Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / October 2004
Hasselblad discontinues "classic" line
|
|
Thread rating:  |
FLEXARET2 - 20 Oct 2004 02:10 GMT from : flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-19-04
Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their "classic" 6x6cm slr line.
They blame the digital revolution and announce they will be producing a line of digital cameras with their new partner Imacon.
Much information on this will be forthcoming soon.
This leaves Rollei and Kiev/Arsenal as the only current producers of 6x6cm "film" SLRs.
- Sam Sherman
Raoul - 20 Oct 2004 04:09 GMT > from : flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-19-04 > > Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their > "classic" 6x6cm slr line. I read a followup on the Hassy list that this is not the case. Hasselblad Germany denied this and that the V-Series is still in production.
However, it was announced at Photokina that no new 200 series cameras are being produced. New cameras are limited to those currently built and those made from parts already at the factory.
raoul
Christopher Perez - 20 Oct 2004 16:30 GMT Regardless of which lines Hasselblad reduces production on or closes, is there any idea how their sales are in the US these days? I'd heard that MF sales were still strong in general here. True? Or is this changing?
- Chris
>>from : flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-19-04 >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > raoul Nick Zentena - 20 Oct 2004 16:52 GMT > Regardless of which lines Hasselblad reduces production on or closes, is > there any idea how their sales are in the US these days? I'd heard that > MF sales were still strong in general here. True? Or is this changing? Even if sales are flat the weak US $ would be kicking the stuffing out of sales when converted back into local currency. The Euro from it's bottom to now is up around 50%. Most other currencies have moved strongly.
Nick
jjs - 20 Oct 2004 17:40 GMT > Regardless of which lines Hasselblad reduces production on or closes, is > there any idea how their sales are in the US these days? I'd heard that > MF sales were still strong in general here. True? Or is this changing? The best thing any European manufacturer can do is to move their production to a place where their Euro-dollars are worth more. US made products are enjoying a huge boost in sales to Europe. Hey, maybe we will see more Euro-manufacturers moving to the USA for the cheap labor!
Pete McCutchen - 24 Oct 2004 14:11 GMT >> Regardless of which lines Hasselblad reduces production on or closes, is >> there any idea how their sales are in the US these days? I'd heard that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >enjoying a huge boost in sales to Europe. Hey, maybe we will see more >Euro-manufacturers moving to the USA for the cheap labor! BMW began that process several years ago.
 Signature
Pete McCutchen
Alan Browne - 20 Oct 2004 18:43 GMT > from : flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-19-04 > > Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their > "classic" 6x6cm slr line. It would be nice if you would quote your source when making such a posting.
> They blame the digital revolution and announce they will be producing a line of > digital cameras with their new partner Imacon. partner? They have merged. One company.
FLEXARET2 - 20 Oct 2004 20:53 GMT from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-20-04
I will have to retract my "Hasselblad discontinues" story, based on a post on the IDCC (Internet Directory of Camera Collectors), based on some European story (uncredited).
I have now heard that Hasselblad is discontinuing the 200 series line only - and will assemble them until existing parts are gone, then make no more.
Two other stories I have also heard say they will not discontinue the "V" series, and one says that they will.
Based on this experience I have learned to not repeat internet stories without sufficient backup materials.
In any event, this is an unfolding story to watch and see what develops over time.
- Sam Sherman
Q.G. de Bakker - 20 Oct 2004 19:43 GMT > Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their > "classic" 6x6cm slr line. That last bit is an assumption.
But no mention of the new found vocation of Hasselblad AB, which surely will bring in some money: distributing Zeiss's Zeiss Ikon rangefinder? Hasselblad AB is now also a trading company...
Mxsmanic - 20 Oct 2004 20:49 GMT > Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their > "classic" 6x6cm slr line. > > They blame the digital revolution and announce they will be producing a line of > digital cameras with their new partner Imacon. Since the only difference between a film-based Hasselblad 6x6 SLR and a digital Hasselblad 6x6 SLR is in the back clipped onto the camera body, why discontinue the entire line?
Something is not right in this report.
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Q.G. de Bakker - 21 Oct 2004 18:50 GMT > > Hasselblad has fired 60 employees in Sweden and is discontinuing their > > "classic" 6x6cm slr line. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Something is not right in this report. This particular bit of the report is quite accurate. Remember that until very recently, sales of digital products was not something that would keep Hasselblad afloat. If anything, people were buying things to put onto their already owned Hasselblads. They were not buying Hasselblads.
They are still not competitive enough. As the report in the Gothenburg paper notes: the "cheap" H1D is still twice as expensive as the mre or less comparable offering from the 35 mm based digital camp.
FLEXARET2 - 22 Oct 2004 00:46 GMT from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-21-04
Today I was at the Photo Plus Expo at the Javits Center in New York City.
Hasselblad has a big booth and display there.
I spoke to one of their reps and he explained to me that only the 200 series was discontinued and that the "V" (500) series continues and Imacon (now part of their company) is making a new 16MP digital back for the "V" cameras (I think it is $11,000) and a new 22MP digital back for the H cameras - also know in combo with same as "H1" and this is $22,000.
- Sam Sherman
Alan Browne - 22 Oct 2004 03:36 GMT > I spoke to one of their reps and he explained to me > that only the 200 series was discontinued and that > the "V" (500) series continues and Imacon (now part of their company) is making > a new 16MP digital back for the "V" cameras (I think it is $11,000) and a new > 22MP digital back for the H cameras - also know in > combo with same as "H1" and this is $22,000. Well, I'm glas that price has come down to something reasonable. ;-)
Cheers, Alan
 Signature -- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Mxsmanic - 22 Oct 2004 06:04 GMT > I spoke to one of their reps and he explained to me > that only the 200 series was discontinued and that > the "V" (500) series continues and Imacon (now part of their company) is making > a new 16MP digital back for the "V" cameras (I think it is $11,000) and a new > 22MP digital back for the H cameras - also know in > combo with same as "H1" and this is $22,000. Why does the smaller format have more pixels?
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
David J. Littleboy - 22 Oct 2004 06:19 GMT > > I spoke to one of their reps and he explained to me > > that only the 200 series was discontinued and that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Why does the smaller format have more pixels? It's not a smaller format. The square MF sensors tend to be 36 x 36mm, whereas the rectangular ones tend to be 36 x 48 or 36x52 or the like.
David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan
Mxsmanic - 22 Oct 2004 17:27 GMT > It's not a smaller format. The square MF sensors tend to be 36 x 36mm, > whereas the rectangular ones tend to be 36 x 48 or 36x52 or the like. Why isn't the former sensor 56x56?
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Gordon Moat - 22 Oct 2004 19:51 GMT > > It's not a smaller format. The square MF sensors tend to be 36 x 36mm, > > whereas the rectangular ones tend to be 36 x 48 or 36x52 or the like. > > Why isn't the former sensor 56x56? Too tough for the chip makers to make imaging chips without flaws over that large a size. That means that yields are low for that large a chip, which would make prices substantially higher. I think within a few years we should see a few full frame 645 or 6x6 imaging chips on the market, and likely at current pricing levels, or even slightly lower. However, this is a very limited market, and I think prices will always be a little high for new digital backs.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com
RSD99 - 22 Oct 2004 20:35 GMT Gordon's posting is correct, but he didn't mention that the **cost** of the chip is directly proportional to the *size* of the chip. A 56 mm x 56 mm sensor chip will take up a *very* large amount of silicon real-estate ... probably as much as several thousand RAM memory chips.
> > > It's not a smaller format. The square MF sensors tend to be 36 x 36mm, > > > whereas the rectangular ones tend to be 36 x 48 or 36x52 or the like. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com Donald Qualls - 23 Oct 2004 11:56 GMT > Gordon's posting is correct, but he didn't mention that the **cost** of the > chip is directly proportional to the *size* of the chip. A 56 mm x 56 mm > sensor chip will take up a *very* large amount of silicon real-estate ... > probably as much as several thousand RAM memory chips. Actually, it's much worse than that -- when you talk about chips akin to a Pentium 6, which gets (IIRC) 4 dies on a single wafer (and that needs an "oversize" wafer puller; you'd get 1-2 dies on the "standard" wafer of 3-4 years ago), price goes up in inverse proportion to the fallout rate. It's effectively impossible to fab a wafer without some defects -- you get crystal imperfections in the wafer substrate, errors in microlithography and epitaxy in creating the circuitry in/on the silicon, contamination (even in vacuum fab conditions), and the end result is that the best fabs on Earth can only produce about 1 wafer in 4 without defects, which means a minimum fallout of around 6% and likely much higher; as recently as a couple years ago, fallout for Pentium 4 chips was 80% when they first hit the market (which went a long way to explain their original pricing of close to $1000 each). The bigger the chip, the exponentially higher the fallout in a given fab environment, and it's hideously expensive to reduce fallout by cleaning up a fab (remember, you're "cleaning up" a place that's already so clean you need an electron microscope to see the dirt, and might have to search for hours to find a single speck).
The CCD sensor chips used in the Sloane Digital Sky Survey telescope instrument cost over $1 million each, in a form factor similar to the above 56x56 mm and with something like 20+ megapixels, without Bayer or Foveon color capability. Things have advanced considerably since those chips were made (the Survey was completed in 2000, IIRC), but comparable chips with color capability likely still wholesale for something like $50,000 (if anyone makes one at all) -- which would translate to a digital back incorporating such a chip selling for more than most of the houses in the United States. The price won't really start to come down until they can start selling in quantity, which can't happen when you can't get a second mortgage big enough to buy the end product -- it'll be several years yet before there's a 56x56 color sensor that can produce a camera or back under $20k. There might *never* be one I can afford, because the limits of silicon fab capability (limits set by the laws of physics governing the operation of the circuits, not by fab technology itself) are only about eight years out at Moore's Law growth rates.
 Signature The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions. -- Ansel Adams
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
Mxsmanic - 23 Oct 2004 14:42 GMT > There might *never* be one I can > afford, because the limits of silicon fab capability (limits set by the > laws of physics governing the operation of the circuits, not by fab > technology itself) are only about eight years out at Moore's Law growth > rates. So the only answer is ... shoot film. You can get as many pixels as you want with film, and it's cheap to produce.
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Donald Qualls - 23 Oct 2004 17:05 GMT >>There might *never* be one I can >>afford, because the limits of silicon fab capability (limits set by the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So the only answer is ... shoot film. You can get as many pixels as you > want with film, and it's cheap to produce. Doing it already. At last count, I own six (old to *very* old) more or less usable medium format cameras; two of them are very good and if they fall behind a Hasselblad or Mamiya for image quality in any reasonably sized print it's because I didn't hold steady of failed to get the focus right. I also have two working 35 mm cameras capable of producing excellent results, and two working 9x12 cm plate cameras, one very good, and the other excellent in terms of image quality.
 Signature The challenge to the photographer is to command the medium, to use whatever current equipment and technology furthers his creative objectives, without sacrificing the ability to make his own decisions. -- Ansel Adams
Donald Qualls, aka The Silent Observer http://silent1.home.netcom.com
Opinions expressed are my own -- take them for what they're worth and don't expect them to be perfect.
Mxsmanic - 23 Oct 2004 07:40 GMT > Too tough for the chip makers to make imaging chips without flaws over that > large a size. Well, they need to work on it.
> I think within a few years we should > see a few full frame 645 or 6x6 imaging chips on the market, and likely at > current pricing levels, or even slightly lower. I'll agree that they'll come; I don't agree that prices will be lower. In this domain of photography, price gouging is the norm.
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
RSD99 - 23 Oct 2004 23:25 GMT "Mxsmanic" posted: "... Well, they need to work on it. ..."
Actually ... they are ... to the tune of several BILLION dollars a year.
That technology is not cheap ... see Donald Qualls posting above for a very good but very abbreviated look at the actual problem.
[I know ... I know ... you actually meant it as a facetious remark ...]
Mxsmanic - 24 Oct 2004 06:59 GMT > I know ... I know ... you actually meant it as a facetious remark ... No, I was serious. I don't plan to move to digital until and unless it can provide a better image at a comparable price. An inferior image at 100 times the price won't do. I don't care if I'm being fashionable or not; I obstinately insist on remaining rational. So I continue to shoot film.
 Signature Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Q.G. de Bakker - 22 Oct 2004 17:06 GMT > Why does the smaller format have more pixels? Too make it cheaper to buy. Why else? ;-)
You can get 22 MP backs for the "V-system" too.
Pete McCutchen - 24 Oct 2004 14:25 GMT >from: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman) 10-21-04 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >22MP digital back for the H cameras - also know in >combo with same as "H1" and this is $22,000. Well, I guess I'll just rush right out and buy one, then.
 Signature
Pete McCutchen
|
|
|