That would be an exceeding high rejection rate. Too high for manufacturing and producing a profit. The lenses could not be repreposed for any other camera.
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.
Where did you read this? What supports this understanding?
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.
I would not be surprised if there was one batch that was out of tolerance, and the rest is urban legend.Where did you read this? What supports this "understanding"?
And don't forget Linhof's "selected" lenses.
That would be an exceeding high rejection rate. Too high for manufacturing and producing a profit. The lenses could not be repreposed for any other camera.
I don't think the lenses were repurpose, they were re- inspected and corrected.
@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 Germans and the Japanese work together a lot. Just look at the Zeiss and Voigtlander M-mount lenses made by Cosina.
A great summary. Thanks for this. Do you happen to know the year of the IEEE article?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.
I think it may be this?A great summary. Thanks for this. Do you happen to know the year of the IEEE article?
This situation is rather similar (oddly) to Rollei's engagement with digital work - with their digital scanning back as well, which they did bring to the market. Might one say "much good early effort, but too soon", as being ahead of the curve (in this case) did neither firm much good.
Yes, but Zeiss is a major part of the discussion here.Hasselblad was a Swedish company before being bought out by DJI.
I think it may be this?
Hasselblad was sold to a Chinese company. It thereby severed any links with Sweden and Germany.
But the new onwnners pull the strings. Witness Hasselblad USA's recent relocation to Burbank, CA from NJ possibly to be closer to DJI's US headquarters or even to try to make inroads in the motion-picture industry.What does this statement mean?
GOTHENBURG OFFICE
As the headquarters and birthplace of Hasselblad cameras, Hasselblad Gothenburg is situated on the thriving west coast of Sweden on Lindholmen, the city’s heart of technology and innovation. This is the main hub of Hasselblad activities, spanning from the factory and production to R&D, finance, sales, and marketing. Working at Hasselblad Gothenburg gives you a front row seat to the camera production process, from access to factory tours to live demonstrations of prototypes in development. With an international mix of employees, Hasselblad’s headquarters stays true to its Swedish roots with two daily fika breaks plus holiday parties, after works, and photo activities.
But the new owners pull the strings. Witness Hasselblad USA's recent relocation to Burbank, CA from NJ possibly to be closer to DJI's US headquarters or even to try to make inroads in the motion-picture industry.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?