Hasselblad moves into the digital market

HeHeHeHeHe ...

MANY times mergers do not work out "as planned" ... or work out anywhere near the
potential(s) represented by the combination of the two entities.

HeHeHeHeHe ...






"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote in message ...
RSD99 wrote:

NO.

NOT until they actually have a product on the market ... as in "on store
shelves."

You think the companies merge to NOT produce something?
;-)

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes.

Good for you!

Mxsmanic wrote:

Yes.

Good for you!

Lourens Smak wrote:

I think Hasselblad should be competing on quality, not on price. When
the digi-blad will be *better* (like Hasselblad was in the old days) the
price doesn't really matter as long as it isn't completely silly.

Well, that depends on what qualifies as "sikky", doesn't it?

I also think the price of backs like Imacons is calculated from the
money that can be made/saved with it. a photographer that is busy and
shoots let's say 5 120-rolls a day, 200 days a year, will save 2000
rolls + development in 2 years, or $20.000. That makes a $10.000 back an
easy sell for some studios.

You seem to forget that even professional photographers, people spending
money to make money, would like to spend less, if possible. Very much so
indeed.
And the thing MF backs are competing with is not film. It's not the price of
a MF digital product vs the price of films you do not have to buy. That may
have been the consideration in the "old days" but those days have long gone.

So... as long as you can get perfectly good 14 MP from a 5K$ camera (no
matter how many times you save the price of a roll of film) a MF back
delivering no more, but costing many times that, is not a good proposition.
Any professional opting for a more expensive option of this nature (more
bucks, not more bang) is a thief of his own wallet. Dare i say it? A fool.

And that's not even considering the fact that these mega-expensive MF backs
rob you of your wide angle lenses. Whereas the competition...

Lourens Smak wrote:

I think Hasselblad should be competing on quality, not on price. When
the digi-blad will be *better* (like Hasselblad was in the old days) the
price doesn't really matter as long as it isn't completely silly.

Well, that depends on what qualifies as "sikky", doesn't it?

I also think the price of backs like Imacons is calculated from the
money that can be made/saved with it. a photographer that is busy and
shoots let's say 5 120-rolls a day, 200 days a year, will save 2000
rolls + development in 2 years, or $20.000. That makes a $10.000 back an
easy sell for some studios.

You seem to forget that even professional photographers, people spending
money to make money, would like to spend less, if possible. Very much so
indeed.
And the thing MF backs are competing with is not film. It's not the price of
a MF digital product vs the price of films you do not have to buy. That may
have been the consideration in the "old days" but those days have long gone.

So... as long as you can get perfectly good 14 MP from a 5K$ camera (no
matter how many times you save the price of a roll of film) a MF back
delivering no more, but costing many times that, is not a good proposition.
Any professional opting for a more expensive option of this nature (more
bucks, not more bang) is a thief of his own wallet. Dare i say it? A fool.

And that's not even considering the fact that these mega-expensive MF backs
rob you of your wide angle lenses. Whereas the competition...

Neil Gould wrote:

I'd like to hear more about your ideas of "drastic measures". As I see it,
most of the "catching up" will involve eliminating the "traditional"
notion of MF, e.g. starting at 6x4.5 cm and ranging through 4"x5".

The catching up they have to do is match the price level MP go for today. A
good standard, i think is the Kodak 14 MP 35 mm based machine.
1 MP (excellent quality, disregarding the full frame advantage for now)
costs about US$ 350. That's the level MF digital back makers do not even
begin to approach, though their pixels are no better.

To begin with, they can start charging per MP. They can add a bit for
quality, if they must, as long as they keep it sane.

They do charge per MP, if one considers recent offerings. And, it's not
likely to be "sane", unless one considers $30k "sane", which I don't.

No, they do not charge per MP. They charge an awfull lot extra for being MF
products.
You're right that what they are charging is nowhere near sane. That's the
point o was hoping to make. ;-)

And stop (!!!) charging extra because the thing the digital product is
hooked up to happens to be a MF camera.

No problem... it most likely won't be, in the traditional sense. ;-)

Well, if this Hasselcon/Imablad merger should end in something good for both
parties involed, it will be traditional cameras with MF digital backs.
They can't afford to wait until they come up with something completely new,
"untraditional".

In fact, charging quite a bit less for the MF camera put in front of
the digital back will help a lot too.

An unlikely outcome, if the H1 is an indication.

That (the current rice of the H1) is the situation of yesterday and even
today.
They must change that. That's what i'm saying.
And who says they can't...? ;-)

Neil Gould wrote:

I'd like to hear more about your ideas of "drastic measures". As I see it,
most of the "catching up" will involve eliminating the "traditional"
notion of MF, e.g. starting at 6x4.5 cm and ranging through 4"x5".

The catching up they have to do is match the price level MP go for today. A
good standard, i think is the Kodak 14 MP 35 mm based machine.
1 MP (excellent quality, disregarding the full frame advantage for now)
costs about US$ 350. That's the level MF digital back makers do not even
begin to approach, though their pixels are no better.

To begin with, they can start charging per MP. They can add a bit for
quality, if they must, as long as they keep it sane.

They do charge per MP, if one considers recent offerings. And, it's not
likely to be "sane", unless one considers $30k "sane", which I don't.

No, they do not charge per MP. They charge an awfull lot extra for being MF
products.
You're right that what they are charging is nowhere near sane. That's the
point o was hoping to make. ;-)

And stop (!!!) charging extra because the thing the digital product is
hooked up to happens to be a MF camera.

No problem... it most likely won't be, in the traditional sense. ;-)

Well, if this Hasselcon/Imablad merger should end in something good for both
parties involed, it will be traditional cameras with MF digital backs.
They can't afford to wait until they come up with something completely new,
"untraditional".

In fact, charging quite a bit less for the MF camera put in front of
the digital back will help a lot too.

An unlikely outcome, if the H1 is an indication.

That (the current rice of the H1) is the situation of yesterday and even
today.
They must change that. That's what i'm saying.
And who says they can't...? ;-)

Lourens Smak wrote:

Look at the calculation again; that's exactly what I mean.

Look at the other lines i wrote in response too, and you'll know what i
mean. ;-)

Lourens Smak wrote:

Look at the calculation again; that's exactly what I mean.

Look at the other lines i wrote in response too, and you'll know what i
mean. ;-)

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
In article .net,
"Mike" wrote:

"Lourens Smak" wrote in message
...
I also think the price of backs like Imacons is calculated from the
money that can be made/saved with it. a photographer that is busy and
shoots let's say 5 120-rolls a day, 200 days a year, will save 2000
rolls + development in 2 years, or $20.000. That makes a $10.000 back
an
easy sell for some studios.

Sounds like your making the assumption that the photographer is not
charging
the customer for film and processing. Every photographer I know with
any
business sense is charging the customer.

You are correct, and in fact this was one of the main reasons I was
hesitant about going digital for a long time. Now I have a new client
who wanted to pay a fixed price per assignment. I said: that's OK, and
you can guess what happened next.

You are also assuming that when I burn a CD, that doesn't cost anything,
and that the proof-print that accompanies that CD is free...
;-)
Lourens

My point is that IF the film photographer is charging the client for film
and processing with a small markup they are making money not saving.