Hasselblad vs Phase One

[goesbang]

Absolutely. Isn't it ironic how Hasselblad's decision to "close" the H3D did not lead to photographers having fewer choices, as the pundits lamented back in 2006, but instead is inexorably leading to photographers having more choices. Unclear on the timing and we don't know exactly what Phase's new camera will look like, but it appears that we are heading toward a future with two, modern and really first class MF digital camera systems. Had Hasselblad not closed the H3D, it is entirely possible that the only remaining manufacturer of backs would be Phase, and Hasselblad would be the only one still making MF cameras, probably as a subsidiary of Phase.

You miss the point. Hasselblad reduced the choices for its OWN customers. I actually agree that the H4d is for many a better camera than the Phase 645DF (this hopefully will change with the arrival of the new Phase body). This meant that H3 and H4 buyers can ONLY mount Blad backs on their beloved cameras. This was all ok when they had product that was competitive with the standards being set by other manufacturers. Alas this has not been the case and with the launch of the Aptus 12 from Leaf and the IQ series from Phase the gap just opened up further. In practice, the back is the most important part of an MF system, so having choice here is more important. Who knows who is going to be the next champion back? If it isn't Blad, then H3 and H4 owners will not have the option to mount that back on their cameras either.
As a business owner, buying into a platform that locks me into using only backs of that brand does not make any sense at all. Faced with this, I chose the Phase 645DF over the Blad, despite my concerns about it's limitations. Fortunately for me, one of those limitations was the lens range, which Phase has improved massively since I retired my Blad for the Phase DF. The Schneider LS lenses, the D-series and the announced and soon to me released new lenses now give us all abundant choice and superb quality.
I can only speculate that Blads agreement with Fuji, who manufacture the H series cameras and lenses, is not commercially viable on price. Thus they do not make enough money from the sale of a camera system to a customer who is going to buy a back from someone else. Viola! the "closed" system is born.
For me, the solution was simple - buy the best back, then choose the camera that I can live with. Sadly, Blad could not be part of that consideration.
At the time, the P65+ was the king of the hill, so that's what I bought. I've since added the Aptus 12. Now that the IQ180 is out, I will sell my P65+ and order an IQ. Sadly, the H3/H4 cannot mount any of these backs. A shame, really, that the people who pay the highest price in reduced choice are Blads own customers.

Cheers,

 

[tetsrfun]

I can only speculate that Blads agreement with Fuji, who manufacture the H series cameras...
*********
IIRC, unless there has been a recent change, the H bodies are made in Sweden, the backs in Denmark and the lenses (except for the shutters) are made in Japan. The view finders are also made in Japan.

David Grover will likely provide a correction if this is in error.

Steve

 

[Steve Hendrix]

I can only speculate that Blads agreement with Fuji, who manufacture the H series cameras...
*********
IIRC, unless there has been a recent change, the H bodies are made in Sweden, the backs in Denmark and the lenses (except for the shutters) are made in Japan. The view finders are also made in Japan.

David Grover will likely provide a correction if this is in error.

Steve

Indeed. It has been stated quite clearly so many times that I think David Grover is going to quietly go insane. Fuji certainly has a role (and I can't recall all the specific breakdowns) but the product is overwhelmingly a Hasselblad product, developmentally and technically.

I think that has been stated enough times for everyone to understand. If one knows enough about the H camera that Fuji had some involvement, one should know enough about the extent of the involvement.


Steve Hendrix

 

[goesbang]

Indeed. It has been stated quite clearly so many times that I think David Grover is going to quietly go insane. Fuji certainly has a role (and I can't recall all the specific breakdowns) but the product is overwhelmingly a Hasselblad product, developmentally and technically.

I think that has been stated enough times for everyone to understand. If one knows enough about the H camera that Fuji had some involvement, one should know enough about the extent of the involvement.


Steve Hendrix

Ok, I'll stand corrected on this point. I do not imply that the product is inferior. On the contrary, I prefer the H to my DF. Still, it doesn't change the argument that I have put here. As a pro user, it makes very little sense to make the investment in the closed system. Typically a MF platform choice is a 10-20 year cycle. Hasselblad want photographers to buy into their system and give up the possibility that we will be able to mount someone else's back on their cameras. Who is to say whom the best backs over next 20 years will come from? Perhaps from a player who hasn't even entered the market yet. Platform choices go in 10-20 year cycles, backs serve typically 3 year cycles.
Whatever camera platform I choose, I want to be able to hang the best back of it's generation off of it.
As has already been suggested here, photography is about increasing choices, not narrowing them.

Cheers,

 

[PeterA]

The problem with the idea that a digi back is just film and film should be able to be used on any platform one chooses is exactly that..

On the one hand one wishes to embrace the digital age and on the other hand one wishes to limit the digital ages input into the camera and the lenses and the software connection throughout the whole work flow

The Hasselblad in H series mode offers a complete lens through camera to back work flow - an integrated approach - which quite frankly is light years ahead of anyone else in terms of total integration.

You see it in the lens corrections that actually work.
You see it in the focus lock system which has been recently introduced.

Hasselblad users are quieter than Phase One users. there are no elephants jumping on the digi backs - and other gimmicks. Consistently people have attacked Fuji as if Fuji is a dirty word in optics ..this is a very uneducated perspective - if no downright prejudiced

I don't know how many in this forum have used Fuji studio cameras and their lenses - sorry if you haven't they are in a class of their own..if you have used an XPan and its lenses - again - a class of its own..

However I don't think ANY camera and lens manufacturer could SURVIVE just being a camera and lens manufacturer - so the merger of back to camera and lenses was a symbiotic and forced industry phase ( sic)

Hasselblad is clearly experiencing serious issues regarding development timetable and delivery - Phase One is developing an R&D leadership in backs - and if the new camera ( talk abotu vapourware) is true - potentially another move ahead - since everyone knows that that ex the S2 - all these legacy systems basically suck.

it is hilarious to read back in history all the excuses users of the AFD11 /111 made for the body and the insistence that there was no shutter lag - gimme a break ,there should be penalties for bull**** ..

Phase One has moved to a superior marketing position - especially in the US. Hasselblad has failed in the megapixel race...

but we need a healthy competition in order to have choice. Phase One can offer better deals to its customers BECAUSE it clearly has a better industry positioning - ultimately not screwing your loyal customer base is a very good plan if you wish to survive - I don't think Hasselblad understood this very well when they halved the value of their backs and delivered NO COMPENSATION to customers - or even apologies.

people have looooong and unforgiving memories - I know I do.

 

[yaya]

The problem with the idea that a digi back is just film and film should be able to be used on any platform one chooses is exactly that..

On the one hand one wishes to embrace the digital age and on the other hand one wishes to limit the digital ages input into the camera and the lenses and the software connection throughout the whole work flow

The Hasselblad in H series mode offers a complete lens through camera to back work flow - an integrated approach - which quite frankly is light years ahead of anyone else in terms of total integration.

You see it in the lens corrections that actually work.
You see it in the focus lock system which has been recently introduced.

Hasselblad users are quieter than Phase One users. there are no elephants jumping on the digi backs - and other gimmicks. Consistently people have attacked Fuji as if Fuji is a dirty word in optics ..this is a very uneducated perspective - if no downright prejudiced

I don't know how many in this forum have used Fuji studio cameras and their lenses - sorry if you haven't they are in a class of their own..if you have used an XPan and its lenses - again - a class of its own..

However I don't think ANY camera and lens manufacturer could SURVIVE just being a camera and lens manufacturer - so the merger of back to camera and lenses was a symbiotic and forced industry phase ( sic)

Hasselblad is clearly experiencing serious issues regarding development timetable and delivery - Phase One is developing an R&D leadership in backs - and if the new camera ( talk abotu vapourware) is true - potentially another move ahead - since everyone knows that that ex the S2 - all these legacy systems basically suck.

it is hilarious to read back in history all the excuses users of the AFD11 /111 made for the body and the insistence that there was no shutter lag - gimme a break ,there should be penalties for bull**** ..

Phase One has moved to a superior marketing position - especially in the US. Hasselblad has failed in the megapixel race...

but we need a healthy competition in order to have choice. Phase One can offer better deals to its customers BECAUSE it clearly has a better industry positioning - ultimately not screwing your loyal customer base is a very good plan if you wish to survive - I don't think Hasselblad understood this very well when they halved the value of their backs and delivered NO COMPENSATION to customers - or even apologies.

people have looooong and unforgiving memories - I know I do.

While integration is good and is preferred by many, there are big chunks of the market in different areas and segments that require the digital back to work seamlessly with technical or industrial cameras.
On this forum I think there are quite a few people who use their back on tech cameras especially for landscape work.
So if your product supports this sort of work and offers interesting features such as Live View, rotating sensors or even just a simple power solution, it will most likely be the choice for more people over an integrated one.

Just my 2¢

Yair

 

[PeterA]

I agree Yair -

you mean like this type of thing ?

The back as film on a tech camera has ALWAYS been the outstanding 'drawcard' and real (for me) reason to use a MFD digital ( film) back ...on this forum it is a relatively new phenomenon - in other places ...perhaps not so new.

the new Phase GUI - is a boon to tech camera users...if the LCD is as sharp as suggested - a real breakthrough - I want one and I will get one - the 80 megapixels ?- I never print larger than a few meters by a meter - so I don't need them.

Pete

 

[fotografz]

Siebel, you owned a Hasselblad and don't have a clue where or how the thing was made? Such strong opinions based on error? Really?

I think most photographers that are truly involved in expressing themselves are quite capable of determining which camera or back is best for their creative purposes. Blanket statements of superiority based on marketing speak is just personal opinion artificially extended to be some sort of universal fact ... no matter what company and/or owner body is doing the exaggerations at any given time.

That is a veiled insult to those who use any given system to express themselves well, regardless of make or model. Thus the tired old, but still true, bromide ... the camera doesn't make superior images, the photographer does.

For you, your work, and your business ... you DO have a choice and you made it. For me, what is so important to you is much less unimportant to me, my work and my business. Closed or open system means zero to me. With the H4 I don't care a wit about choosing a different back for it ... the variety of ones available are more than enough, and if not, I need only wait awhile ... and IMO the H camera more than meets my requirements. Personally, I don't feel the compulsion to "Exceed The Need", even though I can afford it. I know am not alone in this opinion.

My investment and choice of photo gear has paid off nicely, both creatively and financially. While I do like advancements, frankly I couldn't care less about protracted arguments from Hasselblad, Phase One, Leaf, Pentax, or Leica primarily designed to part me from my money, nor the generous dosage of marketing kool-aid they all have to serve up to sell product, nor the endless comparative justifications from any owner body. What's important is how they may impact my application ... therefore, True Focus is far more important to me than another 10 or 20 meg., and the Leica S2 better meets some my applications than any of the modular MFD choices.

The whole thing has become sort of asylum like, with users battling it out which is empirically better without any relationship to actual work being produced, and has become more about who has what first ... I began questioning a lot of it even before the latest round of product improvements was announced ... and have seen nothing to date to alter that perception. IMO, no one has gotten any better, but I'm fairly sure they have become poorer.

I've said this before, one minute, you have the latest greatest, the ultimate tool of expression, your baby, your path to better image quality ... which some folks proclaim loudly to the Heavens ... the next minute you have a piece of crap not worthy of your talent and vision. How insane does that sound? :ROTFL:

This forum is a microcosm with a skew toward Landscape work, and is somewhat Phase One centric. It's NOT the world at large, nor necessarily expressive of the thousands of photographers that use something else to shoot different type work, and do it quite well I might add.

-Marc

 

[Woody Campbell]

Siebel, you owned a Hasselblad and don't have a clue where or how the thing was made? Such strong opinions based on error? Really?

I think most photographers that are truly involved in expressing themselves are quite capable of determining which camera or back is best for their creative purposes. Blanket statements of superiority based on marketing speak is just personal opinion artificially extended to be some sort of universal fact ... no matter what company and/or owner body is doing the exaggerations at any given time.

That is a veiled insult to those who use any given system to express themselves well, regardless of make or model. Thus the tired old, but still true, bromide ... the camera doesn't make superior images, the photographer does.

For you, your work, and your business ... you DO have a choice and you made it. For me, what is so important to you is much less unimportant to me, my work and my business. Closed or open system means zero to me. With the H4 I don't care a wit about choosing a different back for it ... the variety of ones available are more than enough, and if not, I need only wait awhile ... and IMO the H camera more than meets my requirements. Personally, I don't feel the compulsion to "Exceed The Need", even though I can afford it. I know am not alone in this opinion.

My investment and choice of photo gear has paid off nicely, both creatively and financially. While I do like advancements, frankly I couldn't care less about protracted arguments from Hasselblad, Phase One, Leaf, Pentax, or Leica primarily designed to part me from my money, nor the generous dosage of marketing kool-aid they all have to serve up to sell product, nor the endless comparative justifications from any owner body. What's important is how they may impact my application ... therefore, True Focus is far more important to me than another 10 or 20 meg., and the Leica S2 better meets some my applications than any of the modular MFD choices.

The whole thing has become sort of asylum like, with users battling it out which is empirically better without any relationship to actual work being produced, and has become more about who has what first ... I began questioning a lot of it even before the latest round of product improvements was announced ... and have seen nothing to date to alter that perception. IMO, no one has gotten any better, but I'm fairly sure they have become poorer.

I've said this before, one minute, you have the latest greatest, the ultimate tool of expression, your baby, your path to better image quality ... which some folks proclaim loudly to the Heavens ... the next minute you have a piece of crap not worthy of your talent and vision. How insane does that sound? :ROTFL:

This forum is a microcosm with a skew toward Landscape work, and is somewhat Phase One centric. It's NOT the world at large, nor necessarily expressive of the thousands of photographers that use something else to shoot different type work, and do it quite well I might add.

-Marc

Call security. Someone let a sane guy into the asylum!

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Coming with a fire truck too. LOL

 

[fotografz]

While integration is good and is preferred by many, there are big chunks of the market in different areas and segments that require the digital back to work seamlessly with technical or industrial cameras.
On this forum I think there are quite a few people who use their back on tech cameras especially for landscape work.
So if your product supports this sort of work and offers interesting features such as Live View, rotating sensors or even just a simple power solution, it will most likely be the choice for more people over an integrated one.

Just my 2¢

Yair

As I said, this forum is skewed to landscape work, and some % use tech cameras ... so of course they'll come here to discuss gear with features condusive to that application. However, where are the globally significant statistics that say landscape field work with tech cameras and mega backs are a "Big Chunk" of anything?

Integration is highly valuable to other shooters who like the system's feature advantages and versatility because of their application needs. Fashion, portrait, commercial product, food, people, event, corporate ... etc. ... or all of the above in today's more challenging photographic marketplace.

In studio, with or without view cameras, most backs are shot tethered ... which most any modular digital back can do. Seemless work is a meaningless term when tethered ... they all are seemlessly equal on a view camera. Heck, for a majority of the studio work I have done or commissioned to be done, no one even touches the camera ... it's all done at the computer with software control of every setting.

FYI, I can use my Hasselblad CF/39MS on any tech camera without power issues since it is self-powered ... and then change the iAdapter in 2 minutes and use it on my Mamiya RZ, or H2F with full integration, or any other camera I want ... including my Rollie Xact-II ... can't use all the cool stuff of the new backs on different cameras at will ... so I consider that the true definition of a closed system.

People are just seem to be pissed because they can't put a newly minted innovation on a H camera ... where others just don't care.

My 2¢

-Marc

 

[yaya]

As I said, this forum is skewed to landscape work, and some % use tech cameras ... so of course they'll come here to discuss gear with features condusive to that application. However, where are the globally significant statistics that say landscape field work with tech cameras and mega backs are a "Big Chunk" of anything?

Integration is highly valuable to other shooters who like the system's feature advantages and versatility because of their application needs. Fashion, portrait, commercial product, food, people, event, corporate ... etc. ... or all of the above in today's more challenging photographic marketplace.

In studio, with or without view cameras, most backs are shot tethered ... which most any modular digital back can do. Seemless work is a meaningless term when tethered ... they all are seemlessly equal on a view camera. Heck, for a majority of the studio work I have done or commissioned to be done, no one even touches the camera ... it's all done at the computer with software control of every setting.

FYI, I can use my Hasselblad CF/39MS on any tech camera without power issues since it is self-powered ... and then change the iAdapter in 2 minutes and use it on my Mamiya RZ, or H2F with full integration, or any other camera I want ... including my Rollie Xact-II ... can't use all the cool stuff of the new backs on different cameras at will ... so I consider that the true definition of a closed system.

People are just seem to be pissed because they can't put a newly minted innovation on a H camera ... where others just don't care.

My 2¢

-Marc

Marc I don't think we're in disagreement and it is obvious that this forum is skewed towards landscape work (with MF, LF or whatever cameras).

By "different segments" I refer to applications that will probably never be present on any forum. There are many applications where backs are fitted onto custom made cameras/ lenses and then used for aerial/ industrial and military-type imaging. They require high resolution and seamless integration with THEIR systems.
The number of units going into these areas is not insignificant. The same goes for reproduction and archiving; often these customers use bespoke solutions for various reasons.

Today's reality is that anyone who requires >50MP raw capture on a non-SLR platform has only two brands to choose from and these two happen to belong to the same company...Maybe that's what pisses people off?

Regarding using the latest and greatest on H cameras this has already been discussed I think. You can buy an 80MP TODAY and use it on an H1/ H2 and you can have all the lens corrections done in Capture One. No you will not be able to use 2 out of 11 lenses but this isn't different to what you had 2-3 years ago with those cameras...

Yair

 

[cunim]

The camera development cycle is compressing. That is, technology development that took 10 years in the past decade will take 5 in the next. Think of telephones, stereo equipment, even automobiles. They all commoditize and high-end manufacturers adapt or fall by the wayside.

Compression is intuitively obvious to most pros who simply shift to a DSLR. It's good enough for 90% of the available business. They have been liberated from needing complex kit and the extensive training/infrastructure to use it at the pro level. This is not an encouraging group for MFD suppliers.

The top-end jobs still want top end kit so that small niche is relatively stable. A-list pros (defined by revenue) tend to have the full slew of equipment including MFD, film, and quality video. Great customers, but there are too few A-listers for the current MFD manufacturing base.

If trends continue, more and more pros will just shift to the next generation of DSLR unless high end suppliers can provide added value. Hassy has taken a heritage-based and up-market approach (just compare the product literature and designer cameras). Phase is using technology. Both are after the only growing segment - the well-off amateur.

So, this is no more or less insane than any other aspect of consumerism. People buy things for different reasons (e.g. return on investment or because it makes you feel good using it). All consumer categories are critical to H & P and, to give them credit, they are doing the best they can to broaden their markets. They know the biggest threat is not each other. It is a rapid and continuing change in the public's view of what commercial photography is.

A perspective from someone who is very much outside the industry.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

I can only speculate that Blads agreement with Fuji, who manufacture the H series cameras...
*********
IIRC, unless there has been a recent change, the H bodies are made in Sweden, the backs in Denmark and the lenses (except for the shutters) are made in Japan. The view finders are also made in Japan.

David Grover will likely provide a correction if this is in error.

Steve

Thanks you beat me to it.

I would also argue that neither the "back" or "body" is more important than the other. The whole way the "camera" works is the most important.

Isn't that what the photographer is buying?

Without integration these products would not have come to market easily..

HTS
HCD28
HCD35-90
GIL (GPS)
Integrated menu systems (same on 645DF, through communication from body to back)
Remote camera control from Phocus of all functions, including Focussing in Live View.
Lens corrections on all lenses (requiring no user input)

Calibrated cameras, digital unit to camera body..

And on this point I would like to state that no such thing as an H3 or H4 ever existed.

H3D and H4D was sold as a complete unit. Each one with its own AF calibration to ensure accuracy and no back or forward focussing. Each body with aperture dependant focus correction, again for more accuracy on high resolution systems.

Hasselblad and Phase One make great products. Competition is good.

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

Today's reality is that anyone who requires >50MP raw capture on a non-SLR platform has only two brands to choose from and these two happen to belong to the same company...Maybe that's what pisses people off?

H4D60, thankyou very much.

It also depends if you measure greatness on megapixels?

What about ISO range? Colour handling? Speed? Price!!!? Value for money?

Software features?

And so on.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Folks I fundamentality disagree with this system is for that or this for this style of shooting. Any shooter worth his salt can shoot any system in any situation be it fashion, portrait, landscape and such. I think that is all BS IMHO because I know I can. Just give me any cam and I will get it done. Thats my job is too figure it out. Sure some maybe easier and some system maybe harder no question. But throw a Hassy at me or a Phase and i will bring home the bacon just like any other good shooter out there. The difference are really outside the shooting box and how the kits are setup. Hassy i can't take one back and stick it on another body unless it is calibrated for that back for example . It's more about the restrictions, switching up and backup solutions are where these systems are apart. Be it closed / open or whatever that will never stop a shooter from getting images on any shoot of any style. Somehow they will figure it out how to get it done and if they don't someone else will.

I'm on my get out there and work it roll this morning. I'm banning myself . LOL

 

[yaya]

H4D60, thankyou very much.

I thought I saw somewhere that you said that it was in beta testing?

 

[fotografz]

Marc I don't think we're in disagreement and it is obvious that this forum is skewed towards landscape work (with MF, LF or whatever cameras).

By "different segments" I refer to applications that will probably never be present on any forum. There are many applications where backs are fitted onto custom made cameras/ lenses and then used for aerial/ industrial and military-type imaging. They require high resolution and seamless integration with THEIR systems.
The number of units going into these areas is not insignificant. The same goes for reproduction and archiving; often these customers use bespoke solutions for various reasons.

Today's reality is that anyone who requires >50MP raw capture on a non-SLR platform has only two brands to choose from and these two happen to belong to the same company...Maybe that's what pisses people off?

Regarding using the latest and greatest on H cameras this has already been discussed I think. You can buy an 80MP TODAY and use it on an H1/ H2 and you can have all the lens corrections done in Capture One. No you will not be able to use 2 out of 11 lenses but this isn't different to what you had 2-3 years ago with those cameras...

Yair

Again, for clarification of errors of omission ... the reality is ... the Hasselblad CFV is self powered, is a universal V mount found on many specialty cameras, and it is available in 50 meg.

All H backs can be, and are mounted on non-slr cameras all the time ... the only draw back (for now) is that they require a separate power source for the back if used in a non-powered location ... which narrows the application field considerably. Just saying that the number is significant doesn't make it so. And implying that a H1 or H2 is only slightly handicapped indicates a lack of knowledge of what the H4 is actually capable of doing over a now long discontinued camera platform.

The implication that other product resources are not capable of certain applications, when they are, is just more marketing Kool-Aid to be sipped or gulped.

BTW, I don't buy the marketing speak Kool Aid from any of these companies, nor do I have any sense of loyalty to any of them either. My loyalty is to my work, my clients and my company ... as long as the gear does what I need from it then fine. If it can't there is always something else that can.

-Marc

 

[David Grover / Phase One]

I thought I saw somewhere that you said that it was in beta testing?

Nope.

 

[hcubell]

You miss the point. Hasselblad reduced the choices for its OWN customers. I actually agree that the H4d is for many a better camera than the Phase 645DF (this hopefully will change with the arrival of the new Phase body). This meant that H3 and H4 buyers can ONLY mount Blad backs on their beloved cameras. This was all ok when they had product that was competitive with the standards being set by other manufacturers. Alas this has not been the case and with the launch of the Aptus 12 from Leaf and the IQ series from Phase the gap just opened up further. In practice, the back is the most important part of an MF system, so having choice here is more important. Who knows who is going to be the next champion back? If it isn't Blad, then H3 and H4 owners will not have the option to mount that back on their cameras either.
As a business owner, buying into a platform that locks me into using only backs of that brand does not make any sense at all. Faced with this, I chose the Phase 645DF over the Blad, despite my concerns about it's limitations. Fortunately for me, one of those limitations was the lens range, which Phase has improved massively since I retired my Blad for the Phase DF. The Schneider LS lenses, the D-series and the announced and soon to me released new lenses now give us all abundant choice and superb quality.
I can only speculate that Blads agreement with Fuji, who manufacture the H series cameras and lenses, is not commercially viable on price. Thus they do not make enough money from the sale of a camera system to a customer who is going to buy a back from someone else. Viola! the "closed" system is born.
For me, the solution was simple - buy the best back, then choose the camera that I can live with. Sadly, Blad could not be part of that consideration.
At the time, the P65+ was the king of the hill, so that's what I bought. I've since added the Aptus 12. Now that the IQ180 is out, I will sell my P65+ and order an IQ. Sadly, the H3/H4 cannot mount any of these backs. A shame, really, that the people who pay the highest price in reduced choice are Blads own customers.

Cheers,

I don't think you understood my point. You seem to think that the world as it existed back in 2005 where phase sold large numbers of digital backs and Hasselblad sold somewhat large numbers of H cameras but relatively few Imacon/Hasselblad digital backs could somehow continue into the future indefinitely. I just do not believe that was a long-term tenable business model for Hasselblad, and if Hasselblad did NOT "close" the H3D and achieve a more significant level of market penetration with its digital backs, Hasselblad would have folded up just like Contax, Mamiya and Bronica. I do not use an H4D, but there are substantial numbers of people who do and love the camera. Without the funds for the R&D derived from sales of H3Ds, the H4D(and the HTS, the 35-90 zoom, etc.)would probably never exist. So, the concept of an ideal world where everybody can mix and match cameras and backs, they all work seamlessly together and the economic pie is equitably distributed so that everyone makes enough money to stay at was and still is a photographer's fantasy. It just was not happening. If the choice is between a world with Phase and Hasselblad both prospering with their own medium format systems with new and improved high end cameras and backs and lenses, or a world in which Phase makes (and prices)all the backs and the only camera dealer is ebay selling 2005 vintage H1s, Contaxes and Mamiya AFDs, I think I know what I prefer.