member
You're right. I've seen this movie before... several times. The effort by a small group of people in online forums to diminish or erase Hasselblad's role in the design and manufacturing of their own cameras predates the X-system and DJI by several years. It began 20 years ago when the new H-system was announced with the launch of the H1. The camera was a radical departure from the V-series which already enjoyed a legendary status at the time. It featured a rectangular 645 format, lots of electronics, autofocus, and [shockingly for some] a Japanese lens line from Fujinon instead of German made Zeiss lenses.
Starting with that change of product direction including a new major partnership with an optical supplier in Japan [Fujinon], and for the past twenty years since, I've seen numerous forum posts; and blog articles; and YouTube videos wrongly assert that Hasselblad didn't really exist anymore, that it was [sigh] now nothing but a label being stuck onto a camera system designed and built by Fuji [or DJI]. That story was and is baloney of course, but it's amazing how persistent internet myths can become and how easily they spread.
The motivation for these efforts, to sweep Hasselblad aside or diminish with dismissive language the involvement and activities of the people who work for and at Hasselblad every day to create and make new products, is not for me to judge. But those efforts have been plainly observed in the wild [internet] for decades now. The change of product direction to the X-system and the involvement of DJI simply turned up their flame and the accompanying heat for whatever reason.
dougpeterson
Workshop Member
Right on brother.
Hasselblad would never stick a label on someone else's camera and call it their own.
Hasselblad Stellar: Thrice the Price and Exactly as Nice as the Sony RX100
The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 is a seriously hot camera, but its understated black-box body won’t win a pizzazz contest. The Hasselblad Stellar is the same camera as the Sony RX100, gussied up with fancy accoutrements such as a zebra-wood grip, a matte gold-colored body, handsome black packaging...
Don't forget the XPan/TX2Right on brother.
Hasselblad would never stick a label on someone else's camera and call it their own.
Hasselblad Stellar: Thrice the Price and Exactly as Nice as the Sony RX100
The Sony Cyber-shot RX100 is a seriously hot camera, but its understated black-box body won’t win a pizzazz contest. The Hasselblad Stellar is the same camera as the Sony RX100, gussied up with fancy accoutrements such as a zebra-wood grip, a matte gold-colored body, handsome black packaging...www.wired.com
TechTalk
Well-known member
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.