Why did Hasselblad move away from Carl Zeiss?

[Sirius Glass]

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.

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.

 

[Steven Lee]

Where did you read this? What supports this understanding?

What's funny is that exactly the same fairy tale is being rehashed in the Rolleiflex community. Poor Zeiss! Must have sucked to receive a shit ton of their lenses rejected by Hasselblad and Rollei every month Meanwhile Carl Zeiss AG is a thriving conglomerate with nearly $8B run rate today, while Franke & Heidecke is dead and Hasselblad is a zombie subsidiary of a Chinese drone manufacturer making less than 1% of Carl Zeiss Group revenue.

 

[itsdoable]

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 would not be surprised if there was one batch that was out of tolerance, and the rest is urban legend.

I know of the Rollei Tessar batch that did not meet spec and was rejected. It was an early uncoated batch, and was sent back for coating (post war), but Zeiss mixed up the front and rear groups, so they were no longer matched. Nobody is perfect.

Say you had a delivery of 5 lenses, and one pair had the front and rear group mixed during assembly. That would be 40%.

 

[mshchem]

I suspect Carl Zeiss "went away" from poor old Hasselblad. Once great now only a brand.

 

[AgX]

And don't forget Linhof's "selected" lenses.

There is a photo by Linhof showing a batch of lenses being checked at Linhof at a target.

 

[Richard Man]

I know people are probably tired of me bitching about these subjects, but "Chinese owned drone company blab blah blah", so first, at least this iteration of Hasselblad came out with real products that get rave reviews and real uses. The last time H did that was probably in the 203FE days, more than a quarter of century ago.

Second, why "Chinese owned?" Does it matter? How come no one said, "white people owned equity firm fleeced Hasselblad"? If you want to deride a mere drone company owning a storied name like Hasselblad, leave the nationality of the owner out of it, unless it is actually important to the story, which it is not.

Sure we can argue about lack of respect in China for intellectual property, or possibly low quality etc. etc., but it has nothing relevant to this particular topic.

{Moderator's Note: Richard's point is half photographic related, half political related and half forum conduct related - and yes, I know that is 3/2. We will leave it in, but delete responses that relate to the politics part}

 

[benjiboy]

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.

 

[AgX]

I don't think the lenses were repurpose, they were re- inspected and corrected.

Yes, that was my idea in that reply to you too. But re-inspecting and correcting is a unnecessary endeavour and expense.
Unless sloppiness and the respective savings would be more economical over few rejections, which, as said, at 40% is hardly the case...

 

[benjiboy]

I agree, but for he astronomical prices that the Hasselblad customers pay for Zeiss lenses, they expect perfection .

 

[Eff64]

@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?

Yes. Money.

 

[Eff64]

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

Hasselblad was a Swedish company before being bought out by DJI.

 

[GG12]

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.

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.

 

[Huss]

Every Fuji I’ve used - from P&S to Hasselblads (Xpans, H1) have had superb lenses.
Excuse me for saying this in an analogue forum, but even my digital Fuji lenses. All absolutely superb.

 

[buildbot]

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.

I think it may be this?

Request Rejected

 

[Pieter12]

Hasselblad was a Swedish company before being bought out by DJI.

Yes, but Zeiss is a major part of the discussion here.

 

[GG12]

I think it may be this?

Request Rejected

Sorry to be so sluggish, but just read this report. Thank you very much for the link. Its an excellent piece of work, and documents Hassy's difficult efforts to become digital. Recommended reading... its behind an institutional wall, so the PDF is attached here.

 

[dave olson]

Hasselblad was sold to a Chinese company. It thereby severed any links with Sweden and Germany.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Hasselblad was sold to a Chinese company. It thereby severed any links with Sweden and Germany.

What does your 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.

 

[Pieter12]

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 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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Once Hasselblad was sold, the camera design lost its way.

 

[Mark J]

I believe Hasselblad had some issues with lens development time and costs at Zeiss. This from an insider in 1997/98.
There may also have been fault at the Hasselblad side, given the subsequent history of that site. I very much doubt that there was an issue with Zeiss Q/C, I never saw any evidence of that.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Sony uses Zeiss lenses which I believe has helped them sell their cameras and give them a lot of notoriety. Otherwise, who would have bought Sony who was known for sound systems?

 

[itsdoable]

Zeiss also would not make auto-focus lenses.

 

[mshchem]

Does Sony simply license the Zeiss name?? I have no idea. Zeiss has been involved in pretty amazing stuff over the years.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I just want to correct some rumors and half-truths circulating in this thread regarding the company history. In 2003 Hasselblad was bought by the Hong Kong based Shriro Group, which in the following years, pushed Hasselblad more into the direction of digital solutions by concentrating on the H-System and buying Imacon, but also keeping a core production line of the classic 500-System, while gradually abandoning the 200-System. By presenting various digital back solutions (CFV), the company emphasized its ongoing commitment to the V-System.

In 2011 Hasselblad again changed ownership when it was bought by the German investment group Ventizz. This is where the drama really stated to unfold. The H-System ended in stagnation while the V-System was abandoned entirely. Instead, Hasselblad presented a series of Hasselblad labelled Sony Cameras (Lunar etc.) for a hilarious price, without offering any additional benefits apart from more stylish looks.

In 2015 Hasselblad was gradually taken over by DJI. This ended the "Sonyblad"-era and the company developed a range of new innovative products. With the X-System, Hasselblad presented a new, compact but very capable medium format system. It also started to offer new digital backs for the V-System.