I'm confident that the price of MF will continue to fall. The companies will try to maintain the price point of the high-end model, but the cost per pixel will continue to drop. 2007 is the year of the improved back, and then early 2008 appears to be the next new high end above 39mps.
The first half of next year is interesting, at least by my reading of the tea leaves. The Hy6 will be released and Canon will unveil what its pro development team has been working on since 2004. I expect it is more than an improved 1DsII, and probably directly affects the MF digital market. Consider that Canon been stitching sensors since 2002.
I would like to point out that Hasselblad may have felt forced to make the closed system choice. They may have felt that the consortium making the Hy6 would hurt their long term business. So the decision could have been defensive. Wasn't there an interview this year by Hasselblads USA guy that said we would be surprised at how freely they would be working with 3rd party backs?
Also, Hassleblad can reverse the decision easily. There's probably a lot more going on here than Hassey simply making a big dumb play for back market share. If it stays closed at least Imacon is a quality company.
Anyway, competition and reduced costs will continue to drive the price of backs down.
We're all skating on ice for the moment:
- the Hassy CEO backs off a bit and says they'll keep selling the H2 if there's demand
- the Rollei builds on a good past reputation and a lot of interest, but so far, we don't know too much about Franke&Heidecke
- will the Hy6 truly be an open standard, or will it just be a body (with lenses) made for individual back makes (who by the way haven't been in the camera production business before)?
Also, isn't Leica arguing for the need to match the backs very carefully to the lenses in the M8, esp. for the wide angle lenses? And isn't that what Hassy just said? So as much as we don't like the idea, there may be something to this new angle, a most critical alignment factor. Of course, that wouldn't stop the back makers from doing this with the Hy6, but you can see how the tech'l guys at Hassy might have brought the argument up to managment, who then saw a marketing benefit....and down the slippery slope they go.
Still too many unknown pieces to really get a handle on this. Another 6 months will be telling.
So to M8 or not to M8, that is the question.
the price of mf backs does fall..look at the phase one P20.
Around £10k when out and now to sell for around half of that.
Of course the P20 has been much bettered since its release but in itself it still does the same job for now half the price.
I feel for most commecial applications dslr is actually enough for most clients..whose standards have lowered but enough photorgraphers out there desire the extra quality of mf backs over dslr, as they did with film, to keep the market alive...and some applicatiosn such as high end architectural work still require the extra image quality...and whatever canon do in the 35mm dslr market the mf backs will always be ahead in pure image quality as they also improve..bigger sensor space.
I believe hasselblad may have made a mistake in the closed system of the HD3 but again they still have the open systems of the H2 to buy into..perhaps they need to be looked at as two options..all lenses from H2/1 will work on the new camera but new lenses will only work on the new camera...just as in the dslr world with dxetc lenses for nikon / canon etc.
If they has marketed the new H3D as a completely new camera and it had looked different it could have gottten such a different response..a new camera, that is a dslr, takes the old lenses from the h system and some new lenses and allows you to remove the sensor (back) to use on view cameras etc. Looked at that way its great...but it's not that way so does look, and is to any current H owner bad.
new rollei etc..sounds great but we do need to wait to see it in use to fully appreciate, test it.
Guy Mancuso wrote:
... and looking at the others to fill the gap correctly and let ME chose what back I want...
Guy, I just want to point out some inconsistency in your reasoning. You are very happy with your DMR, yet you did not have any choice in that camera+back combo other than Leica. Conversely, you never bashed Leica for not making a DMR to fit a Canon 1-series camera either. So, I don't see why Hassy can't enjoy the same level of proprietary technology. If you had a financial interest in Hasselblad, I think you would have a different opinion.
Also, it is not the first time that a company decided to break with the past to pursue new technology. There were a lot of unhappy Canon users when they decided to change the lens mount from FD to EF. However, in the long run, I think Canon came out OK, don't you think? They were able to grow their customer base, again because of their technology progress and innovations.
Hasselblad is developing unique technology that tightly integrates the lens, sensor, and capture pipeline. Part of this is their D-APO process which is able to apply lens corrections during capture in order to mitigate any spectral or optical shortcomings in the lens themselves (ie, not by choice). And, they are having new lenses designed in such a way that the entire imaging process can be optimized to yield the higest optical performance. Their lenses will be chipped just like the new Leica M-series (but with even more information) and their capture processing will incorporate real-time corrections, similarly to what you would see with DXO software, but more sophisticated since they can do it in hardware.
I know there are a lot of seemingly disgruntled H1/H2 users out there, but I think most people migrate to a different system as soon as it offers superior imaging anyway (otherwise, how did they come to get into the H1/H2 in the first place; without coming from "somewhere else"). If Leica-Sinar came out with a system that beat the H1/H2, there would be little hesitaiton or argument from people to migrate away from their H1/H2, etc. And, like you say, you would move to yet another system as soon as it beats the DMR. In fact, your wanting a Leica M8 has some similarities with someone with a H1/H2 "moving" to a Hassy H3....same company but newer technology with newer body, newer lenses, etc.
Basically, technology is meant to keep the cash flow moving, and as long as the cash is flowing the technology will be moving.
In contrast, one could compare the Hassy decision to the early decisions made by Apple. IF Apple would have behaved differently, Macs would be the dominant computing system used today.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Hasselblad obviously sensed that they were now pretty much the only game in town (even though that was by default rather than merit) and felt that they could use that postion to secure the market for their digital backs. Microsoft has famously done similar things in the software world, by tying other products to their OS. I don't know how good the Hy6 will be, but given it's legacy, it probably won't be as flexible as the the 645 SLR came to be (I had a Rollei 6008i for a while before going to a Contax 645 so I feel qualified to comment on this). Phase One and Leaf (and photgraphers, generally) better hope that Mamiya and any potential successor to Contax get their act together, or they will be laid to waste in the corporate graveyard like the fate of so many software companies were in Microsoft's wake....Show more →
dklepacki wrote:
Guy, I just want to point out some inconsistency in your reasoning. You are very happy with your DMR, yet you did not have any choice in that camera+back combo other than Leica. Conversely, you never bashed Leica for not making a DMR to fit a Canon 1-series camera either. So, I don't see why Hassy can't enjoy the same level of proprietary technology.
The big difference is that the compatibility was already there. People have already made large investments in hybrid systems and now the carpet has been pulled from under their feet. That is entirely different to a company never offering compatibility in the first place.
dklepacki wrote:
Guy, I just want to point out some inconsistency in your reasoning. You are very happy with your DMR, yet you did not have any choice in that camera+back combo other than Leica. Conversely, you never bashed Leica for not making a DMR to fit a Canon 1-series camera either. So, I don't see why Hassy can't enjoy the same level of proprietary technology.
They can of course, but you left out one crucial detail: there is a whole market surrounding digital backs for the H2, and the H3 kills that. Furthermore, the H lens lineup really isn't complete yet, and now any owner of an H1/H2 with a non-Imacon back will not be able to complete their lineup as new lenses get released. The 28mm is a case in point.
If Hasselblad didn't use to have a much more open system, and in fact, if their whole history wasn't built upon non-obsolescence, and if in some ways the health of the whole digital medium format market didn't rely to a great extent on Hasselblad, then I doubt anyone would be angry. As it is, the have not only shot themselves in the foot, but also all their customers, and they have risked the health of the whole kit and kaboodle. Not nice.
"In contrast, one could compare the Hassy decision to the early decisions made by Apple. IF Apple would have behaved differently, Macs would be the dominant computing system used today."
And to Apple's credit, they seem to have seen the errors of their past by allowing the newer intel based Macs to Boot Windows thus giving their customers a choice which OS they prefer to use. Apples current strategy seems to be "let the customer have the choice as to which is the best OS and we are betting our future that they choose OS X". That builds customer loyalty and forces them to keep their own products competitive at the same time. Very different from the Apple of the 90's. and more akin, in my mind, to what Hasselblad used to stand for. This current conglomerate which calls themeselves "Hasselblad" have, by their current actions just aleinated themselves from not only their potential customers but also their long time user base AND the whole industry. They have successfully tarnished a company image which took over 50 years to build and created a public relations nightmare. Thats just poor poor marketing at the very least.
Iguess I just don't understand the worry over Contax 645. Lots of lenses, parts, bodies and kits at good prices and with the P45 (which I will be happily upgrading to) and the Aptus 65/75 that should keep anyone going for many years to come.
Also, that mount is on Alpa, Cambo and possibly horseman
The option for BOTH contax and Hassey V glass as well as Hartblei etc and adapters for older pentacon 6 etc, it is one of the most versatile.
One of the reasons we who like the system stay with it (and I could go with anything) is that it is really good! Another is that some of us hope that keeping up the interest will get Zeiss/Kyocera/ someone off their leglastic duffs and get this line back into production.
This "alarmist" attitude could also have been levelled at H'blad when the H1D was released and the H2D. I think that marbrink has it right- somehow they will not turn their backs on users who wish to other backs with the H system.
Also, Michael never mentions that you can have an H2 (I assume H2D but I could be wrong) updated to an H3...... so one would not be shut out of the 28mm lens option.....
"Also, Michael never mentions that you can have an H2 (I assume H2D but I could be wrong) updated to an H3...... so one would not be shut out of the 28mm lens option....."
Why would Michael or anyone with an H2 have it "upgraded" to the H3 thereby locking themeselves out of using their very own 3rd party backs? That makes no sense. Does not sound like much of an option if you want to keep using your Phase One or Leaf back at all.
OK then, let me re-state that..... I bet that there will be an H3 (as opposed to an H3D) and
it will be the mirror equivalent of the H2-H2D relationship.
Why? brings in $500.00 per upgrade and sells more of those 28mm lenses..... tell me why not?
So your guessing that Hasselblad will introduce an H3 body only(not just H3D kiit with digital back) that might be compatible with third party backs? From what they have said thus far, that will not happen and it would not be the "mirror" equivelent of the H2-H2D unless the same exact body was used which does not offer that compatibility. "why not"? Because Hasselblad cares more about locking people into their more profitable Digital backs than making a little on the lenses. Otherwise, they would not have locked out the H1 - H2 users from the 28mm lens. By spcifically chipping the newer lenses not to work with H1 and H2 bodies, they have sent a very clear signal to their customers what their intentions are. Now, I think they should do what you suggest and had they went that route and stated that from the outset(we will offer two versions of the H3, one closed which might offer better image quality due to blah blah blah, and one which is open), they would not be in this PR nightmare. People want options and loyal customers should never be left out in the cold.
I may have posted this information before, I thought I did but I can’t remember now. Hasselblad/Imacin “officially” locked out Phase/Leaf/Sinar with the H2. In fact the whole reason for releasing the H2 was to officially lock-out Phase/Leaf/Sinar. The H3 is merely an extension of this policy.
Specifically Phase/Leaf/Sinar had an open agreement to use the H1 mount with Hasselblad before Imacon took over. Imacon took over Hasselblad so they could leverage a camera body to sell their backs. (clearly Leaf and Phase have tried to do the same thing and failed in the past and Sinar rolled their own). When Imacon took over they told Phase/Leaf/Sinar that they now had to pay a very hefty licensing fee to use the H mount from that point forward. According to leaf the licensing fee was so high that it would have made it almost impossible to sell backs profitably. However, Phase/Leaf/Sinar brought out their original agreements with Hasselblad for the open H1 mount and looked it over with their lawyers and decided they didn’t need to cough up the money. So they told Imacon to take a hike and continued to make H1 backs without paying the licensing fees.
Imacon got pissed and two months later released the H2 with the sole purpose of telling Phase/Leaf/Sinar that they had no license to make backs for the H2 only the H1 and the discontinued the H1. So now Imacon expected Phase/Leaf/Sinar to pay up or take a hike. But the H2 mount was the same physical as the H1 mount. The only real difference from the back-makers point of view was the name. So they continued to make H1 compatible backs that worked on the H2 but were not officially licensed to be used on the H2 and not officially supported. This really pissed off Imacon even more. So the H3 is now out and it looks to me that they made this change to physically enforce their licensing goals. But I think this is what Imacon originally intended when they took over Hasselblad many years back. So nothing about the H3D announcement surprises me in the least. It was to be expected and I think Phase/Leaf/Sinar have been expecting it to happen for some time now.
