Previous news story    Next news story

Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms

By dpreview staff on Sep 19, 2012 at 19:45 GMT

Responding to the swift and negative reaction to its just-announced Lunar mirrorless camera, Hasselblad's business development manager, Luca Alessandrini, forcefully defended the venerable camera maker's partnership with Sony in an interview with the British Journal of Photography. Alessandrini stressed that, 'This [the Lunar] is not a NEX-7 camera, just because we are buying components from Sony'. He makes a pointed distinction between the Hasselblad-Sony partnership and the 'rebranding' arrangement between Leica and Panasonic. Alessandrini also says that the decision to use an unmodified Sony sensor for the first Lunar camera doesn't preclude the company from making sensor modifications for future models.

In seeking to explain the company's long-term strategy and product design decisions, Alessandrini says that unlike other makers who have distinct looks for different camera classes, 'What we're doing is designing three cameras – a compact camera, a DSLR and a mirrorless – with the same style'. And as for criticism generated by the Lunar's €5000 price, he adds, '...we're not robbing people by making a huge profit on the camera. Our profit margin is the same as everyone else's; we're just using more expensive materials.'

You can read the entire interview at the British Journal of Photography's web site.

Comments

Total comments: 628
12345
HawaiiVolcanoes
By HawaiiVolcanoes (6 months ago)

Dear Hasselblad...your company is a Brothel and "your prostitutes" are the cameras that you stick lipstick and eyeliner on. Could you people PLEASE just go away.

1 upvote
Mel Snyder
By Mel Snyder (9 months ago)

Viktor is rolling in his grave...

2 upvotes
Deleted pending purge
By Deleted pending purge (9 months ago)

The technology used in the making of such elaborate pieces of wood generates a lot of sawdust. Maybe a side production of (firewood) pellets could attract some extra income? That, at least would be an ecologically defendable move.

Comment edited 39 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
SulfurousBeast
By SulfurousBeast (9 months ago)

Expensive materials....Gold and Diamonds and Rubies? for God sake, it is a piece of wood ! Luca should be fired along with all the Hassy guys, poor guy he is trying to keep his job.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 43 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Giuseppe Fallica
By Giuseppe Fallica (9 months ago)

I regret the times of the glorious Hasselbad 500 with the Planar 80mm. This new object has a look that wants to be original, but that finally is only baroque and not sober. Inside, I'm afraid, it's a blend of third-party tecnology (Sony, first of all) which is likely not to be able to run to the fast pace that the market dictates. In other words, Sony already has better things in the drawer, directly with its own brand.

0 upvotes
Loreno Heer
By Loreno Heer (9 months ago)

"we're just using more expensive materials". that hardwood is so going to improve the image quality

0 upvotes
HawaiiVolcanoes
By HawaiiVolcanoes (9 months ago)

The Hasselblad Lunatic....Amen

0 upvotes
HawaiiVolcanoes
By HawaiiVolcanoes (10 months ago)

somebody should come out with a "kit" for converting the Sony to this Hasselcrapblad...the kit should include a brown plastic grip and letter "H' to stick on the the side...seriously...who would know the difference?

2 upvotes
HawaiiVolcanoes
By HawaiiVolcanoes (10 months ago)

and i really think that the interview was extremely pathetic...these people are used to a certain lifestyle and will 'hold their collective breaths and have a hissy-fit" until they get what they want. This camera is junk...if you buy it you are an idiot( i don't care how much disposable income you have)..you are an idiot because: you are contributing to something that simply should not exist..to malaise. You are telling these people that it is ok to produce TRASH like this and that they don't have to do "real work" anymore. I realize that I'm being repetitive but this camera just really makes my stomach quezy.

3 upvotes
HawaiiVolcanoes
By HawaiiVolcanoes (10 months ago)

Maybe by letting Hasselblad know that people are repulsed by this POS the word will get out to those who have the money to throw away on junk like this that everytime you take one of these out to shoot in public people are laughing their tale-ends off at you. This will in turn cause Hasselblad to actually make cameras again...rebadging a Sony Camera and trying to palm it off like this is really über disgusting.

2 upvotes
Tizzio
By Tizzio (10 months ago)

What is Hasselblad smoking, 7k for a rebadged nex-7? Must be the joke of the decade!!

4 upvotes
PairOfJacks
By PairOfJacks (10 months ago)

Responding to swift and negative criticism is great but at least make some attempt to justify the price. This is nothing more than a Sony NEX-7 camera. That's it. There was no attempt to say HOW this camera is different. The use of wood doesn't justify the cost of the camera at all. Big deal. So a CNC machine cut out a grip out of a tiny piece of olive wood, mahogany, oak, or whatever. Thanks for the idea. Having a CNC machine myself I think I'll give it a go with a couple of $2 pieces of wood. HasselBAD made a horrible decision that ultimately hurts their reputation and trying to justify it by saying they used more expensive materials is ludicrous considering the material - WOOD - is cheap, grows, and can actually crack and leather? C'mon, that wasn't even worth Luca making the comment.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (10 months ago)

I just read Luca's comments and I'm dumbfounded. Your post took the words right out of my mouth. This guy must think we are as stupid and his comments. Just say "we are selling our name, and not a camera". Leica does it and everyone is fine with it.

1 upvote
KAllen
By KAllen (10 months ago)

With MF becoming less relevant Hasselblad have changed their marketing policy.
They are trying to corner the niche market of "there's one born every minute".
What else could they possibly be thinking of.
Expensive and pointless, completely pointless.
How to move from a respected camera company to a laughing stock at great expense in one move.
Someone somewhere is out of work now.

1 upvote
Anepo
By Anepo (10 months ago)

Call me crazy but i love the way it looks but i will NEVER be able to afford that price.

1 upvote
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (10 months ago)

Crazy...just joking. To each his own. Never say never...think of it in terms of "I'm not in a position to afford it at this moment". Someday in the near future, you may be able to get this fine piece of photographic equipment for much less than you think.

0 upvotes
fft81
By fft81 (10 months ago)

What is the point of this camera?
If you want IQ and have little money you get d800
If you want IQ and have lots of money you get medium format.
If you want sports photography you get d3/4 or cannon equivanent
If you just wand aspc sensor in introductory camera with good IQ you get d7100.
If you want to have a snob appeal you get leica

This HB camera has no purpose...

4 upvotes
steve vida
By steve vida (10 months ago)

I can understand the partnership but cannot see the value unless you are a dedicated Hassleblad collector.The going price for a NEX7 with 18-55 lens is around US1,300.The Lunar is US6995, thats a lot more than 100% markup on the standard NEX7.Im sure this sort of markup is the norm for Hassleblad customers but not a temptation for me.Im sure the deal makes Sony feel better about charging $2,900 for the RX-1,imagine what Hassleblad will charge for their rebadged version.If the deal means larger sensors at cheaper prices Im all for it but I dont think that was the motive behind the partnership.

1 upvote
IMAGEQUESTS
By IMAGEQUESTS (Apr 7, 2013)

Will Hasselblad become to Sony what AMG is to Mercedes...???

An AMG version is usually 100% of the cost of the stock model - for that you get an extensive engine overhaul and remap, upgraded suspension wheels and tires, custom leather, carbon fibre and other interior tweaks, an exclusive paint job and a body kit.

Compared with the Lunar which for a 500% price premium you get ermm a body kit....!

Hasselblad Lunar or Lunacy?

http://leoedwardsphotography.com/hasselblad-lunar-or-hasselblad-lunacy/

0 upvotes
wlad
By wlad (10 months ago)

Nope. With Hasselblad, you only get bumper stickers and plastic tuning parts. The engine and everything relevant is still stock.

2 upvotes
jaygeephoto
By jaygeephoto (Dec 12, 2012)

Be sure to specify your size and color for a complementary pair of Brunomagli's.

1 upvote
Bob Grzesiak
By Bob Grzesiak (Nov 13, 2012)

Remember that Hassleblad lenses have been Fuji's for some years now.

0 upvotes
Shurato
By Shurato (Oct 20, 2012)

When I first learned about a Hasselblad model going NEX so to speak, I first thought "eek", what a regression. Plus, the design isn't something which appeals me either, however that's just a personal thing.

HOWEVER: On a second thought I was thinking, WHEN Hasselblad starts developing lenses for the Lunar series, i.e. E-mount, which would be mountable and fully compatible on Sony's NEX cams, then this is a BIG YES and here we'd be taking good and serious partnership.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Oct 12, 2012)

Nevertheless it is good to see, that they finally did correct the misleading comparison of sensor sizes:

http://www.43rumors.com/also-hasselblad-cheats-on-the-micro-four-thirds-sensor-size/

here:

http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/index.php/main-specifications/cmos-sensor/

...at least a step into the right direction.

0 upvotes
Blackfjord
By Blackfjord (Oct 10, 2012)

Hassablowmey.

0 upvotes
zoozig
By zoozig (Sep 30, 2012)

I think its a cool looking camera! Nobody forces you people to go out and buy it, so what are you all bitching about? Ther is really no issue here!

1 upvote
Roland Karlsson
By Roland Karlsson (Oct 5, 2012)

Cool looking? Yeah! Tastes differs.

BTW - I think HBLD made this camera to get some comments. So - why are you bitching about those comments coming? :)

Seriously - its the worst designed camera I ever gave seen. I would heave been less surprised if I had seen it at April 1.

It looks like a bath tub or a wash basin in a hotel.

And when you know it really is a pimped NEX7, then you wonder - whats the meaning of this joke?

6 upvotes
Minolta4Life
By Minolta4Life (10 months ago)

I don't consider it b!tching, just poking fun and exercising free speech. Not that serious, because you are right...if you don't like it, don't buy it, but that doesn't mean we can't call it like we see it.

1 upvote
CFynn
By CFynn (Sep 30, 2012)

It seems Hasselblad must have got rid of their engineers and camera makers and just replaced them with some jewellers to make fancy skins for Sony cameras.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
5 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Sep 30, 2012)

Indeed. They got rid of most of them in 1996, three takeovers ago. The new owners, UBS and CINVEN didn't take long to notice that there wasn't a single person among their existing staff who could design anything even remotely relevant to the day.

The thing was, those owners at least had (or brought in) some product planners capable of coming up with a tolerable survival plan, the rebranding of desirable Fuji products like TX and GX as xpan and the H system.

There's nothing wrong with that, Blad's roots are as a distribution company, actually making things isn't really their strength, and they never did as well at it as they did selling other people's stuff (truth often sounds like blasphemy, LOL)

Next owner, Shriro, also appeared to have some concept of helping Blad thrive, with the Imacon "merger".

It's just this latest owner, Ventiz, who started talking loud about leveraging the brand. We all knew something stupid was coming, we just didn't know it would be this epic.

12 upvotes
zycamaniac
By zycamaniac (Oct 2, 2012)

It does looked like that, I'd say it looked rather like American Chopper (or European chopper) Camera Edition.

You know why gun makers turns to nylon and other synthetics for the stock of their rifles... Because it won't warp when wet, and seeing wood on that BlingMaster-7 made me laugh. All they get is something more suited for trophy case than actually going out shooting.

PS: Blad-designer, you need to put two 2 carat D-FL grade diamond on those two dials to make the bling complete. Do we get GIA certificate for that as well?

2 upvotes
pbailey4
By pbailey4 (Sep 29, 2012)

it still reminds me of April 1st ! All Fools Day.

1 upvote
km25
By km25 (Sep 29, 2012)

Why??? Just buy a NEX-7, with a CZ lens. Pay half and lose have your money and buy the Sony full frame.

1 upvote
Blackfjord
By Blackfjord (Sep 29, 2012)

To Hasselblad: I've give you a $100 for it so I can keep it as a gag.

3 upvotes
Blackfjord
By Blackfjord (Sep 29, 2012)

Congrats on being the laughing stock of the photographic community! The camera is far more valuable as a joke than anything else. Well done!

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
ptl-2010
By ptl-2010 (Sep 28, 2012)

I think this is one of the dumbest things I've seen as of late. There excuse for the price is building materials? Why build it out of something so expensive, when it's internals are going to be outdated in 3-5 years? With film that would have made sense, because you can use whatever film you like, even when they come out with a better process/whatever, but with digital your stuck with the sensor they gave you, and if you want better you've got to buy the whole camera again. Digital camera bodies are, in a way, disposable. It's the lenses and basic accessories that need to last. Not sure how they missed that.

2 upvotes
alexmmx
By alexmmx (Sep 27, 2012)

It's A SONY People - A SONY!! Remember when Fuji & Leica were partners when Fuji had there Finepix 4700, and the Leica had the Digilux it was a Fuji electronics inside, Leica never made the model just the lens, and more people were buying the Fuji 4700 more than the Leica. So I say that since its been about 43 years since 1969 and Hasselblad went to the Moon, SONY Did not. Hassleblad was may for traditional Photography even their H series. Not Calling their Camera Lunar model... It's a SONY.. And for the record I still have the Fuji Finepix 4700 and still using it & it is NOT a 2.0pixel but a 4.0 Pixel..

0 upvotes
What do I know
By What do I know (Sep 28, 2012)

You should buy the new Fuji it's a SONY

1 upvote
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Sep 27, 2012)

He can respond all he wants. It's still just a $1300 Nex 7 in a designer cover.

$6500?

Check the review http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Hasselblad-Lunar-First-Impressions-Review.htm

What a joke. This reminds me of when they were faltering during the infancy of the digital age and they responded by offering their standard cameras in yellow and red faux-leather coverings...

0 upvotes
Carl Sanders
By Carl Sanders (Sep 27, 2012)

Just realised why it is called the Lunar, one would have to be a Lunatic to buy one! What an unfortunate mistake!

3 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Sep 29, 2012)

I think Luca named it after himself. Heck with Blad's history in the space program, an egomaniac got an opportunity to stamp his name on something, and he jumped at it.

3 upvotes
Carl Sanders
By Carl Sanders (Sep 27, 2012)

Forgive them Victor, they know not what they do!

3 upvotes
Eurodynamica
By Eurodynamica (Sep 26, 2012)

Most maufacturers appear to be a little lost at the moment.

Technology is set to sweep their feature sets away leaving a world where the sensors are better than the lenses and most everything you really need can be had for a few hundred bucks, probably at Walmart. Good news for customers, bad news for formerly premium manufacturers like Hasselblad.

Sony seems to be the on-going winner having a firm grasp on the technology and the consumer marketing headspace.

0 upvotes
Jack A. Zucker
By Jack A. Zucker (Sep 27, 2012)

sony is not clearly the winner. Citations please? As far as I can tell, the Nex series does not have any significant market penetration compared to the rest of the mirrorless cameras and their UI is a disaster.

0 upvotes
Jason E.
By Jason E. (Sep 28, 2012)

I agree, there is no clear winner. However, Sony does seem to have made some significant in-roads into market share.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1042&message=42576530

http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/news/20120922_561587.html

2 upvotes
GuyMcKie
By GuyMcKie (Sep 26, 2012)

The skin is like a credit default swap, expensive and without value. Destroying a good camera keeping the sensor heat in.

1 upvote
RX100
By RX100 (Sep 26, 2012)

Here's a review:

http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Hasselblad-Lunar-First-Impressions-Review.htm

2 upvotes
Jay Jenner
By Jay Jenner (Sep 26, 2012)

" I mean, you can just hold it for hours"

Excellent. Its worth a read.

0 upvotes
inevitable crafts studio
By inevitable crafts studio (Sep 27, 2012)

hehe i read it too

on e minus-side they say

1) its a 6500$ shell to a nex7
2) its 6500$
3) six. thousand. five. hundred. dollars.

0 upvotes
Alex Permit
By Alex Permit (Sep 26, 2012)

It's quite a feat for a designer to come up with a design that most people around the globe find grotesque. How did he do it, and how did it get approved? I get that Hassy is looking to milk the brand dry, but this design isn't going to cut it. It strikes me as a socialist's caricature of an ugly capitalist's taste.

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (Sep 26, 2012)

Unfortunately, this series of cameras may be an admission that the present Hasselblad has no contribution to make any longer to the world of imaging, including in the area of technical services. Really, don't understand what Sony gains from this. As many have suggested, blend Sony technology with a Hasselblad heritage and technical services-give us a new digital camera format-designed for waist level viewing, square composition, using existing Hasselblad lenses (I think another OEM is already on that!), something.

3 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Sep 26, 2012)

The Wikipedia page for the Hasselblad Lunar redirects to the Sony NEX-7.

As it should.

3 upvotes
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (Sep 25, 2012)

Hasselblad, truly, had a lot of respect, then.

Sony too.

This endeavor at Photokina 2012 saw them wipe it all out, by their own making.

.

2 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Sep 26, 2012)

Yes and today I took a look at the page of the Lunar:

http://www.hasselblad-lunar.com/index.php/main-specifications/cmos-sensor/

...and saw the comparison between sensor size they have made and found what is written here:

http://www.43rumors.com/also-hasselblad-cheats-on-the-micro-four-thirds-sensor-size/

Hasselblad is obviously cheating within the comparison, where they show a "MICRO Four Thirds sensor" (including the TM hint behind Thirds!) with not only too small size, but also a form factor far beyond 16:9 and no where near 4/3!

Sorry, but in my opinion there are no nice words left to describe what they have done this year...

...they seem to have even left the lunar orbit, but not in direction earth.

1 upvote
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Sep 29, 2012)

They missed a compact system camera in the Luca's price range, LOL. The Leica M has a sensor with over twice the area of the "Blad" APS sensor.

1 upvote
jocair
By jocair (Sep 25, 2012)

As a long time ago traditional Hasselblad owner and user, I'm affraid this new line is doomed to failure...
The goal with Hasselblad is the excellence to photography, not merely the luxe...

1 upvote
Usee
By Usee (Sep 26, 2012)

Have You seen the ugly comparison of sensor sizes on their Lunar page?

In my opinion it is obvious, that the marketing department has taken the lead and the poor people in the technic department, who formerly made the excellence for establishing the brand, are left behind.

A formerly big balloon now filled with nearly nothing and therefore brought outside the orbit of the earth to stay big...

1 upvote
Jay Jenner
By Jay Jenner (Sep 25, 2012)

"What we're doing is designing three cameras – a compact camera, a DSLR and a mirrorless – with the same style"

Ooh yay...cannot wait to see the rest of the range then.
Has there been any, ANY even mildly positive words about this travesty of a camera, anywhere at all?

2 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Sep 24, 2012)

I knew the name Luca Alessandrini sounded familiar.

Isn't he the guy who "brand managed" Gitzo into their current straits? Remember the "basalt" (or "dirty fibeglass") tripod?

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=10795245

I think that was one of his. How about the "Titanium Traveler", a $2500 limited edition?

If memory serves, he was also the mastermind behind Gitzo's plan to curtail all European manufacturing and outsource the entire product line to China (the move that accidentally created their competitor, Benro, AKA Induro).

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
7 upvotes
rallyfan
By rallyfan (Sep 24, 2012)

He also managed... De Longhi, the firm that makes kitchenware.

Now, his strategy of offering very little and increasing the price dramatically is sound; it's worked well for others and it would have worked well in this instance also if it wasn't for failure to camouflage the source camera and lens better. The comments in response to what he perceived as criticisms sealed the deal, making the launch a complete fiasco.

It's a shame for Hassy, really. The internet is full of "visionaries" and "artists" and "photographers" that are keenly interested in "images" and so on, and lots of these people have time, money, and gullibility. However I doubt Hassy will be able to capitalize on that this time round.

3 upvotes
Joseph S Wisniewski
By Joseph S Wisniewski (Sep 29, 2012)

Best numbers I have, about 2000.

The Luca should skyrocket that to at least 2003, maybe even 2005.

0 upvotes
Jekyll
By Jekyll (Sep 24, 2012)

Gentlemen, I was at the Photokina yesterday, Sunday 23rd. We were 5 Photoenthusiasts, friends altogether. We stumbled upon this Lunar prototype at Hasselblad's phenomenal stand - which by the way displayed a nice black Ferrari cabriolet in it's center - giving a hint about their target group I guess.

Whatever - an interrested customer approached the Hasselblad's representative standing right next to us and asked him "Why should I chose a Hasselblad over the original Sony?".

The Hasselblad's guy responded the following - hold your breath;
1. Well our camera is better looking than the Sony, since we added a fancy grip and fancy colours to it
2. If you buy it you will own a "real" Hasselblad
3. And you have to spend more money on this as for the Sony

I swear to God (and I have 4 witnesses with me) that this was the original response of the Hasselblad guy. If I was younger I would write *facepalm* to comment this :o).

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
W Sanders
By W Sanders (Sep 24, 2012)

B the same token, more Porsches are sold with automatic than mnaual transmissions. Time change, brands change,

0 upvotes
MM67
By MM67 (Sep 23, 2012)

Gentlemen, Hasselblad has obviously done painstaking research into the market they hope to exploit: the morally bankrupt, attention-starved wealthy. I'm sure they've spent plenty on demographic surveys and this design is in lockstep with their findings. I have been lucky enough to view the wealthy, both in captivity and their natural environment (I live in NYC where M9s, miniature dogs in fur coats, and a myriad other obscenely expensive accessories are paraded around without a moments reflection) and we're talking about the people who are responsible for keeping companies like this is business: http://www.vertu.com/ Whomever thinks that $60+K for a blinged-up nokia or $6K for a blinged-up NEX-7 in this age of unimaginable inequity obviously can't handle the responsibility of the wealth they possess. Companies are realizing this more and more and have no problem offering sparkly mediocrity at astounding prices knowing some grotesque will actually buy it. Viva bad taste! Olé!

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
7 upvotes
AbrasiveReducer
By AbrasiveReducer (Sep 24, 2012)

The one thing all these folks have in common? Their taxes are too high.

1 upvote
SRT201
By SRT201 (Sep 24, 2012)

Yes, they are the same brand of self-absorbed fools that wear $2000 designer shoes. However, it certainly sounds like you're all for taking what they have from them simply because of their lack of perspective.

I still believe people should have the freedom to be wise or foolish.

There is no shortage of low-income, self-absorbed fools. They're just not as obvious in crowds.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
MM67
By MM67 (Sep 24, 2012)

Thanks for the responses - it's all just a sad state of affairs, really. I didn't mean to come across as judgmental of anyone for what they buy or desire. I'm no fan of price-gouging either, for the rich or poor. Some rich folks buy this stuff and some poor wish they had the money to buy it. It's just confounding to me that people can feel good about squandering small fortunes on such ephemera. But, hell, we all pick our poison. ;)

1 upvote
pumeco
By pumeco (Sep 23, 2012)

As an ultra-capable designer myself, I have to be professional about it and state that I don't like the look of the camera.

That said, despite the criticisms of the camera, it's good that Luca has responded to them, because it shows they are listening. Whether listening transforms into something people will buy is a different matter, but just in case it does, here are my main issues with the design.

First and foremost, the appearance of the lens needs to change because it's so clearly "NEX". Not only the styling of that lens, but the colour and material look totally out of place on that body. The body is curvy but the lens is hard-edged. This makes it look as if the designer didn't understand the importance of "following-through" .

The grip looks poorly implemented because visible edges give an impression of strength or weakness. Sticking a piece of wood over the grip is a bad idea. A better idea would be to make the whole grip out of wood - especially at the price.

0 upvotes
max metz
By max metz (Sep 23, 2012)

There is a big difference between a Leica Panasonic and a full blown Leica, not least being the asking price.

Hasselblad have chosen to ignore that distinction when changing the wrapper of a Sony Nex7, it will be interesting to see how the buying market reacts, not just the commentators.

1 upvote
Usee
By Usee (Sep 23, 2012)

As a part of the market, I can tell You that I probably would have bought a NEX 7 if the handgrip where better suited for my hands...

...in particular the distance (ergonomics) between the handgrip and the lens.

Hasselblad may have solved this issue,
but for a price I surely wouldn't pay.
I would rather try to get a grip on Richard Franiec's designs:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/02/29/Richard-Franeic-Custom-Accessory-Grip-for-Nikon-1-V1

Not worse than Fuji's attempt for the XPro1 and far better than what Sigma showed with the wood brick.

0 upvotes
Usee
By Usee (Sep 23, 2012)

I think Hassleblad is pulling a less obvious stunt than Sigma with it's SD1 wood edition for 9999.- €:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2011/10/12/sigmasd1wood

...or Pentax with another gem in the segment of silly (marketing) walks:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=39577531

...and the Hustleblad may have a real good finish for about half the price of the wood edition...

...Hasselblad is not Pentax or Sigma.

-

If one is used to a design of a tool and can afford the price of a complementing device - why shouldn't one buy it?

It is nice to have the choice and the variety - be happy!

0 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 22, 2012)

In two years, BOTH Hasselblad and Sony will be bent over a table with their pants down around their ankles by the newest smartphone technology. They are BOTH going to circle the drain, and so will most of the professional photographers lambasting this abortion, when the next generation of smartphones, pursuant to Moore's Law, will magically turn its ignorant and untrained holder into an unsuspecting Bresson shooting a Leica.

In a $39.95 phone with a two-year contract extension.

Frankly, I will be surprised if Nikon and Canon will be around in ten years, given the exploding capabilities of the smartphone, or ANY professional photographer, for that matter.

What Hasselblad is doing here is a thinly-disguised act of desperation. The writing is on the well. Hasselblad should be congratulated for seeing, albeit at the last moment.

1 upvote
Five Piece
By Five Piece (Sep 22, 2012)

I'll start holding my breath now...

1 upvote
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Sep 23, 2012)

You're forgetting something. Most pros are not hired for their cameras but for what they can do with their cameras. The technology may change but the pros will remain.

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
4 upvotes
Jay Jenner
By Jay Jenner (Sep 24, 2012)

Oh yeah. A shiny slab of slippeyr glass with no grip, no buttons or tactile controls whatsoever, and a lens the size of a bugs eyeball.
Of course.

3 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 24, 2012)

But then of course when this physical thing previously known as a "camera" is seemlessly implanted in our eyes with an implanted on-board power supply and massive computing power now available at the instant thought in our new hybridized human form factors, then both "smartphones" and "cameras" will be remembered as quaint artifacts as obsolete and queer as a rotary telephone.

Singularity, i.e. the blurring and erasing of the boundaries between "human" and "technology" is officially here. Leica and Hasselblad are now in the business of installing sequins on buggy whips, in a hopelessly doomed attempt to stay relevant as they are being vigorously overran and overwhelmed by the latest dazzling technology. Nothing that Hasselblad could possibly build, given this technological revolution, could possibly be any better than tomorrow's cheap Sony. Therefore, the medium itself can only become an elaborate and sequined art piece.

0 upvotes
OhioPhoto
By OhioPhoto (Sep 25, 2012)

I agree that the ubiquity of cameras in smart devices means everyman is a "photographer." But I have a slightly different take on what path that may lead us down. In the 1930s/40s people thought TV and radio coverage of sports (baseball in particular) would kill in-stadium ticket sales. It did the opposite. It created new fans. I hope smart phone cameras will do the same: build an appreciation for photography and increase market size, But that will only happen if the Nikons/Cannons of the world are able to create devices with the significant performance differentiation from in-devices. That has yet to be seen.

If they fail, we'll be in a different paradigm. Cameras will go in the direction of wristwatches, future relics favored by the old, fashion-conscious or the artiste' set ("e" added for affectation).

0 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 25, 2012)

Even the carefully-designed really retro-shape of current DSLRs is dictated by what film cameras needed to load and unload film, and not the actual needs of the form factor of digital. So Hasselblad's and Leica's embarrassing "covering-the-microprocessor-with-endangered-animal-skin-and-imported-exotic-wood" is a cynical ploy that they have correctly guessed will appeal to the bigotry and superstitions of the hidebound, moss-backed professional photographers.

This strongly indicates that the profession itself is doomed and an endangered species. You are ALL going to be out of a job in five years!

This open hostility to smartphones and facebook and the various new generation of photographic techniques is exactly the death rattle that professional print journalists were making before THEY became obsolete and virtually extinct a few years back.

0 upvotes
Colin Dutton
By Colin Dutton (Sep 25, 2012)

You're still only talking about technology. These changes are not going to spell the end of professional photography. No client has ever asked me what camera i use. They hire me because they know i'll get the job done. The 'job' usually involves organisation, schedules, budgets, travel, lighting, assistants, art directors, stylists... The camera, in whatever form it may take in the future, is not going to get the job done on its own.

Every home may have a microwave oven and everyone can warm up a frozen meal in five minutes, but the world still needs professional chefs.

1 upvote
Gesture
By Gesture (Sep 22, 2012)

I think back to late in the film era when the Contax G was launched. It was an expensive, beautifully designed, real camera with fantastic lenses. It was a luxury item, but one of value and good taste and for a time there was quite a cachet to it with Hollywood folks, etc. walking around with them. Many celebrities in the film era were ardent photographers and rolled out their Leicas, Nikon RF, Rollefilex, etc. because they wanted the best, not the busiest.

2 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 22, 2012)

I have one of the Contax G2s, but unfortunately its imaging quality is really no better than a $100 Costco Panasonic point and shoot with a "Leica" lens. As I wrote previously, the new wave of technology is simply going to destroy the world of professional photography with a tsunami of technological brilliance that will easily surpass the original digital revolution that killed film.

1 upvote
mbpm
By mbpm (Sep 22, 2012)

@BiggerDiggler:
I don't really care if digital consumer sensors will kill professional digital cameras in the future. I'll still keep my film cameras.
If you are not satisfied with the images produced by your Contax G2s maybe you should give me your Contax, I'll make sure to use it like it was meant to be used, and you can keep your cheap Costco Panasonic point and shoot. :)
BTW, the issue is not how revolutionary the technology is or how great the image quality of the sensor is. The issue is using an image to express a feeling and to make a statement. In this digital craze, people forget that an image is not all about resolution, pixels, or latitude.

Comment edited 26 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Nate21
By Nate21 (Sep 24, 2012)

I agree with mbpm photography is an art that is expressed by the individual user not the equipment.

2 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 24, 2012)

Some of these arguments against my position might make sense, were it not for many (Kurzwell especially) who argue that technological singularity is right around the corner. Where technology becomes smarter and better in all ways that mere human intelligence. I submit there is going to be a technology that will create superior art, too. I see what Hasselblad and Leica have done recently with their designer cameras as a rear-guard, retroactive attempt at a counter revolution, that is doomed to fail. They are trying to keep themselves relevant and viable in the marketplace as they have literally been overran by recent technological revolutions, which only gets cheaper and more profoundly competent by the second.

Kurzwell would probably argue that a physical thing called a "camera" will no longer be necessary in ten years, nor will a thing called a "smartphone." We will become technological hybrids with high-tech implants that will supplant all of our existing form factors.

0 upvotes
mbpm
By mbpm (Sep 25, 2012)

BiggerDiggler, no one is arguing against your position however laughable and far-fetched your opinion could actually sound. The core of your statement is actually very true, technology is advancing quickly and is becoming smarter and better, but there's a fallacy in your reasoning thereof. technology and science is ruled by laws that bind them, and therefore it is a finite element or tool, technology can advance only to a certain point. Whereas an idea is substantially connotative, and therefore it is infinite. It is not bound by any rules or laws, rather, it is subjective and expressive.
So, how can you submit a reason that superior technology will create superior art? when the main value of art is to express an idea.
ie: "View from the Window at Le Gras," is true art, and it is by no means better or inferior than the various arts made in the modern age. It does however hold a great historical value.

Now go shoot your Contax G2s before I hurl a lettuce at you, Dr. Kurzwell says so.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
BiggerDiggler
By BiggerDiggler (Sep 25, 2012)

"and therefore it is a finite element or tool, technology can advance only to a certain point."

"So, how can you submit a reason that superior technology will create superior art? when the main value of art is to express an idea."

Kurzwell argues that at the point where intelligence becomes truly artificial (i.e. "singularity"), all bets are off. All present notions of limitations of time and space are suddenly extinct at that point. And at the present speed of technological revolution, he has revised his predicted date for singularity from 20 years away to less than five. And that was last year! Who knows what it will be revised down to this year.

And I WILL be shooting my Contax G2 this week, thank you very much and get this: A freind is certain that he found an genuine Alexander Calder mobile at a thrift store. But in order to get a documented opinion, they need series of Fuji CHROME shots (which of course cannot be manipulated) of the piece before they will generate an opinion.

0 upvotes
mbpm
By mbpm (Sep 26, 2012)

lol, watch, 20 years from know you will be amazed that technology will not reach a "singularity." In fact, some people would still be using their Iphone 5 as a collectors item, and photographers would still be using their film cameras, and some would still be using their Tintypes and Daguerreotypes just like they had used it a hundred years ago and still are using it today.
I remember at the turn of the century, in the year 2,000, people thought that technology would be so advance that cars would be completely automated. But, I am still driving my '86 Toyota Corolla and the new cars today sure aren't automated.
Look, I agree with you that we have the capacity to achieve a technological revolution or "singularity" if you will. But, it's not going to happen anytime soon because of three BIG factors:
Culture: the majority of population needs to accept and be accustomed with the advance of technology. Some culture repress the people from this like North Korea, Algeria, Bahrain, Burma.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mbpm
By mbpm (Sep 26, 2012)

Secondly, competition: we need to have a more diverse, urgent and competitive mindset in technological advances. The only reason why the USA sent men in the moon was because we were competing against the Soviets. The only reason why USA created the atomic boom was because we thought that the Germans were ahead of us.
Thirdly and most importantly! The economy. In other words, the values and prices of products with the most advance technology. Everything needs to be cheaper! What good will serve a company to produce the most expensive technological wonder if only a few people can afford it? Cost for production would be higher than the revenue, and that's a big loss. That's why we are still stuck in the past. This Hasselbald is NOT revolutionary and it is uber expensive! Which goes to show us that true revolutionary technology is definitely not cheap enough for mass production. And the economy still not good enough to help people afford the bling.
All three factors are crucial.

Comment edited 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
mbpm
By mbpm (Sep 26, 2012)

But on a lighter note, I am happy that your friend found an genuine Alexander Calder mobile at a thrift store. He is truly a lucky guy.
And I am glad you will enjoy shooting your Contax. I shall reserve my lettuce for a latter occasion, I'll provably make a Romaine Salad or something.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Total comments: 628
12345