Why is Hasselblad so expensive!?

[John Koehrer]

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

I don't think so!

How plebian. You need a Buggati to be in the exclusive sports car club

 

[John Koehrer]

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.

In that respect ALL camera parts are "custom made" If you consider R&D & fabrication of stamped/formed parts OK but, a Hasselblad body can easily be assembled from a stock of parts in an hour or three.

 

[Dave Parker]

How plebian. You need a Buggati to be in the exclusive sports car club

I don't like the Buggati's, sorry, I guess it is all in the preferance..



Dave

 

[Gibran]

In that respect ALL camera parts are "custom made" If you consider R&D & fabrication of stamped/formed parts OK but, a Hasselblad body can easily be assembled from a stock of parts in an hour or three.

It's certainly including the fabrication of the parts as the ad showed a technician with a half formed block of Aluminum Alloy boring out the lens mount. The R&D would not be included. Your just wrong about the "hour or three". The qulity control alone would take far longer than that for each step of the assembly when you have 25% of your work force doing quality control. This was in the late 70's, early 80's. I have no idea how they do things today but from start(starting with that block of Aluminum Alloy to finished camera) to finish was stated as the better part of 1 year.

 

[JBrunner]

I dont think a comparison with Kiev is usefull at all. They make awfull cameras and would do so even if they charge lots of $$$ for them, just like Microsoft.

Well, its a cheap copy... you know, junk... as in not a Hasselblad. But its not expensive either. I wonder why? It looks just like a Hasselblad.

 

[antielectrons]

And of course it is a myth to assume that all Hasselblad cameras are the absolute best. If you look at their history with focal plane shutter cameras you wil in fact find that they were not very good at all and liable to break! In fact it is only the lens shutter blads that are the reliable ones and the shutter in those is made by another company! It wasnt until fairly recently that Hasselbad adopted cloth shutters in its focal plane models, some 30 years or so after Rollei. So much for innovation... Oh well, at least they are expensive eh. That must mean they are worth it.

 

[antielectrons]

this thread is getting REALLY tired. Can't we let it die so I don't have to keep seeing it in the New Posts list? Suffice it to say that Antielectrons has a serious jones on against Hasselblad, and a bunch of other folks here revere them. As has been said many times already in this thread, if you are willing to pay the price of admission, then it is worth it. If not, then it isn't. As McKeown's Used Camera Price Guide says, "The value of any given camera is the price agreed upon by the buyer and seller at the time of the sale". I know that I can take my Hasselblad around the world, ride it hard and put it away wet, and it will still come through the other end happily working away. Hasselblads don't break - they wear out. The same can NOT be said for digiwhatsits or even most 35mm SLRs.

If you are tired of the thread why post to it and make it longer?

I have nothing against Hasselblad. Lovely cameras. Really great. I just find them to be overpriced, thats all. Nothing too controversial. Nothing that hasnt been said before by others.

Many cameras dont break. Look at your average LF camera, wich is not only cheaper than a Blad but takes better quality pics, has a beter lens line up and last just as long if not longer!

 

[Magnus W]

It wasnt until fairly recently that Hasselbad adopted cloth shutters in its focal plane models,

Fairly recent in this case being 1948 (1600f)

-- MW

 

[antielectrons]

Well, its a cheap copy... you know, junk... as in not a Hasselblad. But its not expensive either. I wonder why? It looks just like a Hasselblad.

Thats why I said the comparison was futile. Hasselblad and Kiev are like chalk and cheese.

 

[antielectrons]

Fairly recent in this case being 1948 (1600f)

-- MW

The 1600f hardly had a succesfull focal plane shutter. It was not reliable especially at its top speed of 1/1600 second. Partly because the mechanical designer had been a watchmaker and the mechanism was too delicate for the harsh environment of a camera used in the field, from what I read over at Photoethnography.com

 

[Magnus W]

The 1600f hardly had a succesfull focal plane shutter.

OK. so let's take the 2000fc (introduced in 1977). What Rollei had a successfull focal plane shutter for MF in 1947 ?

-- MW

 

[antielectrons]

OK. so let's take the 2000fc (introduced in 1977). What Rollei had a successfull focal plane shutter for MF in 1947 ?

-- MW

The 2000fc had a a titanium foil focal-plane shutter, not a silk cloth shutter like the Rollei SL66 of 1966. And the 2000FC titainum foil shutter was just as prone to problems of fragility as the 1600F/1000F from what I read. It wasnt until 1991 with the 205TCC that Hasselblad finally produce a good silk cloth focal plane shutter, some 43 years after their first attempt. I guess you could call that innovation. Just not very rapid innovation.

 

[Gibran]

The 2000fc had a a titanium foil focal-plane shutter, not a silk cloth shutter like the Rollei SL66 of 1966. And the 2000FC titainum foil shutter was just as prone to problems of fragility as the 1600F/1000F from what I read. It wasnt until 1991 with the 205TCC that Hasselblad finally produce a good silk cloth focal plane shutter, some 43 years after their first attempt. I guess you could call that innovation. Just not very rapid innovation.

I have a 2000FC and it is one great camera. The shutter is like a huge Nikon F2 Titanium shutter. Both are Fragile if poked or abused but are highly reliable if there is no user error. The Titanium shutters have gotten a bad wrap due to careless people. The 1600 did in fact have issues which were pretty much solved by the 1000. The 2000 series is great if one is mindful when the shutter is closed and the back off which is not that often. The later 2000's from the FC/M to the FCW were less prone to accidental user error as the shutter opens when a back is removed if the battery is good(which is likely as one battery will last for 300,000 exposures according to Hasselblads testing!). Yes, 300,000. Any shutter which can fire 300,000 times is pretty amazing in itself.

 

[antielectrons]

I have a 2000FC and it is one great camera. The shutter is like a huge Nikon F2 Titanium shutter. Both are Fragile if poked or abused but are highly reliable if there is no user error. The Titanium shutters have gotten a bad wrap due to careless people. The 1600 did in fact have issues which were pretty much solved by the 1000. The 2000 series is great if one is mindful when the shutter is closed and the back off which is not that often. The later 2000's from the FC/M to the FCW were less prone to accidental user error as the shutter opens when a back is removed if the battery is good(which is likely as one battery will last for 300,000 exposures according to Hasselblads testing!). Yes, 300,000. Any shutter which can fire 300,000 times is pretty amazing in itself.

Good for you.

 

[BrianShaw]

Gee whiz, you guys have stamina!

 

[JBrunner]

Thats why I said the comparison was futile. Hasselblad and Kiev are like chalk and cheese.

Well perhaps not as futile as comparing Hasselblad with LF.

To be fair, I honestly do see your points, and I do think that you get more bang for your buck out of say, a good Mamiya, but those aren't cheap either. I wish I could get an 8x10 Canham for $500. What I'll probably get is a Wehman for $1850.

The original question of this thread is why are Hasselblads so expensive. To sum up- branding, reliability, precision, tradition, monetary exchange rates, volume and related markup, (Wanna feel screwed? Find out about furniture markup) and some people's willingness to pay for any or all of these things.

Its not good or bad. Its actually a simple question with a simple answer.

And unwittingly trollish.

JMO

 

[antielectrons]

Gee whiz, you guys have stamina!

Must be spring....

 

[darinwc]

"Don't get me wrong, I do love this camera, but it is a real challenge to use (that's both good and bad), its not forgiving at all of mistakes (I make plenty)"

-well I've used a bronica that had double exposure prevention, dark slide locks, 120/220 switchable backs, etc, etc. It was easy to use, but the extra functionality made the camera both larger/heavier/cumbersome and terribly unreliable. The 'blad fits in my hands so much better than any other 6x6 slr. And it has rock solid reliability when handled properly.

 

[gnashings]

.. Both are Fragile if poked or abused but are highly reliable if there is no user error...

That seems to be par for the course with high-end equipment in any field. Reliable does not equal fool-proof. I think the fool-proofing was supposed to be accomplished by the price tag Of course that is based on the faulty logic which stipulates there is no such thing as a wealthy idiot - we all know how well that one holds up!

In many ways, I think this price argument is a lot like begrudging pro-sports athletes their huge salaries, saying they don't deserve them... I would like to see a single person who, if asked, would turn down making $10 million per year for the same work they are doing right now for whatever "normal" wage they get, on grounds of morality... I guess if Hasselblad goes out of business, we'll know who was right. Lets hope that does not happen, the world is never better off for losing an icon and a true classic.

 

[Curt]

Status; there's some on the Moon that are free for the picking. When you think of status cameras what do you think of, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Kodak, Mamiya, Bronica, Sears, Konica or do you think Hasselblad, Leica, Deardorff, Sony?

I wonder if the sellers think "it's a Hasse, it's got to be worth more, it's a Hasse". The parts aren't any simpler or complex than other brands but it's a Hasse.

 

[JBrunner]

Sony?

 

[Curt]

Yea, it's just a joke to see if anyone is paying attention and for those who are going over to the dark digital side.

 

[MattKing]

I am thinking back (a long, long way back) to a time when I worked in a store that sold both Leica and Minolta.

The story then was that the optical elements for the zoom lenses made for Leica SLRs were actually made on the same assembly line as the optical elements for the Minolta lenses of the same focal ranges.

The differences between the two sets of elements? - Leica had much narrower tolerances. As a result, the rejection rate for use in Leicas was much higher. Minolta's standards were exacting, but Leica's were even more exacting.

You might be lucky and get a Minolta lens where all the optical elements fell within the narrower tolerances approved by Leica, but you might also get one that fell within Minolta's tolerances, but outside of Leica's.

You might ask what the relevance of this story is to this thread? The answer is that one of the reasons Hasselblads are so expensive, is although they manufacture and sell relatively few units, their very stringent quality controls result in substantial amounts of monies being spent on parts and components that are eventually rejected or not completed, because they do not satisfying their quality requirements.

The value of a Hasselblad springs from a large number of factors (quality of construction, quality of design, flexibility, reliability, quality of optics, etc.). The cost of Hasselblads results from a number of factors that contribute to the high value (care in construction, advanced design, quality of materials, availability of professional support and service) as well as a number of factors that I would classify as market realities (time required to manufacture, high R & D costs per unit, high distribution, service and support costs for low volumes of sales and marketing systems that favour extra service over low margins).

It is also undoubtably true that due to reputation, there is much less downward pressure on prices for a Hasselblad then, e.g., a Canon mid-range digital camera.

I think that even if volumes were much higher and you could buy a Hasselblad in your neighbourhood Costco (i.e. all the marketing realities were minimized), Hasselblads would still be more expensive to make, and therefor more expensive to buy.

If the complaint here is that Hasselblads are too expensive because the company is making too much profit, I would ask why Hasselblad isn't in better financial shape. I just don't buy an argument that says Hasselblad could lower prices substantially, and the resulting increased sales would make up for the loss of margin per unit.

My $0.02 worth,

Regards,

Matt

P.S. I've never owned a Hasselblad

 

[antielectrons]

Status; there's some on the Moon that are free for the picking. When you think of status cameras what do you think of, Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Kodak, Mamiya, Bronica, Sears, Konica or do you think Hasselblad, Leica, Deardorff, Sony?

I wonder if the sellers think "it's a Hasse, it's got to be worth more, it's a Hasse". The parts aren't any simpler or complex than other brands but it's a Hasse.

Yeah, great marketing slogan: Hasselblad, you can get parts for one even on the moon!

 

[arigram]

Thank you guys, nice going.
I had a nightmare last night that my Hasselblad fell on some rocks. Interesting enough only some minor damage to the winder occured (all that in the dream) but that was enough for me to wake up all stressed out.