Hasselblad company sold

[olwick]

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j.../private-equity-firm-takes-control-hasselblad

 

[Christopher Walrath]

' Hasselblad cameras that appeal to a wider group of ambitious photographers.'. I thought they already did.

Curiouser and curiouser...

 

[waynecrider]

Apparently someone has figured out that the name has alot of mileage in it.

Here's the online corporate profile: http://www.pseps.com/company/Ventizz-Private-Equity-AG

 

[Athiril]

May mean lower priced 'Hasselblad' cameras, just using the name with a low-entry price position. Not that I have any love for Hasselblad.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

Film Hassies are worth a fraction of what they were and the new ones cost tens of thousands of dollars. It's a very small market for new ones. The new Hasselblads are either the Uber rich or pros that are leveraged for their gear. Crazy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Apparently someone has figured out that the name has alot of mileage in it.

Here's the online corporate profile: http://www.pseps.com/company/Ventizz-Private-Equity-AG

Hmmmm ..........

I would have thought that the name has a lot of kilometerage in it!

 

[AbbeyFoto]

When I first heard of this sale I was intrigued; truth is I was unaware of the recent history of the ownership of the Hasselblad brand. My first question was who is Shriro and what was their role in shaping the new H system? Strengthened the link with Japanese manufacturing e.g. Fuji lenses? Next was trying to interpret the suggestion that this purchase would push Hasselblad back toward it's European origins - so what commercial European relationships will be pursued? Back to Zeiss or Schnieder ....... I am intrigued,

Chris

 

[Ole]

Like some other European brands, Hasselblad's main competitor isn't Japanese, or Chinese, or American - but themselves. When you make a product that doesn't break down, or can be repaired cheaply when it eventually does, then your main competitor is the second-hand market.

Hasselblad and Compur-Werke both got into trouble that way: Their thingies just keep on working, and never really need replacing. Now contrast that with the quickly evolving digital market, where last year's model is hopelessly out of date...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Like some other European brands, Hasselblad's main competitor isn't Japanese, or Chinese, or American - but themselves. When you make a product that doesn't break down, or can be repaired cheaply when it eventually does, then your main competitor is the second-hand market.

Hasselblad and Compur-Werke both got into trouble that way: Their thingies just keep on working, and never really need replacing. Now contrast that with the quickly evolving digital market, where last year's model is hopelessly out of date...

A wise observation. Making a superior product that is so good that it puts the company out of business.

 

[bdial]

A lot of venerable companies that now find themselves owned (assuming they are "fortunate" enough to still exist at all) have figured out that there is no money to be made making durable stuff anymore.
Now, it seems the idea is to make stuff good enough to only last through the warranty.

Hopefully Hasselblad will be able to continue making good stuff, and not simply trade on their reputation.

 

[Diapositivo]

Superior companies making superior products can leverage the brand to make other superior products which will find other markets.

Hasselblad might exploit its brand by producing quality microscopes, binoculars, tripods, tripod heads and related accessories, enlargers, telescopes, projectors, rifle sights, etc.

My belly says they are going to compete with Leica, either M or S.

 

[Chan Tran]

Film Hassies are worth a fraction of what they were and the new ones cost tens of thousands of dollars. It's a very small market for new ones. The new Hasselblads are either the Uber rich or pros that are leveraged for their gear. Crazy.

I am not sure that is the case. I've looking out for a 200 series Hasselblad but they are in the $5000 range. Even the good old 2000FC is selling for almost the same price as when they are new.

 

[2F/2F]

last year's model is hopelessly out of date...

I assume you are being facetious, but if you are not...

Models are replaced often, but that doesn't make the old ones any worse than they were when they came out. Hardly "hopeless." My 8 year old 10D was just moved down to my second rung camera within the past few months. It still takes pictures that are just as good as it did on day one, and I still use it along with the new camera. I cannot imagine ever not using it, as long as it keeps ticking.

It isn't camera manufacturers who are to blame. It is the people who think that their cameras are out of date after a year or two and buy a new one. The manufacturers simply make what people will buy.

 

[NJS]

digital X-Pan, starter kit for ~2000$... oops, wrong thread.

 

[E76]

When I first heard of this sale I was intrigued; truth is I was unaware of the recent history of the ownership of the Hasselblad brand. My first question was who is Shriro and what was their role in shaping the new H system? Strengthened the link with Japanese manufacturing e.g. Fuji lenses

Hasselblad had already partnered with Fujifilm to create the Xpan and then H system before Shiro acquired the company.

 

[Diapositivo]

Models are replaced often, but that doesn't make the old ones any worse than they were when they came out. Hardly "hopeless." My 8 year old 10D was just moved down to my second rung camera within the past few months. It still takes pictures that are just as good as it did on day one, and I still use it along with the new camera. I cannot imagine ever not using it, as long as it keeps ticking.

It isn't camera manufacturers who are to blame. It is the people who think that their cameras are out of date after a year or two and buy a new one. The manufacturers simply make what people will buy.

I totally agree a digital camera which goes on performing as when it was new does not become worse just because something better arrived on the market. My digital was first presented in 2005 and I "still" find it perfectly good (it gives the same images as ever, which are very good, I bought it second-hand in 2008).

I should add though that before the 10mp (+/- 2mp) milestone was reached, digital cameras did become obsolete, in the sense that certain stock agencies which would have accepted images from a 5mp camera a few years before, a few years later would not. This is a problem which "plagued" for years photographers shooting digital for stock agencies.

As a stock photographer I applied, among the others, to Photolibrary, a traditional stock agency which was recently bought by Getty. I showed a portfolio of my production, they said "fine, we like that" and offered me a contract. Only, they added, you have to buy a camera that is within our recommended camera list. My camera - which takes pictures which go on being sold, and is 10mp APS-C - was not good enough. I chose not to buy another camera and gave up on them (I could have proposed them my film scans, but other reasons made me prefer to just pass).

The problem of obsolescence of digital cameras did exist, at least in that part of the market which I know.

Similar patterns were seen at another agency, Alamy. Images from older cameras, which would have passed quality control in years past, suddenly were found having a high rejection rate. Alamy said their quality criteria had not changed, but everybody had the impression that they had changed, if not for anything else for the fact that editors, getting "accustomed" to the quality of newer cameras, begun seeing problems in images taken with older cameras. (Alamy has recently lowered their quality requirements by cutting in half the required dimension, though, which makes life easier for older cameras).

More generally speaking, I think this rush for performance is due to the fact that for a long time DSLR were actually inferior, not just in overall image quality but also in sheer resolution, to film. My digital is inferior, in resolution, to film. Modern DSLR (FF, 20mp or so) I suppose do deliver a definition (not an overall quality, but that's another thread) that is more or less like film scanned at 4000ppi. They will not get obsolete soon.

In middle format I imagine that when 80mp or so will be reached (they probably already are) the obsolescence problem will be reduced as well.

An investment in a top-quality digital camera now is going to last more because the market will not demand something better.

Fabrizio

PS This is not a film-vs-digital post, is strictly a post about obsolescence of digital cameras as opposed to long-lasting-quality of film.

 

[removed account4]

isn't this how polaroid crashed?
first the venture capitalists
then ...

 

[Aron]

Finally a decent European manufacturer gaining back European ownership. Good news, my heart is pounding with excitement.