Hasselblad sold to Private Equity Ventizz

bigeye said:
Good news; there's hope. Fuji was simply sucking the mojo out of the brand.

.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I hope But tis press release let me doubt:
„Hasselblad ist die renommierteste Kameramarke weltweit. Wir sind stolz, solch eine führende Marke in unserem Portfolio zu haben und sind überzeugt, dass wir Hasselblads Position als erstklassiger Hersteller von digitalen Mittelformat-Kamerasystemen mit der entsprechenden finanziellen Unterstützung und einer geeigneten Wachstumsstrategie weiter ausbauen können. Zudem wollen wir Hasselblad-Kameras entwickeln, die einen größeren Kreis ambitionierter Fotografen ansprechen“,
Click to expand...
en anglais:
"We are proud to have such an iconic brand in our portfolio and are convinced that with solid financial support and a suitable growth strategy, Ventizz can further strengthen Hasselblad's position as the first-class producer of medium-format digital camera systems. Furthermore, we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers,"
Click to expand...
It sounds for me that Ventizz is primary interested in the brand name. Here in Germany you can buy a lot of cheap relabeled chinese Rollei stuff at electronic markets für 49€ (...Furthermore, we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers...) . I hope that Hasselblad won´t go this way ... !!
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
Ugh. Well, here's hoping for better times I guess.

I didn't see Hasselblad as "struggling with the transition to digital." WTF? They make some of the best MF rigs/backs around. Granted, there's stiff competition in the space with vendors such as Phase One, Pentax, Leica, Rollei/Sinar (RIP), etc. but Hassy is... Hassy. Phase One was always a thorn in their side though.

I will say, and maybe it's just me... But the H series never really did anything for me. They just look so... Plastic and lackluster.
Click to expand...

Hasselblad might be one of the best medium format companies left in the digital age, but it doesn't matter how iconic or inspiring your brand is...if you can't sell cameras, you're going to lose money. I don't think I know anyone who would even be comfortable owning a $15,000 camera, let alone a $50,000 one.

I'm very worried when the guy says "we plan to develop Hasselblad cameras to appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers" though. Those are bad words.
 
They've changed hands fairly often over the last 20 years or so, but they've managed to make world class cameras despite servicing financial vultures, so they'll probably go on doing the same. And if a Hasselblad (or other high-end digicam, such as an S2) is essential for a business, it's not expensive. Ask anyone from the film days how much they used to spend on Polaroids, film, couriers and processing, quite apart from wasted time waiting for processing.

Cheers,

R.
 
The article on BJP actually sounds quite optimistic: http://www.bjp-online.com/british-j.../private-equity-firm-takes-control-hasselblad

In any case, I don't see a problem with them making cameras to "appeal to a wider circle of ambitious photographers". Worst case they slap the Hasselblad name on cheap P&S cameras. But so what? Doing this hasn't really hurt Leica, nor has putting the name "Carl Zeiss" on crappy cell phone camera lenses hurt the Zeiss brand.
 
The press release was so vaguely and generally worded you could really deduce anything you want out of it.
Hopefully they'll realize any profitability ultimately comes from the brand, which is solidly all about quality.
 
Another generation or two of 135 full format sensors and the quality of output will be so good that you have to ask "what is the point of MF digital sensors?". They may be technically better but will you see the difference in the finished result? Somehow I think MF digital is destined to a short life. 135 format digital is already so good and MF so expensive you have to question why anyone would need, let alone want, MF digital.
Sounds like a good move for Hasselblad if they are going to target the aspiring pro and or serious hobbyist. Just like they used to with their 500 series camera, back and lens entry level packages.
 
Roger Hicks said:
They've changed hands fairly often over the last 20 years or so, but they've managed to make world class cameras despite servicing financial vultures, so they'll probably go on doing the same. And if a Hasselblad (or other high-end digicam, such as an S2) is essential for a business, it's not expensive. Ask anyone from the film days how much they used to spend on Polaroids, film, couriers and processing, quite apart from wasted time waiting for processing.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Don't a lot of users just rent these cams by the day? An aquaintance of mine was photographed for Fortune Magazine a few years ago, and the photog came with a whole bunch of techs from Hasselblad and did a one-day shoot of him in a rental studio in San Francisco, sending the pix back to the photo editor in NYC as they went. I suspected then that everything was rented.
 
Vics said:
Don't a lot of users just rent these cams by the day? An aquaintance of mine was photographed for Fortune Magazine a few years ago, and the photog came with a whole bunch of techs from Hasselblad and did a one-day shoot of him in a rental studio in San Francisco, sending the pix back to the photo editor in NYC as they went. I suspected then that everything was rented.
Click to expand...

Dear Vic,

Yes. But it's a philosophical/economic question. What do you shoot? How many pics? To what brief? A chum of mine who specialized in glassware shot fantastic volumes, day in, day out. There wasn't a lot of logistics, because everything was sent to him: his main concerns were composition, lighting, and pressing the button. But other kinds of photography might involve a week's set-up and a day's shooting.

In other words, if you spend more per year on rent than the cost of buying, it may well make sense to buy, and vice versa. Rental is far more common than it was, but you're still paying for the camera.

Cheers,

R.
 
tlitody said:
Another generation or two of 135 full format sensors and the quality of output will be so good that you have to ask "what is the point of MF digital sensors?". They may be technically better but will you see the difference in the finished result? Somehow I think MF digital is destined to a short life. 135 format digital is already so good and MF so expensive you have to question why anyone would need, let alone want, MF digital.
Sounds like a good move for Hasselblad if they are going to target the aspiring pro and or serious hobbyist. Just like they used to with their 500 series camera, back and lens entry level packages.
Click to expand...

This is indeed the experience of the only Hasselblad H4 user I know. Well, ex user, that is. I bought his Leica MP and while visiting me I showed him my 1Ds III. Which he tested and brought with him files on his Mac to study. He sold his H4 and bought a 1Ds III.

Both the two European camera brands, Leica and Hasselblad, are in big trouble. They are not making sufficient profit and have no governmental support. As their Japanese counterparts.

I am weary of this equity fund. They usually represents trouble...
 
Vics said:
Don't a lot of users just rent these cams by the day? An aquaintance of mine was photographed for Fortune Magazine a few years ago, and the photog came with a whole bunch of techs from Hasselblad and did a one-day shoot of him in a rental studio in San Francisco, sending the pix back to the photo editor in NYC as they went. I suspected then that everything was rented.
Click to expand...

Actually, opposite to what one might expect, I've made the experience that the probability of the photographer renting goes up the more successful he is and the more money is involved. On the few photoshoots I've been with 'big name' photographers the digital mf gear was always rented and it was accompanied by a digital tech carrying a Mac Pro and two giant screens 🙂. These guys usually do jobs where the budget is high enough for them just to rent what they feel like using. On one shoot I was surprised to see that the photographer had rented a Hasselblad 503cw + P1 back and of course a digital tech just for test shots so that the tech could do quick comps on the set. For the actual pictures he used his old beaten up Linhof Technika and 4x5 film. 🙂

In my experience the pros who own digital mf equipment are usually mid-level photographers for whom it makes financial sense to buy into a system. Not only because it's quickly paid for but also because, after you regained your investment, you're actually making money off your own equipment since you''re still billing the client for the gear whether you rent it or own it.
 
Jamie123 said:
Actually, opposite to what one might expect, I've made the experience that the probability of the photographer renting goes up the more successful he is and the more money is involved. On the few photoshoots I've been with 'big name' photographers the digital mf gear was always rented and it was accompanied by a digital tech carrying a Mac Pro and two giant screens 🙂. These guys usually do jobs where the budget is high enough for them just to rent what they feel like using. On one shoot I was surprised to see that the photographer had rented a Hasselblad 503cw + P1 back and of course a digital tech just for test shots so that the tech could do quick comps on the set. For the actual pictures he used his old beaten up Linhof Technika and 4x5 film. 🙂

In my experience the pros who own digital mf equipment are usually mid-level photographers for whom it makes financial sense to buy into a system. Not only because it's quickly paid for but also because, after you regained your investment, you're actually making money off your own equipment since you''re still billing the client for the gear whether you rent it or own it.
Click to expand...

That pretty much reflects what I understand of the present scene too -- though equally, a few VERY successful photographers buy because the cost of cameras is trivial (compared with billing) and they don't have to worry about equipment that someone else may have abused.

Cheers,

R.
 
tlitody said:
Another generation or two of 135 full format sensors and the quality of output will be so good that you have to ask "what is the point of MF digital sensors?". They may be technically better but will you see the difference in the finished result? Somehow I think MF digital is destined to a short life. 135 format digital is already so good and MF so expensive you have to question why anyone would need, let alone want, MF digital.
Click to expand...

People make the exact same arguments about larger formats in film the people who shoot mf or even lf film don't seem to agree. As emulsions for smaller formats have improved, so have larger formats.

The future's 135 format sensors might be much better than today's digital mf cameras but that's not what they'll be competing with. Digital mf is not only getting better and better but also cheaper. You can now buy a Hasselblad H system camera for approximately the price of a Canon 1Ds series camera few years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
  • Article Article
Film fanatics freak out as Kodak Alaris is sold to venture capitalists! Is Kodak film now an endangered species? As they say, it’s complicated.
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
Retro-Grouch
Retro-Grouch
J
  • Article Article
The Golden Age of American Photo Magazines: 1949-1989
Replies
16
Views
5K
Pál_K
Pál_K
Back
Top Bottom