|
|
On the various pages of this web site, I have revealed a less than enthralled attitude towards Hasselblad and its longtime lens making partner, Carl Zeiss. Most of this attitude can be attributed to the lack of value I perceive with these products: well made, highly regarded, yet often grossly expensive vis a vis other competitors. Firstly, I acknowledge that these are fine products and that their stellar reputation is not just conjured up only by brilliant marketing, but through years of consistently producing excellent products for the professional photographer. Fifty plus years of design and manufacturing at a top level have created a large base of loyal users, however, some of these users take these pieces of equipment to be more than just tools to be used but as a lifestyle onto itself. As fine as Hasselblad and Zeiss are, they do not have any intrinsic value, rather they are extrinsic. Meaning that they require an outside force or influence to reveal their qualities, in short, they are not good unto themselves. Instead, it is in the hands of the photographer that they become good tools but of course, only in the hands of a good photographer who knows how to extract the qualities of the product. In the hands of a novice or sycophantic follower of brand names and the results are not likely to satisfy. Such is life and such is the case for pretty much anything of a material worth that has accumulated legend status in the greater social community of man. Leica, Mercedes, Rolex, Mark Levinson, Krell or whatever else you can think of that belongs in the upper echelons of material possession. These fine products are designed with a particular philosophy that the company founders’ believed in; the finest parts, the best craftsmanship, no compromises in the production. Such is the quality that the prices are extravagant to reflect the commitment to the uncompromising design and production. Few can afford the products and savor the quality that comes at such a high price. It seems that this restricted entry to ownership of such products is the raison d’etre for some of those who can afford the products and a cause to revel in a perceived elevation of status among the masses. Attitudes abound, however, I am not an egalitarian socialist wanting to redistribute the quality of Hasselblad and Zeiss for the masses. If you have the money honey, go crazy, nothing wrong with materialistic consumption in my book, just don’t hit me on the head with the masturbatory declarations of superiority. I write
this piece in defense of Hasselblad, believe it or not (okay, it’s
only a mild defense). On the Medium Format Digest, there are already
those bemoaning the fact that Hasselblad’s latest product, the autofocus,
645-format H1, does not utilize lenses from Carl Zeiss. As if the
optical world revolved around
Given
Hasselblad’s longtime and earned reputation, do you really think that
they would hitch the company’s name and future well being to optics
that are less than stellar? Given the move to autofocus technology,
would Zeiss have even been able to provide the goods? Remember that
the Zeiss autofocus lenses for the Contax system were developed by
and produced by Kyocera in
The partnership
with
The H1 is an exciting product and as good as the original autofocus 645 cameras were from Pentax, Mamiya, and Contax, none struck me as being truly outstanding enough that I would want to part with my money for one. The H1 is the product that I would definitely part with my money, that is if I had any. In keeping
with Hasselblad pricing policy, the H1 appears to be truly awesome
in price too and I have little doubt that the lenses will also be
quite hefty too. Zeiss hefty? We’ll have to see but from what I can
gather, the basic kit of body, film back, and 80mm lens will be around
$10,000
It is this pricing policy that has always struck me as offensive. Is the product really worth this kind of money compared to other brands? I said no when I looked at the 503 and bought a Bronica SQ-Ai instead. The H1 is a different beast though and it has up to date technology that would certainly raise the cost of the kit. Add to that other refinements such as flash sync speed to 1/800 of a second and now we have to see how much the new Rollei 6008 AF system will cost in relation to the H1, since the Rollei is the only comparable competitor. If I had the money, I’d order two H1’s right away and at least five of the lenses on offer with a slew of film backs and hell, throw in that Kodak DCS Pro Back for it too. But I don’t and likely never will unless I win the Lotto 6/49. I once put up my Bronica kit for sale in the throes of anticipation of new a Nikon D-SLR and wanting to have funds to finance the digital kit. Then I realized that I hardly make any money from my photography, that I didn’t even pull in what Bill Gates would toss into his penny jar, that photography was consuming a wee bit too much of my negligible discretionary income. I gave my head a shake and tried to clear the cobwebs clouding my judgment and take a step back from the precipice of financial ruination for the pursuit of a pastime, though enjoyable and quite therapeutic, is hardly worthy of the great expense that the state of the art demands for entry into its club. However,
there will be many who will see the Hasselblad H1 as being the right
tool for their photography. They will make a reasoned judgment that
the mix of features and innovation offered is what they need to continue
their art or business and not concern themselves that their glass
is made in
For me, I am neither particularly professional nor particularly sycophantic (well, I hope not), so having to own a Hasselblad is not a key consideration. As a real world working man, I have to make compromises in just about everything I do and I have tried to make good choices for value in my photographic kit and life in general.
I like and want the high-priced goods, as much as anyone else, but after a point one has to realize that all that bespoke equipment does nothing to improve me as person or my skills as a photographer. Would my images suddenly become world class if I used a $4500 Zeiss 40mm lens instead of a $2000 Zenzanon 40mm? Or a $6300 Nikon D1x instead of the $3300 Nikon D100? I think you know the answer to that and it would be nice if more people blinded by brand name status would realize it too. And as if Hasselblad isn’t going to ensure that the new H1 and its companion lenses are as worthy of the venerable name as the V series products. So, while I am not likely to be a Hasselblad owner in my life and have my own reasons for it, relevant for no one else but me, I do admire its products from afar (very afar) and would expect excellence from any of their other products. |
|
Correspondence & About this website Copyright © 1998-2008 Edwin Leong |
|
  |
|
Edwin's
Vignettes Attitudes
- In Defense of Hasselblad