My opinion too!
Personally, I would agree that Hasselblad should come out and sell some digital backs that will fit their 500 series and 200 series. Those suckers would sell damn quick. Actually, thinking out loud, if someone could produce digital "backs" that would fit old film cameras, you would have a pretty good product on your hands.
I don't think the problem is so much the structure of capitalism as it is that the nature and evolution of technology (specifically manufacturing technology) has largely eliminated the value of Hassy's historic core competencies.
Which is a fancy way of saying that those things that they used to be uniquely good at are not so rare anymore. Lots of companies can produce precision components and assemblies these days. The ability to do so, in and of itself, is no longer sufficient to gain competitive advantage.
What they are doing is not particularly irrational. If I owned a brand with the "premium" appeal of Hasselblad, I'd do the same thing: Cash in. Milk it. Sell over-priced, "prestige" products to every sucker who is willing to buy, knowing full well that each sell has the side-effect of diluting and diminishing the value of the brand.
Its not particularly pleasant to watch, but it makes sense.
It only make "sense" if you are a vulture fund/equity. For all others - the company tradition and image, the workforce, and the society at large - that "sense" has huge negative impact. Human history would have been immeasurably poorer had it been driven by such anti-values.
Originally Posted by omaha
I wonder how many of those lipsticked-up pigs do they sell, anyway? Enough to make a strong difference on the bottom line? Enough to make it worth trading brand equity for? I just don't know. Maybe they sell well to the status-conscious newly affluent in China. If so, it looks like the Marxists got what they wanted- a classless society. That is, a society without class.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Human history WAS driven by such values. Its just the way things are.
Originally Posted by I.G.I.
A company is not a museum. It does not exist to satisfy our sense of nostalgia, or to perpetuate itself so we can enjoy an artificial sense of stability.
The environment in which Hasselblad became the company we once admired no longer exists. No amount of wishing it were otherwise will bring it back (either the environment or the company).
I can look at things like the abomination that was posted at the start of this thread and feel sad that it has come to this. But I don't blame the owners (either former or present) for doing what they can to maximize their value. Things like painting a camera red and then charging double for a "Ferrari Edition" is ridiculous to my taste, but if that's what people with more money than sense want to buy, then who am I to say Hassy shouldn't sell it to them? Same with grafting a wooden handle onto an otherwise unremarkable camera. If the suckers want to buy, that's what I'm selling.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by lxdude
Quite a few people buying the full-frame DSLRs are hardly professionals. As someone said above - Get them in with body design and stuff, then show difference w optics.
Originally Posted by ntenny
But seriously, if other manufacturers can make a play without making red coloured super-expensive holgas, surely, hassie can innovate, and think beyond gimmicks.
- via tapatalk.
Leica is doing the exact same thing.
Rich people and vapid consumers are to blame for this, as usual.
Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.
About 15 years ago, a company named Imagek (later known as Silicon Film) "announced" a drop-in digital device for use in 35mm SLR cameras. It never made it to market, and eventually become a classic example of vaporware. Here's a link to one article on dpreview; the company apparently no longer exists.
Originally Posted by PtJudeRI
Personally, I'm glad such a device didn't become a viable product.
Well, say what you will, but I would love it if such a device became reality, so that I would never have to worry about being able to continue to use some of my favorite cameras when film is no longer available/affordable. I hope that this event horizon is beyond my lifetime, but it would be nice to have the alternative available should it happen sooner rather than later.
Originally Posted by rthomas