Why is Hasselblad so expensive!?

[John Koehrer]

Re: cost of 'blad
Start with a block of alloy & remove everything that doesn't look like a Hasselblad=$$$
For the earlier comment that it takes a year to build a camera. Think it out, one technician, one year, one year! Gimme a break that means to make 1000 pieces a year you have 1000 techs building cameras. I don't think so.

 

[antielectrons]

I dunno, Hasselblad had a choice. Either go for market share or go for profit. The chose to go for big profits on their gear. Not everyone can afford such prices. Even professional photographers. The end result is that they become a niche player. If Hasselblad had gone for market share perhaps MF wold be more widespread.... Same goes for Rollei I guess.

 

[antielectrons]

I think that the law of diminishing returns is at work here. Squeezing that last 5% of 'trickness' or quality out of anything (car,watch, camera, wine) costs a disproportionate amount of money. Some people are willing to pay extra for that little bit of betterness.
The rest of us don't care or can't even tell the difference.

I woudnt go that far. Sure, Hasselblad make nice cameras but they arent exactly rocket science. The just make a box, with a mirror and a viewscreen with back to hold the film. Perhaps 200 years ago this would be considered cutting edge, but today?

 

[avandesande]

Making french bread is easy too. Try it some time.

I woudnt go that far. Sure, Hasselblad make nice cameras but they arent exactly rocket science. The just make a box, with a mirror and a viewscreen with back to hold the film. Perhaps 200 years ago this would be considered cutting edge, but today?

 

[antielectrons]

Making french bread is easy too. Try it some time.

Good example. Very cheap product. Add some Hasselblad marketing and you could sell it for $20 a stick.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

I woudnt go that far. Sure, Hasselblad make nice cameras but they arent exactly rocket science. The just make a box, with a mirror and a viewscreen with back to hold the film. Perhaps 200 years ago this would be considered cutting edge, but today?

Actually, the Hassies ARE rocket science, insofar as some of their innovations were developed out of their partnership with NASA. Those pictures of earth taken from above? Pics of Neil Armstrong? Pics of the lunar surface? The golf playing? All taken with Hassies.

If you take a shoebox, put a mirror on a spring and a groundglass above it, affix a lens and throw some film in the optical path, does that give you a camera? Yes, of course. Does that give you a camera that can withstand the rigours of space? Well, no.

Just because Betacam is irrelevant to your needs for your vacation film doesn't make it irrelevant.

 

[antielectrons]

Actually, the Hassies ARE rocket science, insofar as some of their innovations were developed out of their partnership with NASA. Those pictures of earth taken from above? Pics of Neil Armstrong? Pics of the lunar surface? The golf playing? All taken with Hassies.

If you take a shoebox, put a mirror on a spring and a groundglass above it, affix a lens and throw some film in the optical path, does that give you a camera? Yes, of course. Does that give you a camera that can withstand the rigours of space? Well, no.

Just because Betacam is irrelevant to your needs for your vacation film doesn't make it irrelevant.

Hardly. Taking pictueres for NASA does not equal Rocket Science. Nobody is questioning Hasselblad manufacturing quality. All I am saying is that it is vastly overprice for what it is and that in a sense they only have themselves to blame for their tiny niche market. They seem to be going doing the same route with their digital kit. No wonder Cannon are cleaning up. Quality does not necessariily mean extortionate pricing. That is just a marketing spin. Just look at LF equipment for proof of that.

 

[Dave Parker]

And a Ferrari, is just another sports car!!!

I don't think so!

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Hardly. Taking pictueres for NASA does not equal Rocket Science. Nobody is questioning Hasselblad manufacturing quality. All I am saying is that it is vastly overprice for what it is and that in a sense they only have themselves to blame for their tiny niche market. They seem to be going doing the same route with their digital kit. No wonder Cannon are cleaning up. Quality does not necessariily mean extortionate pricing. That is just a marketing spin. Just look at LF equipment for proof of that.

Look believe whatever you want ok? Yes, taking picture for NASA took a hell of work. Just make a few googling to convince yourself of it.

By your previous comment you seem to deduce from the logical simplicity of a camera and the expensive price tag on Hassies that they are therefore overpriced. These cameras stay in operations for decades, and your initial investment is spread not over two to five years like a Nikon D100, but over thirty to fifty years.

And EVERYTHING SELLABLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is spun by marketing.

 

[digiconvert]

And what price your D100 in six months timewhen the new coffee making, alarm clock, broadband enabled digital SLR arrives on the scene ? Your Hassie wil still have the same value though.

 

[André E.C.]

It seems to me, antielectrons would love to have one!
I can understand the frustration of not owning such a beautiful mechanical unit!
Hasselblad and Zeiss rocks , that`s priceless!

Cheers

André

 

[Dave Parker]

As I said a couple of pages ago, everything is overpriced if you can't afford it!

I for one am glad to have shot a Hassy, it was a great experiance with no worries.

Dave

 

[blansky]

HAsselblad is probably the best camera system in the world. I've used my system professionally (meaning almost every day) for 30 years. Never once had a problem. I used to rebuild my main lens (150) every year or two but other than that nothing. (cost about $200) I ran about 5000 rolls a year through it.

It's not obsolete, and it performs the same as the day I bought it.

Michael

 

[david b]

yeah....what michael said!!!

 

[gr82bart]

All I am saying is that it is vastly overprice for what it is and that in a sense they only have themselves to blame for their tiny niche market.

Who says they are overpriced? Is a Ferarri overpriced? Is a Louis Vuitton bag overpriced?

They seem to be going doing the same route with their digital kit.

What are they doing with their digital kit? Their back is LESS expensive then their competitors - Phase and Leaf. Does this now mean their quality has increased?

No wonder Cannon (sic) are cleaning up.

??? McDonalds serves significantly more food than Jean Georges. McDonalds is still junk food for the masses. Anyway, Canon makes a different range of products than Hasselblad, and for a different demographic client, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It's analogous to saying Coca Cola makes and sells more than Dom Perignon. So what?

What Quality does not necessariily mean extortionate pricing. That is just a marketing spin. Just look at LF equipment for proof of that.

What you fail to realize is that quality is subjective. Sure, many here are techies and like to think quality is measureable and objective, the fact is that it isn't when it comes to consumer and professional commodities. The measureable part is only one small aspect of the overall quality experience.

Regards, Art.

 

[Gibran]

Re: cost of 'blad
Start with a block of alloy & remove everything that doesn't look like a Hasselblad=$$$
For the earlier comment that it takes a year to build a camera. Think it out, one technician, one year, one year! Gimme a break that means to make 1000 pieces a year you have 1000 techs building cameras. I don't think so.

I don't know why you would ASSume that one technician is spending a whole year on the camera. Each technician on the assembly line would perform their respective speciality and there is no doubt that the AD I saw was including everything along the process such as obtaining the raw materials to making each tiny part which goes into a Classic Hasselblad. Those parts are not "off the shelf" but are custom made and there are someting like 300 parts in a Hasselblad 500CM! Today that would never be done from scratch the way these cameras were made.

 

[antielectrons]

It seems to me, antielectrons would love to have one!
I can understand the frustration of not owning such a beautiful mechanical unit!
Hasselblad and Zeiss rocks , that`s priceless!

Cheers

André

I have owned several in the past. They were lovely, but overpriced for what they were.

 

[antielectrons]

Who says they are overpriced? Is a Ferarri overpriced? Is a Louis Vuitton bag overpriced?
What are they doing with their digital kit? Their back is LESS expensive then their competitors - Phase and Leaf. Does this now mean their quality has increased?
??? McDonalds serves significantly more food than Jean Georges. McDonalds is still junk food for the masses. Anyway, Canon makes a different range of products than Hasselblad, and for a different demographic client, so I'm not sure what you are trying to prove here. It's analogous to saying Coca Cola makes and sells more than Dom Perignon. So what?
What you fail to realize is that quality is subjective. Sure, many here are techies and like to think quality is measureable and objective, the fact is that it isn't when it comes to consumer and professional commodities. The measureable part is only one small aspect of the overall quality experience.

Regards, Art.

Yep, Louis Vuitton is definately overpirced! The Chinese knock out near identical replicas for peanuts. MacDonalds sell garbage. Hasselblad dont. That dosent mean they should be charging as much as they do. Quality and price go hand in hand up to a point. Hasselblad choose to keep their kit prices expensive.

 

[antielectrons]

Look believe whatever you want ok? Yes, taking picture for NASA took a hell of work. Just make a few googling to convince yourself of it.

By your previous comment you seem to deduce from the logical simplicity of a camera and the expensive price tag on Hassies that they are therefore overpriced. These cameras stay in operations for decades, and your initial investment is spread not over two to five years like a Nikon D100, but over thirty to fifty years.

And EVERYTHING SELLABLE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH is spun by marketing.

I am sure the NASA cameras cost Hasselblad a lot to produce as NASA had sepecific requirements. However, that has nothing to do with the regular 500 series bodies that you and I would buy. You would think that given the 50 or so years they have been in production, with very little innovation, Hasselblad would have found a way of binging the price down a bit...

I think we are all agreed they produce quality kit. The point is do they charge too much for it. I think yes.

 

[Dave Parker]

Replicas, and Garbage are the key words here..

If you think they are overprice, don't get another one, pretty simple

The market will tell a company what price they can bear, apparently over the last few decades Hassy has been able to get the price they were asking, pretty simple, don't want to pay the price...the solution is, don't pay it, if your happy, then by all means shoot what you got and don't worry about it...


A company will get what they can get and as long as the customer is willing to pay it, then what skin off of yours or my nose is it?

Dave

 

[antielectrons]

Replicas, and Garbage are the key words here..

If you think they are overprice, don't get another one, pretty simple

The market will tell a company what price they can bear, apparently over the last few decades Hassy has been able to get the price they were asking, pretty simple, don't want to pay the price...the solution is, don't pay it, if your happy, then by all means shoot what you got and don't worry about it...


A company will get what they can get and as long as the customer is willing to pay it, then what skin off of yours or my nose is it?

Dave

You seem to be taking this debate personally and getting all emotional. It isnt necessary. This is a discussion forum where people debate stuff. It doesnt mean that you ahve to try and shout down opinions you dont agree with.

Clearly Hasselblad gear is expensive, regardless of wheter you are willing to pay for it or not.

 

[antielectrons]

HAsselblad is probably the best camera system in the world. I've used my system professionally (meaning almost every day) for 30 years. Never once had a problem. I used to rebuild my main lens (150) every year or two but other than that nothing. (cost about $200) I ran about 5000 rolls a year through it.

It's not obsolete, and it performs the same as the day I bought it.

Michael

Good for you! However, the write off the cost argument over 30 years, etc. is something you normally associate with extortionate house prices! Quality and longevity do not necessarly mean $$$$

 

[Dave Parker]

You seem to be taking this debate personally and getting all emotional. It isnt necessary. This is a discussion forum where people debate stuff. It doesnt mean that you ahve to try and shout down opinions you dont agree with.

Clearly Hasselblad gear is expensive, regardless of wheter you are willing to pay for it or not.

I have no personal stake in this at all, keep on with what your saying, I don't care in one way or another, I just happen to have a different opinion than you do, that apparently you don't agree with, As your not involved in the company, you saying it is to expensive, is pretty meaningless, you have no idea of why they choose to sell things at the price points they do, or am I mistaken?

I still maintain, expensive is determined by your ability to pay, I don't know many photographers worth their moxey, that would not purchase a Blad system if they can afford it, just as I don't know many who loves sports cars that won't buy a Ferrari if they can afford it..

Yes, Blads are expensive, yes, they are a dream to work with, and yes, I would buy another one, no questioned asked, call me a whore, but I would love to have another blad system..

Dave

 

[antielectrons]

I have no personal stake in this at all, keep on with what your saying, I don't care in one way or another, I just happen to have a different opinion than you do, that apparently you don't agree with, As your not involved in the company, you saying it is to expensive, is pretty meaningless, you have no idea of why they choose to sell things at the price points they do, or am I mistaken?

I still maintain, expensive is determined by your ability to pay, I don't know many photographers worth their moxey, that would not purchase a Blad system if they can afford it, just as I don't know many who loves sports cars that won't buy a Ferrari if they can afford it..

Yes, Blads are expensive, yes, they are a dream to work with, and yes, I would buy another one, no questioned asked, call me a whore, but I would love to have another blad system..

Dave

Dave,

For someone who doesnt care you seem to be puttinig a lot of energy into this. Nobody here is involved in the company. The discussion move why their products are expensive, to whether there producst are expensive.

Clearly if you have lots of dosh then not, but by most peoples standards, then yes they are expensive. Ferraris are too.

Saying you have 40 years to recoup the cost is just further proof of this.

 

[Dave Parker]

Another Pissing match..

I have no more time for you, if you can afford a Blad system, then have at it, if you can't then shoot what you can..

The camera don't make the image, you do, this is getting really old...

And please don't forget, my opinion has just as much meaning as your does..

And really, why does it matter to you, why someone pays what they do for a camera system?

Bye, bye, have a great evening..

Dave