HowaboutRAW: "Hasselblad has core strengths in design, in optics, in software and in intuitive handling – and in combining those elements to make great products."
What the *()*)(*908?
Hasselblad never made lenses, and the current medium format bodies are Fuji bodies with Fuji lenses--excellent cameras and lenses by all reports, but NOT really a Hasselblad product.
Perhaps. But some years ago, Fuji, under its own name sold the same medium format systems. (This was news to me about a year ago.)
Right now, in 2015, only the Hasselblad version is available new, as best as I know.
The point remains that Hasselblad was NEVER really an optical company, unlike Leica (or Fuji).
And recently all of its bodies have been by others too.
Random Asian Guy: Hope they do something different like: using a Sony square curved sensor and having simple, small and good prime lenses. Not that I probably could afford a Hasselblad :)
H never made lenses.
H is not likely to start.
H hasn't been making cameras lately either.
The Squire: If Hassy had teamed with Sony the way Leica teamed with Panasonic, it might have worked.
I remember a story about Honda and Alfa Romeo working together, in the 80s I think. Great technology/manufacturing with Italian design/style? Nope. Italian engines and Japanese style. Ooops.
The innards of the new Leica Q include Panasonic cleverness. What could Hassy do with their bodies, ergonmics and design, but Sony tech under the hood. Mmmm.
Hasselblad hasn't really shipped a new body in decades.
The H series is a Fuji medium format.
This is what happens when you put investment bankers in charge of making things.
Things don't get made, only jokes and the companies are destroyed but the i-idiots get their cut on the way down.
M Jesper: They're suggesting that they want to do more than just medium format. That's great, i would love to see a serious Hasselblad mirrorless camera. And considering the collaboration with Sony it would probably be E-mount, meaning Zeiss should watch his back because Hasselblad could be some pretty good competition in optics and more!
Hasselblad used to use Zeiss and now uses Fuji for the rebadged Fujis known as the Hasselblad H series.
Douglas F Watt: Best quote "Hasselblad is NOT a luxury brand" - I guess neither is Ferrari then.
At least Ferrari is engineered by Ferrari and then manufactured by Ferrari in a Ferrari factory. Yes, I realize Fiat controlled Ferrari for years, but that's changing, and no one pretends that an F458 is some version of a Fiat.
Hasselblad isn't even akin to Zonda, which doesn't use its own engines. But Zonda sure modifies those engines and does the bodies.
"Hasselblad has core strengths in design, in optics, in software and in intuitive handling – and in combining those elements to make great products."
otto k: If someone came to my studio photo shoot and wanted to photograph my set with models wearing hair, makeup and wardrobe I designed and paid for and then complained about not being able to commercially use the photos... Well, though luck.
Where are you getting the confirmation that this photographer worked for a small local publication?
His blog pieces don't say anything about that.
nikkornikon: Why am I seeing a more clearer and crisp pic on the Nikon D810....than the Canon? in Raw and Jpeg? Poor ISO and Poor Dynamic...Yep it's Canon. lol
Aptina sensors are far from crap. This is just a myth.
The D7100 bands yes, but at far higher ISOs than other APSC bodies. (Yes, Sony and Toshiba could be more like partners here.)
The Olympus EM1 uses a Panasonic sensor--this according to someone from Olympus.
That 16MP Renesas/Nikon sensor remains a better high ISO sensor than the 12MP sensor in the Sony A7S. Though Sony could probably solve this problem with better heat dispersion in future models.
If "the whole line" includes P+S sensors, then yes Sony makes the best sensors, but that's pretty far from the mirrorless/DSLR market.
Sony has remarkable full framed 24MP and 36MP sensors, very good APSC 24MP and 16MP sensors, and the 1" 20MP sensor. And that's a substantial line up. (Obviously new ones are on the way too.)
Ken Phillips: Soooo ... photographers signed contracts on their own volition, and it's compared to Apple stealing royalties? (According to certain comments, some either sign or attempt to commit fraud by falsely signing. In some jurisdictions, that can be construed to be the same as signing your own name!)
Don't sign the contract, don't get permission to shoot the show, tour, don't get paid.
All well and good if you have an independent source of funding, but that's an outlier experience.
Lawrencew: If you don't like a contract, don't enter into it.Is it that hard?
otto + Tim C:
That's the photographer's blog, and I don't see anywhere anything about a "local paper".
Or shooting for a publication that had hired him to shoot a Swift concert or tour.
So link your sources claiming that this photographer was actually employed by another party.
If this is true that the guy shoots for a local paper but doesn't pay without image publication, it opens up a broader story about un-compensated work in general--shooting a Swift concert is work whather or not the image is published.
Of course if this guy is working free lance, and then selling images to a local publication, he wants to keep the rights. If the local publication actually employed the guy, this means with a staff salary, then the publication would be the party signing Swift's agreement.
Swift needs to understand then that the photographer here is an outsourced worker, who is basically independent.
No the onus is not on Swift to solve all the world's abuses of labor, but she can employ staff concert/tour photographers and resolve some of this mess.
random78: Looks like NX1 got a firmware update as well. No news on that?
What's the number?
We got the joke.
graybalanced: So, where in North America were you able to see the Northern Lights? DPReview is in Seattle now, right? Was it in that region?
But the article clear that the lights were unusually far south in North America.
Horshack: If I were to photograph a Taylor Swift concert I would gladly hand over the copyright to my photos in exchange for ear plugs.
OBI656: I will not elaborate on this subject since it will be a longer story. Therefore make it strait simple, this photographer who ever it is, is a cheep idiot.
Yeah, so that wasn't your point of confusion that you kept posting about. It's the copyright thing that so confused you, and it's a misdirection on the part of Swift and Co.
And in fact Swift can intercede and prevent the photographer from selling an image--"can" not necessarily "will". So you seem a bit confused on that subject too.
That's news, got a source that says the photographer really wasn't working for Swift and the concert and still Swift demanded this level of control?
Would seem then that the photographer is in no position to sign any contract with the Swift concert company. And that Swift should be negotiating this contract with the photo agency or magazine employing the photographer.
So I think you're wrong.
However, images may be distributed by the AP, Getty, etc.
And the photographer who made this point about Swift's contract didn't claim that Swift was assigned the copyright to the images.
You've fallen for something Ms Swift added in her response.
Law, and then don't get work or other concert photo work, etc. Don't pay the bills, etc.
And I even understand that Ms Swift wants to control the images coming out of her concerts, but then she needs to pay staff photographers, whose work she respects, a good salary and residuals for any future use of the images.
Staff here means Swift would have the copyright. But the salary would mean that the worker is paid even if the photos are never used for anything.
Apple computer isn't paying musicians in small unheard of bands as staff members.