I still don't get it: The H3D has the same "position" as the H1D/H2D..... on neither of these platforms can you use a third party back.... they both come with the backs- its a complete solution- so what? Now, if there is no H3 which is released or if the H2 is discontinued, then there is something to scream about.... but why all the screaming now? Don't we have to wait a bit to see what happens? True, if the H2 is the end of the line for "separates", H2 users (film or digital) would never get to use the 28mm lens......
bathman wrote:
I thought there were Kodak sensors in all these backs in a way, Phase and Imacon hosted a Kodak sensor and Kodak owns a good share of Leaf
Can somebody explain whats going on?
Dalsa makes the sensors for Leaf and Sinar. Kodak makes the sensors for Hasselblad/Imacon and Phase One. Kodak bought Creo for other reasons unrelated to Leaf. Creo happened to own Leaf. The old Creo folks now pretty much run the show at Kodak’s imaging division. Leaf is left to go on with business as usual since the Creo guys like their own technology with their Leaf stuff. Kodak pretty much likes the way the old Creo guys run things. So you end up with a Kodak product (Leaf Aptus) that uses the competitor’s (Dalsa) sensors. How crazy is that? I’m not making this up
ssarchi wrote:
I still don't get it: The H3D has the same "position" as the H1D/H2D..... on neither of these platforms can you use a third party back.... they both come with the backs- its a complete solution- so what? Now, if there is no H3 which is released or if the H2 is discontinued, then there is something to scream about.... but why all the screaming now? Don't we have to wait a bit to see what happens? True, if the H2 is the end of the line for "separates", H2 users (film or digital) would never get to use the 28mm lens......
...Show more →
While I don’t think any of us should be shocked this happened do I think that Hasselblad is sort of the default medium format brand and did give lip service to having an open system (said so in their marketing literature, right?) and a whole industry developed in open digital backs including Leaf, Phase One and Sinar that could be purchased in the H mount for the H1/H2. Now people invest more in these backs than some people do in their cars and they do so knowing they can trade in their backs every couple of years for the new latest, greatest back and get a huge trade-in value for their old back. So once you bought into the system you’re kind of set. Now to learn that their whole investment may be in jeopardy or at least to learn that they may have to jump through hoops to change systems is a major drag. If you own Phase One or Leaf with a built in H mount you start to wonder at this point, “Hey what happens when my H1 body dies? Does my $30K back become a bookend?” I think that would be a disturbing position to find oneself in and hence the outcry. To keep their investment at this point they may have to switch to a different mount which will cost them money and sell all the Hassy kit and buy another brand kit for example. That’s a PIA. Then they have to go beg Leaf or Phase One to change the mount on their back ($$$) or buy a new plate from Sinar ($$$). If they go for the H3D route well then they have to sell a third party back in an H mount (which is no longer supported) and the market for third party H mount backs just go very small overnight. So it’s not a good thing for these users. These people are not going to have fond memories of Hassy years later. Hence the fuss.
I thought there were physical differences in the mirror, which is why the 28mm will fiton an H3 and not an H2. ssarchi wrote:
Lock out H1/2 means locking out H2D- which is just as closed of a system as H3D....
I guess I need to call Hasselblad USA to see if I can upgrade my H1 to an H3......
kosmoskatten wrote:
LotusM50: I second that opinion.
(Funny, we have had more or less the same taste in cameras, I've had the Mamiya 7II with most lenses, the Contax RTSII and III and RX, the G2 set up, I used to shoot the Rollei 6008i and always had that little Ricoh Gr1s/V as a sidekick - you've got great taste by my standards! )
Tack, Henrik. Du er tydlig en vetenskapsman och en herre. ;-)
gogopix wrote:
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....Show more →
I agree, no need to rush out of the Contax 645 line. There is plenty of support from the back makers that will be around for some time to come. Certainly long enough to wait for Zeiss/Kyocera to get "off their legalistic duffs". Maybe Hassy's big mistake will give them an added incentive to sort out their mess and get back in gear.
Andrew Wood wrote:
Isn't Hasselblad actually owned by an East Asian company, Shriro Group, and so is (technically) no longer Scandinavian?
Yes, the Shiro Group became the majority shareholder in Hasselblad in 2002. Shiro then bought Imacon and merged the two companies together. The HQ of the merged company was moved to Denmark (where Imacon was based). It is still a Danish/Scandinavian company (technically, legally, and in operation) only the majority shareholder is based in Hong Kong (which doesn't change any of that)..
Hassleblad would have been foolish to continue with the open standards. They are the market leader and keeping their system open serves only to benefit their competitors. There are obviously some disgruntled folks out there but I'm sure Hassleblad considered that in making their business decision. In the long run consumers are not best served by propping up weaker competitors.
The missed opportunities for improving the system due to the necessity of keeping it open might be invisible to the consumers but all too apparent to the engineers who will be hamstrung by sticking with obsolete designs.
gdeliz2 wrote:
Hassleblad would have been foolish to continue with the open standards. They are the market leader and keeping their system open serves only to benefit their competitors. There are obviously some disgruntled folks out there but I'm sure Hassleblad considered that in making their business decision. In the long run consumers are not best served by propping up weaker competitors.
But they are only in the position as market lead by default, and probably temporarily, as there is NO other current competition. Once competition re-emerges -- and it will -- the decision may prove to be flawed.
gdeliz2 wrote:
The missed opportunities for improving the system due to the necessity of keeping it open might be invisible to the consumers but all too apparent to the engineers who will be hamstrung by sticking with obsolete designs.
That is just BS rationalization offered as they try to "sell" the decision to customers. There is no "integration" that they couldn't do with third party backs. -- that includes the processing associated with the new 28mm lens.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, the point about the mirror being shaved to accommodate the new 28mm lens seems a good one. I personally rather like the idea of haveing the option of useing the wider lens. If the camera could not accommodate the new lens without modification than it seems logical to build a new camera. (and explains why retro-fit is rendered impossible) Technology needs to move foreward. I think it's sad that retro-fit will go by the way side to make room for innovation but, you know what?- I'll take it. (along with everything else that Hassey plans to throw out in the months to come- includeing tilt-shift lenses) My ONLY concern centers around the availability of field camera integration. Which companys will offer options to mate the new back? Will ARCA-SWISS? Will Horseman? Will Lindhof? It appears illogical to take a punitive stance and shut Hasselblad out when they are, in fact, still offering a camera that integrates with third party backs and, as far as I know, still repair said cameras should the need arise. If all this provides me with a better photographic solution all that remains is to say, "Thank you." I feel bad for those individuals that purchased third party backs but, I have to say that I understand Hasselblads position on two levels: Back selection and integration provides better synergy and produces sharper images. (Rollei also made this point when they introduced their proprietary back for the 6008AF- I know because my 6008AF wouldn't work with thier proprietary back due to an incorrectable misallignment issue. Boy, was I mad too.- I got over it and sold my Rollei.) And, most importantly, why would any company support third party products that might degrade the overall image quality of the final images produced by such a marriage and tarnish their reputation.
It seems, to me, that people are upset that they don't get to use the 28mm lens on their H1 or H2 camera. Well, I didn't get to use alot of lenes from Canon on my 1DsII- so what! Buy the camera or don't, but don't try to slap Hasselblad in the face for trying to protect themselves or offer YOU AND ME something better. That's just ungrateful.
rob3rt5 wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but, the point about the mirror being shaved to accommodate the new 28mm lens seems a good one.
Where is the Hasselblad statement that the 28mm lens will hit the H1/2 mirror? This seems to be speculation.
rob3rt5 wrote:
Which companys will offer options to mate the new back?
Why would they have to release anything new. It's the same mount, afaik.
rob3rt5 wrote:
It appears illogical to take a punitive stance and shut Hasselblad out when they are, in fact, still offering a camera that integrates with third party backs
The initial announcement from Hasselblad was that the H2 would be discontinued. It was only after considerable negative feedback that the CEO ammended this statement the following day. Time will tell if Hasselblad continues to supply the H2.
rob3rt5 wrote:
Back selection and integration provides better synergy and produces sharper images.
In what way? Are you referring to manufacturing tolerances leading to slight misalignments? If so, what makes Hasselblad immune from these same variances?
rob3rt5 wrote:
And, most importantly, why would any company support third party products that might degrade the overall image quality of the final images produced by such a marriage and tarnish their reputation.
Actually, P1 and Leaf backs have been making MORE of the H series than the Imacon backs! Why on earth do you suggest that the Imacon back is going to give us something better? Please don't blindly swallow the marketing silliness.
rob3rt5 wrote:
It seems, to me, that people are upset that they don't get to use the 28mm lens on their H1 or H2 camera. Well, I didn't get to use alot of lenes from Canon on my 1DsII- so what!
The buyers of H1/2 systems were promised more lenses. That promise was broken. If you didn't use a given Canon lens, then that was your own decision. Canon wasn't stopping you!
dcmiller wrote:
The H3 firmware may correct significant vignetting with the 28. Or perhaps the best way to design the 28 for even illumination created a significantly distorted image that is corrected in firmware. My guess is that this is the need for the H3, not a change in the mirror.
I agree. Or they could have just improved the lens and avoided this whole debacle. I suspect that the correction could fix a combination of vignetting, chromatic aberation and geometry.
dcmiller wrote:
Third party backs may work, but the camera may refuse to correct images.
There is no computing power in the camera to do this. The correction takes place in the back.
dcmiller wrote:
The future appears to be cameras and/or raw converters will know the specific lens and optionally correct lens issues. Not a bad way to discourage third party hardware.
Yes, lens correction is inevitable, mainly because it gives more performance for the money. However, I don't agree that this implementation is the right way. All you need is RAW processing software which detects which lens was used for a given RAW file and applies the correction on the fly.
It's also quite possible for any digital back to store all sorts of lens correction data across different makes. This would just require minimal co-operation between the players. I believe the first to offer a really flexible approach will be rewarded.
dcmiller wrote:
The H3 firmware may correct significant vignetting with the 28. Or perhaps the best way to design the 28 for even illumination created a significantly distorted image that is corrected in firmware.
The Leica Digital M has some of those features built in for JPEG files, as the rear lens element is quite close to the sensor. Things like a center hotspot, CA, etc, can have a correction applied to the jpeg files automatically. The Zeiss 15mm/2.8 Biogon ZM calls for the use of a 1.5 stop center grad filter. My old 4x5 Schneder 47mmXL called for the use of a 2 stop center grad filter. It would be nice not to have to worry about that stuff with symmetrical designed wides anymore
The Hasselblad 28mm will be a retrofocus design, and my experience with retrofocus lens designs is they all have lots of linear distortion. Even Zeiss and Leica lenses exhibit it. Just a fact of life. And all but the most exotic and expensive German lens designs suffer from heavy CA in the wide angle range. To have fimrmware correct this is a good idea. Currently, I use PanoTools to correct linear distortion and CA, but it is never perfect. Linear distortion characteristics change as the lens gets focused at different distances as well, so if that is written into the firmware, that could be a real time saver in post production.
foto-z wrote:
All you need is RAW processing software which detects which lens was used for a given RAW file and applies the correction on the fly.
Bibble RAW processor does this with built-in PanoTools formula, but only one correction per lens, IE, no variables for when the lens is focused at different distances. For non-standard lenses with no EXIF data, you can access a scroll down menu and see if your alternative lens is supported. The version I tried out was not able to do separate RGB corrections for CA control either. Perhaps that has been added since. I have written to Phase One many times about them adding that feature to Capture One, but they have not said anything either way.
Edited by jjlphoto on Oct 02, 2006 at 01:19 PM GMT
Hasselblad is certainly playing the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt "card".
Imacon back sales are probably less than expected, and there using this time before the Hy6 to try out a strategy. Their backtrack position is simply to say other backs will work, but not with all the incredible, critically important Hassey features.
If (When) they backtrack, they can claim what a great company they are because they listen to their customers. And the manager of Hasselblad can say to the Imacon manager "Hey, we tried".
Thanks Photo-Z for your comments. I'm not blindly following anything and I do realise that Hasselblad broke a promise to H1/H2 owners by neglecting to offer more lenses. I don't wish to imply that this is in any way fair or just. I meerly mean to suggest that perhaps Hasselblad could not design wider lenses without significantly altering the camera body in some way thereby disenfranchising it's current crop of owners. Is it blatant? Of course. But, it might not all be so very bad. I also do not mean to suggest that Imacon is in any way better than any other digital back manufacturer. (Same chips as far as I know) I simply suggest that maybe tolerances might be better controlled if all the equipment used is designed for the system. As far as I'm concerned I'd rather be talking about Sinar giving me a 28mm for it's Hy6 and telling Hasselblad to take a hike but, that's not the case. Who knows, the 28mm could suck. It could also be great- with a alot of help for internal correction. And lastly- H1/H2 systems still work with a multitude of digital options. No one is stopping these owners from useing their gear. I was also mad when Contax reniged on their promise of more lenses. One can cry or move on. I prefer to move foreward. I'm sorry if my optimism seems glib but I haven't been burned in this game yet. I'm just looking for the best system to walk into. Who knows, I might be complaining later when my choice is not supported. I'll cross that bridge when it arrives.
Oops...I guess I have been burned. I purchased an entire Rollei 6008AF system with the hopes that it would seamlessly integrate with a promised back. The back came and it didn't work with my camera. I sold it. I, just like these H1/H2 owners, tried to plead my case and when that failed I moved on. Still, I enjoyed the camera for what it was, not what it wasn't. I quickly learned that retro compatability isn't a given- and neither is continuity. There are no givens in this game. Leica might never give us that firmware update so long ago promised. When they go full-frame my camera and back will be worthless. I'm already wrapping my head around this dreadful idea so that I'll be prepared when the time comes to "move on".
They, I mean Hasselblad, should at least offer to re-chip new lenses that would otherwise work on the H1/H2. It seems the only decent thing to do. Otherwise it's just being mean.
Lenses should not be, for any reason, digital back dependant. That they are body dependant is a given but dependency on backs seems criminal. Is anyone selling this thing?
THe old lenses will work on the H3, the new release lenses will only work on the H3
rob3rt5 wrote:
They, I mean Hasselblad, should at least offer to re-chip new lenses that would otherwise work on the H1/H2. It seems the only decent thing to do. Otherwise it's just being mean.
