Marty4650

Marty4650

Lives in United States NC, United States
Works as a Retired Industrial Engineer
Joined on May 20, 2005

Comments

Total: 814, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On DJI launches Inspire 1 drone with 4K video recording article (92 comments in total)

This might be useful if it could deliver a few small missiles.

You could get a great portrait of the target's last expression. The NSA might order thousands of them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 20:47 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply

The concept was deeply flawed, and the end result is total failure.

Since so many people want to compare Hassleblad with Leica, then lets make that comparison to demonstrate how much execution matters.

Leica creates a really great camera, then charges a fortune for it. Because it is a truly great camera, they can get that very high price from those with the means and the inclination for quality.

Then, they take that wonderful camera, and create a "designer edition" or a "safari edition" or a "titanium edition" and DOUBLE the price again! And they can successfully sell them because they are wonderful cameras that have been further enhanced.

Hassleblad hasn't done anything like that.

They took a few "pretty good cameras" made by someone else, pimped them out in a tasteless way, then asked for ridiculous prices for them.

This concept was destined for failure. Everyone, except apparently Hassleblad, saw it coming.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 13, 2014 at 15:43 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marty4650: Here's why schemes like this fail.

Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.

So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:

1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.
2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.
3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.
4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.

And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.

There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!

Yes, they can be expensive, but in order to command those prices they must also be good.

The Sony NEX7 and the Sony RX100 are good cameras. They just aren' t worth thousands of dollars more for Hasselbrad branding.

And I promise you, if you took a Sony NEX7 and called it a Gucci or Dolce or Gabbana, and tried to market it for 8 times the price of a NEX7, then it would suffer the exact same fate as these Hassleblad rebadges did. Even with nicer design, they simply can't command those prices.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

darngooddesign: The glee shown over people losing their jobs is pretty sad.

Someone came up with this scheme and pitched it to Hassleblad, and Hassleblad took the bait. The design team were the "innocent victims" because their awful designs had to be approved by someone at Hassleblad.

But, don't feel bad for them. There is plenty of demand for bad designs in other industries too. Ever see a SmartCar?

They will all find jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 12, 2014 at 19:39 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X Review preview (394 comments in total)
In reply to:

Master Yoda: The DPR rating scale has truly become a joke. A Silver Award with all those negatives? Thanks to DPR for the honesty in the review but giving this camera the Silver Award after all you disliked about it is laughable.

Two reasons.

One, the review is for the entire camera, not just the sensor.

Two, even the "same sensor" will produce different results in different cameras, because each manufacturer will tweak that sensor, and each will have their own lens, processing engine and other firmware.

For example.... Sony, Pentax and Nikon all used the same 16MP Sony sensors in their DSLRs, and they got three different looking results. All were good, but Nikon and Pentax usually got better results than Sony did... from the same Sony sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2014 at 23:12 UTC

Here's why schemes like this fail.

Even though a few wealthy people will always be willing to pay astronomical sums for exclusivity, Hassleblad just doesn't have that sort of brand cache. It isn't Rolex. It isn't Hermes. It isn't Ferarri. It isn't even Leica in that regard.

So in order to sell things for ridiculous high prices, a product must be something that is:

1. very fashionable and exclusive. And this was butt ugly.
2. very useful for high end pros who need it. Not a Sony NEX7.
3. beautiful, that can be used for 50 years. Like a piano.
4. rare and collectible. Not possible when something is in production.

And these Hassleblad rebrands are none of the above.

There is just now way to market a nice midrange camera for more than a Nikon D4s and sell very many copies. It won't take long before you run out of very stupid customers. Then you are stuck!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 15:12 UTC as 66th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

No one denies that these benefits exist.

The question is... how much more are you willing to spend to "develop technology yourself" rather than licensing it from someone else.

I have no idea what this technology is worth, but I do know that if the imaging division was profitable, then all this technology would be "free" for medical devices. A really good bonus caused by synergy.

Even if the imaging division was losing a small amount of money, it would probably still be a good idea. Because the overall savings in one area would justify that small loss in another.

But.... what happens when the imaging division is losing a lot of money? Something like a few hundred million dollars? At some point, an accountant steps forward and asks "why are we losing a lot of money making cameras to save a little money making medical devices? Why don't we just buy that technology from someone else?"

Olympus is the industry leader in endoscopy, but they aren't the only company with the technology.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2014 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

flatrion: It is not too late for Hasselblad, license the brand name to eye glasses, perfume, messenger bags/luggage.

Team with a car company, make a Hasselblad special editiion of a car, similar to Fiat 500 Gucci, Rang Rover Holland&Holland.

Team up with Filippa K or J Lindeberg, they are all Swedish fashion designer and Swedish name. Leica already team up Moncler in fashion.

misha...

I have no doubt you are right about this.

They were BRANDED as Zeiss and Nikon, probably as a result of some licensing deal to use the name for a royalty fee. The effect being, to give the product a premium aura.

Which isn't very much different from taking a Sony camera and branding it as a Hasselblad.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

The times really are changing Craig, and I think a lot of it is generational.

The things older people like doing.... like using real cameras, reading books, having land line phones, using checkbooks, sending letters using snail mail, owning a wristwatch, using phones for talking to other people are fading away. Younger people have different preferences.

This downturn in camera sales may not be a temporary thing. It may very well be permanent, and the cameras makers have no good way of coping with it.

Sure, there will always be a few retro folks who prefer the old ways... the Nikon DF users perhaps. But the trends are pretty clear. Real cameras are going away for everyone but the most high end users and enthusiasts.

I don't think camera makers can adapt to this. It's too late for Nikon, Canon, and Olympus to star making cell phones. Others are doing it and doing it much better than they can. The only route left is to go up market. Hence, the trend for Full Frame.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 15:27 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

OK... we both accept the fact that Olympus needs certain imaging technologies for their highly profitable medical devices.

There are two ways to get this:

1. Develop it yourself
2. Buy it from someone else

The first method stops making sense if you are losing a few hundred million dollars a year on an imaging division to get that technology. It is far, far cheaper to buy it from someone else at that point.

Of course, if the division was profitable, or even breaking even, then the technology becomes free. An added bonus. But if you have to lose money in one division to make money in another, then there are better ways.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 9, 2014 at 03:04 UTC
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

Craig, ironically the fact that Olympus really doesn't need the division to be profitable is a good thing for us M4/3 users.

They say they keep making cameras and lenses because they can apply the technology to their endoscopes. I don't buy it, but I'm glad they think so.

As long as Olympus is primarily an endoscope maker, the digital imaging department might be safe. The profits made selling medical devices are huge, and mask any loses made from selling cameras.

Nikon wishes they were that lucky. Their fate rises and falls on the whims of the camera buyers.

Samsung is probably in the best strategic spot. As camera sales decline, and smartphones sales move upwards... guess who makes around a third of all the smartphones in the world?

Yep, Samsung.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
In reply to:

Battersea: I wonder how many they sold. My guess is very very very few. Rich people can sometimes (often?) be tacky but seldom that dumb.

Well, they hit the wall once everyone in Dubai who wanted one, had one. There was no one else interested in buying them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: I saw on Game of Thrones, that if you don't burn the bodies, they just come back as White Walkers. We don't need no ice-bound, zombie-like design studios, wearin' fancy shoes and big owl shaped horn-rimmed eyeglasses.

That's absolutely right.

The bodies must be burned. For the sake of society.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

flatrion: It is not too late for Hasselblad, license the brand name to eye glasses, perfume, messenger bags/luggage.

Team with a car company, make a Hasselblad special editiion of a car, similar to Fiat 500 Gucci, Rang Rover Holland&Holland.

Team up with Filippa K or J Lindeberg, they are all Swedish fashion designer and Swedish name. Leica already team up Moncler in fashion.

The last time I had eyeglasses made, I noticed they were selling upgrade eyeglass lenses made by Zeiss and Nikon.

Hassleblad could do this too.... but the exotic endangered wood frames might be a little too over the top for most eyeglass wearers.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:46 UTC

Lets be honest. The design engineers didn't pull the plug on this project. They LOVE their silly designs. It was the accountants who finally had enough of losing money on this venture.

It might seem impossible to lose money when you take a $800 camera, dress it up in a clown suit, then sell it for $6-$8,000 or so. But somehow they managed to lose money, because if they were making money on this, the design center would still be in full operation. And working overtime to meet demand!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 20:41 UTC as 101st comment | 1 reply
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (125 comments in total)

Pity there is no 46mm versions for M4/3 users.

Oh well, perhaps sometime in the future....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 18:49 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Craig from Nevada: With the 7-14mm and 300mm lenses, it appears that Olympus has achieved most of what it set out to do with the mircro 43 system. They have a camera with the E-M1 which is competitive with most DSLRs and they have a decent suite of lenses for all users. They have managed overall to maintain the size and weight advantage which was always the big selling point for the system.

Can they make a buck selling this system?

I'd put it another way.

Olympus has finally achieved what 4/3 promised to do. But they had to switch to a M4/3 format to do it.

The promise of 4/3 for smaller and lighter gear was never achieved because the lenses had to be massive to overcome the shortcomings of the smaller sensor. The need for telecentricity, and faster lenses added size, cost and weight.

An Olympus E5 was about the same size and weight as a Canon 5D. A camera with a sensor FOUR TIMES larger! And a 35-100mm f/2.0 lens was actually larger, heavier and more expensive than a Canon 70-200mm lens for full frame.

But M4/3 and a much better 4/3 sensor solved those problems.

Whether Olympus can make money with this product still remains to be seen. The jury is still out on that one. Two things are obvious, they cannot charge much more, and they cannot charge much less.

This means they will need higher volumes or lower production costs to achieve profitability.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

barry reid: The concept wasn't too wide of the mark (Pana-Leica or Nokia-Vertu anyone?) but the execution was truly appalling. The Lunar genuinely looked plasticky, cheap and overblown when set against the svelte minimal NEX-7 It was based on.

There was so much fun to be had with chrome accents and solid controls.

Leica was never as greedy as Hassleblad.

They would take a $600 Panasonic camera, slap on a red dot and call it a Leica, but only charge a 50% markup for the rebadge. Plus, they gave you a better warranty, better software, and better customer service too.

Hassleblad sees this and thinks "we can do this too" and takes a $750 Sony, slaps a flying H on it, some fancy exotic wood grip, and marks it up to $7,500! That's a 1000% price premium, just for making a nice looking Sony camera into a very ugly, but also very exclusive, Hassleblad.

Hassleblad just got too greedy.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: but is a Lexus not a Toyota, an Infinity a Nissan, and an Acura a Honda!

Same direction, but different degree.

There is nothing Lexus does that can match a Hasselblad Lunar. No one ever paid ten times the price for rebadged Toyota called a Lexus.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:19 UTC
In reply to:

cgarrard: Dang it. There goes our humorous press releases.

I'm a sad panda.

Lets be honest. Hassleblad provided more humor and laughter here than "What The Duck" ever did.

They will be sorely missed....

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 00:16 UTC
Total: 814, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »