Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss?

removedacct3 · Aug 11, 2022

Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss lenses for their new H-system? Was it because of AF technology? Or did Carl Zeiss refuse to manufacture the H lenses for Hasselblad? Did Fuji offer them a deal they could not refuse ..... ?

Just curious ....

flavio81 · Aug 11, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss lenses for their new H-system? Was it because of AF technology? Or did Carl Zeiss refuse to manufacture the H lenses for Hasselblad? Did Fuji offer them a deal they could not refuse ..... ?

Just curious ....

The H system was really designed by Fujifilm (yeah, Hasselblad says it was done "in cooperation" but so far everything points out most of the hard work was done by Fuji.)

Fuji has a long long long tradition of optics, in fact they were the first japanese company to build an electronic computer, which was used for optical computing, before Nikon, Canon, Asahi Pentax, etc.

So it's natural that they wanted to use their lenses.

Hasselblad initially used Kodak lenses for their first machine (Hassy 1500F). Kodak, Zeiss, etc, are just providers for Hasselblad and they might as well have used other providers if necessary. (I think there are some Schneider lenses for the V system too.)

halfaman · Aug 11, 2022

Fuji made previously what I consider the only medium format "point-and-shot" camera ever made, the GA645, which featured AF and AE systems that worked pretty well for its time (1997). So they have a lot of expertise that Hasselblad didn't and they can deliver the whole package (camera and lenses).

Pieter12 · Aug 11, 2022

Fuji also has a history with Hasselblad, making the X Pan.

Steven Lee · Aug 11, 2022

@flavio81 thank you for the great comment. I have heard the same thing about the XPan, it was a Fujifilm designed camera. And this brings another question: why would Fujifilm even bother with Hasselblad cooperation then? Was there anything (other than the brand) contributed by Hasselblad to these projects?

flavio81 · Aug 11, 2022

Steven Lee said:
@flavio81 thank you for the great comment. I have heard the same thing about the XPan, it was a Fujifilm designed camera. And this brings another question: why would Fujifilm even bother with Hasselblad cooperation then? Was there anything (other than the brand) contributed by Hasselblad to these projects?

Brand association of course = marketing = better sales = success, return of investment.

Really, and I know i will put my flame-suit on, I don't think there's too much of actual R&D contributed by Hasselblad itself over the last 20? 30? years. The last time they did apply their research/innovation was with the 20x focal plane shutter models (1991-2005?).

The "Hasselblad Lunar" debacle was the ultimate way of showing everybody what has happened with the once great Hasselblad company: it has become just a marketing and industrial design firm.

Pieter12 · Aug 11, 2022

The Germans and the Japanese work together a lot. Just look at the Zeiss and Voigtlander M-mount lenses made by Cosina.

AgX · Aug 11, 2022

There is no german manufacturer Voigtländer, who could work with with the Japanese.

gone · Aug 11, 2022

I think the Germans and Japanese cooperated on the Leica R cameras as well. Or, Leica rebadged the Minolta SLRs and changed the mount, I never figured that one out. My Leicaflex had been made in Germany, my modern Voigtlander Bessa Rs were made in Japan, my old R5 in Portugal, and I see the Zeiss name on Sony lenses. It does get confusing.

I guess the Zorki rangefinder w/ the name LEIKA on it doesn't count.

AgX · Aug 12, 2022

momus said:
I think the Germans and Japanese cooperated on the Leica R cameras as well. Or, Leica rebadged the Minolta SLRs and changed the mount, I never figured that one out.

The idea was to design these cameras on level. Thus not a rebadging, but a cooperate design and with each manufacturer basically manufacturing his camera by himself.
Leitz looked for the much lower wages in Japan, but then for their own production refrained to Europe.

In the case of the R3 Leitz brought in their brand new shutter design. In the case of the CL Leitz already had designed a complete camera, which then completely was manufactured by Minolta. To what extend the parts of the R3, being assembled in Europe, came from Japan I do not know, but guess the most.

AgX · Aug 12, 2022

The electronics for the R4 was designed by Leitz.
Which other west-german camera manufacturer was involved with substantial electronics? Only Rollei comes to my mind.

Concerning East-Germany there was substantial involvement, but with a time lag due to lacking/limited national manufacturing capacities.

halfaman · Aug 12, 2022

Steven Lee said:
@flavio81 thank you for the great comment. I have heard the same thing about the XPan, it was a Fujifilm designed camera. And this brings another question: why would Fujifilm even bother with Hasselblad cooperation then? Was there anything (other than the brand) contributed by Hasselblad to these projects?

The X-Pan was branded in Japan as Fuji TX-1/TX-2.

etn · Aug 12, 2022

AgX said:
There is no german manufacturer Voigtländer, who could work with with the Japanese.

The original company was founded in Vienna, Austria in the 18th century. The trademark currently belongs to a German company called Ringfoto GmbH. Cosina licenses the name to market the lenses under that brand name.

I do not know whether Cosina designs the lenses themselves, or only manufactures them and relies on a 3rd party for the design. (Does anyone know?)

guangong · Aug 12, 2022

momus said:
I think the Germans and Japanese cooperated on the Leica R cameras as well. Or, Leica rebadged the Minolta SLRs and changed the mount, I never figured that one out. My Leicaflex had been made in Germany, my modern Voigtlander Bessa Rs were made in Japan, my old R5 in Portugal, and I see the Zeiss name on Sony lenses. It does get confusing.

I guess the Zorki rangefinder w/ the name LEIKA on it doesn't count.

According to Zeiss, hey have quality control representatives who oversee the manufacture of Zeiss lenses in Japan.
When in old DDR, for what it’s worth, I was told that the lens glass for certain Hasselblad lenses were manufactured in East Germany and delivered to West where fitted to make complete Hasselblad lens. I never asked Zeiss in NY if this were a fact.

brbo · Aug 12, 2022

etn said:
I do not know whether Cosina designs the lenses themselves, or only manufactures them and relies on a 3rd party for the design. (Does anyone know?)

Cosina designs their Voigländer branded lenses.

AgX · Aug 12, 2022

etn said:
The trademark currently belongs to a German company called Ringfoto GmbH.

No, but to new Voigtländer GmbH, a trading firm. This trickled my remark above.

Pieter12 · Aug 12, 2022

For what it is worth, here is some of the Wikipedia entry on Voigtlander:

"Schering sold its share of the company to the Carl Zeiss Foundation in 1956, and Zeiss-Ikon and Voigtländer-Vertriebsgesellschaft integrated in 1965. Due to falling sales, on 4 August 1971 Zeiss-Ikon/Voigtländer-Vertriebsgesellschaft ended producing cameras and closed the Voigtländer factory, which employed at the time 2,037 persons. Subsequently, the company moved to the collective enterprise Optische Werke Voigtländer (Optical Works Voigtländer), in which Carl Zeiss AG, the state of Lower Saxony and the Braunschweig camera manufacturer Rollei each participated to one-third; Later Rollei took over all the shares. On the collapse of Rollei in 1982, Plusfoto took over the name, selling it in 1997 to Ringfoto.

Contemporary times[edit]

Since 1999, Voigtländer-branded products have been manufactured and marketed by the Japanese optics and camera company Cosina, under license from Ringfoto GmbH & Co. ALFO Marketing KG."

All I can find for Voigtlander GmbH is a police investigative supply store in Blumberg, Germany: Voigtländer GmbH Polizei- und Kriminaltechnik

AgX · Aug 12, 2022

Pieter12 said:
All I can find for Voigtlander GmbH is a police investigative supply store in Blumberg, Germany: Voigtländer GmbH Polizei- und Kriminaltechnik

You found the wrong firm in the wrong city.

Pieter12 · Aug 12, 2022

AgX said:
You found the wrong firm in the wrong city.

You would think there wouldn’t be two with the same name in the same country.

AgX · Aug 13, 2022

One would not be surprised with Smith Inc. ... But I admit that I considered Voightländer a rare name. The one we talk about even is not registered in the phonebook.

benjiboy · Aug 13, 2022

I understand that even in the days when all Hasselblad lenses were manufactured in Obercochen West Germany, the Hasselblad quality control department sent more than 40% back to Zeiss, because they didn't meet their high quality standards.

AgX · Aug 13, 2022

I find this hard to believe, as being uneconomic for Zeiss doing a dedicated production for Hasselblad and then not fulfilling their requirenments.

itsdoable · Aug 13, 2022

The switch from Ektar to Tessar lenses was due to cost, at the time - the Kodak lenses were more expensive. Both were good.

The history of Hasselblad's digital systems are tied to their multiple owners' boards and finances.

In the early 80s, Hasselblad foresaw digital, formed a team, and developed the DigiScan, which allowed newspaper to digitally scan film and transmit the image to their newspapers for publication on the same day.

In the early 90's, they stopped development on their film cameras, and worked on a digital version, which came up with a tethered tripod mounted device that looked more like a projector, it took digital images using Philip's FF 6MB sensor (which they had exclusive use). They were owned by Incentive, and were well capitalized so they could develop digital.

The short story is that a private equity firm bought it in late '95, and now they were in debt because Incentive had withdrawn the capitalization prior to sale. The new board did not want to develop the new device, and wanted something more like a digital back that 3rd party companies had. So the digital team came up with a digital back using the same sensor, which they demonstrated on the board by taking their picture and displaying it on a computer, but the board had already decided that it would be cheaper to dismiss the digital team and contract out. But '96, all but 3 people on the digital team had left.

In 1998, they signed up with Fujifilm to develop the H series on a 50/50 basis.

The details of this was published in an article by Sandstrom in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. I remember seeing a picture of their original digital camera, which was nicknamed Big Bertha because it resembled a giant version of that golf club head (on a tripod). I can see why the new board members that don't have the vision and technical knowledge of the industry, see a product they don't like, as it was quite a departure from Victor's compact portable device. And the Board's objectives (published at that time) was to own the company for 5~7 years and make a profit.

removedacct3 · Aug 13, 2022

itsdoable said:
... it took digital images using Philip's FF 6MB sensor (which they had exclusive use). ...

Wasn't Pentax using the same sensor when they were developing a digital MZ-S? From what I have read, Pentax aborted their efforts for various reasons, but the main one was due to the sensor. It did not deliver.

itsdoable said:
And the Board's objectives (published at that time) was to own the company for 5~7 years and make a profit.

A typical case of mismanagement? Or, at least, a preference for short term profits over long term?

itsdoable · Aug 13, 2022

MrclSchprs said:
Wasn't Pentax using the same sensor when they were developing a digital MZ-S? From what I have read, Pentax aborted their efforts for various reasons, but the main one was due to the sensor. It did not deliver.

A typical case of mismanagement? Or, at least, a preference for short term profits over long term?

Philips Sensor was probably too expensive for Pentax. It was used by Contax, and I think the Phase One H backs also used it.

"Mismanagement" is probably not the right word. An equity fund is beholden to it's investors, which are primarily interested in a return. Trimming the company, marketing it's name, and squeezing the profits till it either goes under or sell before it loses it's name - is considered good management if that is the objective. An owner that is interested in Imaging makes a big difference.

Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss?

Contemporary times[edit]​

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

Contemporary times[edit]