We all live and learn..especially hedge fund managers like me. so another day in market purgatory allows me the time to respond..:ROTFL:
Okay, I will be a sitting duck for the following summary of "What Hasselblad Has Done Wrong (TM)", tongue-in-cheek:
- Designed a mickey-plastic-mouse looking body. We do have a sense of aesthetics around here, and two-tone is so out-of-fashion. Worse: they could fix it with each new generation, but don't! Grey, black, dark blue, just not beige, like a cheap PC, or the ceiling in the bedroom.
I agree a nice black body version would be even nicer
- Closed their system after two open generations. This is far, far, FAR worse than just designing a closed system in the first place, and got people really angry. Some are still angry about that one. Some still have H1s and H2s with no intention of upgrading. And they get angrier by the day, as Hasselblad releases lenses they cannot take full advantage of, unless they ditch their Phase One and go H3D.
Well I was an original purchaser of the H1 body so I know what you mean. However, technology has moved on over the last 10 or so years wouldnt you agree? and 10 years later
- Related: bought a not-the-best digital back company for the purpose of going closed. They are in the same ballpark as the others, surely, but as soon as you *take away* the possibility of a slight improvement, people are unhappy. I think there would have been a lot less bitching if they had merged with Phase One. How do you do hour-long exposures with an H3? Answer: you don't.
I have never used an Imacon back - my original back was a Leaf75 ( and I wont go into the lies and broken promises that company spread through its dealer network regarding its upgrade path ) At any rate teh H3d11-39 back I use today - compared to teh P45+ I also use...well lets just say .twh blad is in NO WAY INFERIOR to the P45+ back - for my purposes
Regarding people and their emotions - people are entitled to their emotions and companies are entitled to compete using whatever business model works for them - ultimately survival is the benchmark.
Regading Hour long exposures - I dont do hour long exposures so I dont really care - and if I ever want to I guess I would use the Phase back.
- Designed lenses which require software corrections for ultimate performance, and market it as better. (Leica are my hairy-chest, all optical, ultimate performance, perfect solution heroes, and I would plan for an S2 if I could change its back and use a waist-level viewfinder, for which I have a weakness). Some of these lenses don't even have the image circle for real 645, so the coming sensors will have people swapping lenses like underwear, but at a much higher loss.
If you ever get the chance to actually USE a 28 then you might change your mind. My benchmark optics are Schneider digitars - not puny 35mm lenses. Against the Schneider 35XL the 28 performas quite well - with al teh advantages of autofocus and lens corrections.
The S2 is an interesting SLR camera - as you sayno WLF ( teh reason I have bought a 205TCC and am about to buy a CFV11 back to go with it. Interesting that Leica will be bringing out boht leaf and focal plane lenses for use on teh one body - I look forward to seeing the system - but I wnt make the mistake ( thsi time ) of being a beta tester for it. using my own money. If/When I do buy the S2 - I knwo it wont be Hasselblad that goes.
I am sure yoru comment re "real 645" is a joke suffice to say that @ 39 megapixels I ahve more than enough resolution to crop a shot in any aspect I like .
- Switch from a traditional German lens company (Zeiss) to a less-well-known, and less-well-respected Japanese lens company (Fuji, which is less well known as lens maker, but not in general). I am not saying that the lenses are worse, but you don't muck with people's religion. Okay, perhaps Zeiss turned them down but it is still Hasselblad's fault. Somehow.
I have a CF adaptor that allows full AE shooting for all C/CF/CFE and CFi lenses so I guess apart from one or two Zeiss FE type lenses I like I get to use all the Zeiss formulations I choose to. However - as I said before if I dont need autofocus etc - I prefer these lenses on a 200 or 500 series body
btw Fuji make outstanding lenses - their XPan lenses convinced me of that - talk to photographers who still swear by the large Fuji studio cameras and you will discover that some of these lenses are cherished
- Drop prices massively with no warning. Anyone who has bought a Hasselblad H3D-39 or 33 recently must feel just shafted, but rudely.
I bought my H3D11-39 2 months before the massive price drops - so I felt the pain. The camera system is no worse today though in working terms than it was when I bought it
- And the latest: add optics to a bellows! Why not just release a new lens with sufficient image circle to achieve the same as the 28mm, or even better, release the bellows with a mount to use existing LF lenses, like the Rodenstock or Schneider. Oh, I know, maximize profits. While it is a very clever design, every extra optical element reduces performance, especially when the original optics were not designed with it in mind, which I presume is the case for at least some of the supported lenses. It is like a tele-converter, but in reverse. It may be really good, but it is still worse.
I am sure a full blown view camera system would do a better job - however the price and lack of portability should also be factored in.
The proof of quality is in the images that are made - not chat room BS ( I am sure you well understand this) I look forward to the HTS - and hope it serves my purposes well - time will tell.
So, there you have it: innocent as a lamb. I understand Hasselblad's decision, but they are rather selfish, and I understand the dissatisfied users too.