As a mechanical design engineer that works in the consumer electronics industry, I would guess 99% of canon, nikon and sony cameras are also assembled by hand. Just not by Swedish people.
@@officiallyrics9469 is there screws in those other cameras? Pretty much guarantees it’s done by hand (with torque limited electric screw drivers). Have you seen consumer electronics assembly lines?
My photo of the motorcycle appears in this video at around 1:50. I've shot with Hasselblad medium format for the last 16 years and the image quality in my opinion is unsurpassable. There are many sectors of the image making world that benefit from this quality and the cost is simply an investment in tools and is no different to a top restaurant spending 100K on ovens and kitchen equipment compared to a small take away spending much less. It's just business economics, if there is a market for these tools then someone will make them and price them accordingly for that market.
The vast majority of people watching this video (including me) come from the perspective that spending more than a few grand on a body (and perhaps the same again on a lens) is 'a lot of money'... To be fair if its just a hobby and your an average person it is. If its a profession then a whole lot more factors come into play, is the client going to see the difference? Am I going to make margin on the body of my work if my tools cost so much? Etc. etc.
But if we are talking about Hasselblad, then in this case the image quality is essentially formed by Fujinons and a Sony`s "medium format" (sorry, I'm from film times and for me the real medium format starts from 6 × 4.5 cm) sensors. And as a result, a considerable part of the cost is formed by the prestige of the name. Fortunately, some Chinese companies (including DJI) that are now buying up European ones (those who could not stay afloat themselves in the conditions of the business economics and the market) are in no hurry to deprive them of at least an authentic place of production (assembly), adding some sense to the inflated cost. Ironically and unfortunately, a company from Europe actually eliminated another glorious medium format equipment company from Asia in whose products I always found much more common sense - Mamiya.
@@MitosVC .... not to forget sony eliminating (though on the sly) Minolta... Although Minolta paid a hefty fine to HP for adopting HP's fuzzy logic in their xi cameras, Minolta was sailing well at that time. Konica too played a part... Corporate cannibalism...
I worked with Annie Leibovitz in the early 1990s, in the days of campaigns like AmEx, cardmember since, The Gap, Vanity Fair, and many books being published. She owned just about every piece of equipment available in medium format, and her overwhelming choice was always the Mamyia RZ67 cameras and lenses. One of the reasons was because she shot Polaroid 665 positive/negative b&w film profusely and the Mamyia Polaroid back yielded a 7x7 negative, from which Jim Megargee, her maestro printer, made gorgeous prints in #1 Agfa Portriga paper. But I once asked her, out of curiosity, why she preferred the Mamyia system rather than the Hasselblad, and after thinking for a few seconds her answer was -"I think the Hasselblad lenses are obnoxiously sharp".
I own a Mamiya RB67,the RZ67's predecessor...and the lenses I have for that are sharp too...very sharp. Mamiya Sekor glass is superb, as anyone who owns one will tell you.. but to say Hasselblad lenses are obnoxiously sharp is unfair in a way, as that is what you are paying for, to get the quality in your images. I also own 3 Leica's , which, like Hasselblad's are expensive..the only reason I have mine is I got them for good prices when I had the money. their glass especially is expensive, and produces beautiful images, part of the reason they cost so much. you want quality, you have to pay for it.
@@catey62 I was just telling a story that happened 30 years ago, there is no need to get personal on the subject of whether one lens from 3 decades ago was "sharper" than the other; Annie Leibovitz did not say the Mamyia lenses were not sharp, she simply philosophied on the fect the kind of "sharpness" from the Zeiss T* lenses from the period didn't please her, and she preferred the Mamyia lenses. No need to get uncomfortable, or competitive about it; it is ancient history.
@@catey62 Can confirm as a M645 owner, Sekor glass is extremely impressive. I get 80 MP scans back to work with and it looks razor sharp to the pixel level.
The sensor is made by Sony. This is the least impressive so expensive that makes no sense. They "tune" the sensor and each camera takes a whopping 6 hours!
Some extra notes: lens play a bigger role preserving sharpness and color reproduction. Sensor and post processing (color science and dynamic range) are the ones unique to hassleblad.
@@andersgale9544 will it though? This camera is not just luxury, it does what DSLRs struggle to do. If you're a person or company looking for the best image quality out there, you might need to hire a photographer that operates this level of equipment. Jewelry, fashion, art, high-end products, etc., these require the highest level of photography in the market and it will continue this way.
I agree. I have the oldest Sony A7R, and I had the standard lens that comes with it. 28-70. The taken photos were bad. I was stunned by this. Because it was supposed to be a good camera. I sold the Lens and got a better one. It's like I got a new camera. The photos were so different !
@@polluxblaze : yes as it is not a DSLR - it is a unique mirrorless system, very well suited for remote operation and multi camera arrays.. (think multiple robotic gimbal dollies - controlled from a central station. - Directors cut in real time.) Large sensors really do excel at low light operations - natural look high detail. (edit: - low light performance due to larger detector site per pixel - for any given number of pixels compared with smaller sensor - pixel size and performance in this camera will be comparable with other Sony - with more detail)
The Hasselblad x1d is generally considered a step down from the Fujifilm GFX100 among working professionals. The H6D is widely regarding as a pig of a camera to use, and that's been my experience during the few times I've used one. But there's definitely a clientele that only use these cameras because they enjoy the brand recognition. But in terms of day-to-day usability and image quality, it's not really in the game any more.
Funny that nobody really ever speaks about the issues with these cameras. The slow and bad autofocus, all the error messages, the rear screen issues with weird green/pink colors etc... The H5D-40 I owned in 2015-2016 was sadly enough the most expensive camera I ever bought, and the worst functioning one. So many error messages it was unbelievable, couldn't trust it at all. And after about six months of (extremely careful) use and handling it broke down completely... I haven't tried the H6D series, but I REALLY hope they fixed the issues from the H5D series. I have the X1D II now which works a lot better, so I'm glad they're moving in the right direction at least.
Jfc tell me about it. The H-series cameras are always finding new ways to break, the X1D is just starting to gain traction, and nobody's figured out why to buy the 907x yet. There's a reason most Hasselblad shooters still use the old V-series.
I work daily with 3 different H5D cameras and can understand your frustrations with them completely. All 3 of ours last about 5-6 months before breaking down completely and needing to have sensors replaced by shipping them back to Sweden...
Our technic-profs said the same. I trust on the Fuji GFX line. Medium format too and way consumer friendly. Hasselblad works only analogue. And then the prize gets mad because of all the collectors who buy them.
This seems to be common with high-end electronics. More consumer-grade electronics that sell millions of units have honed their software and worked out all the bugs but at the top end you're looking at proprietary software developed by just a few people with minimal testing and there will be bugs, lots of bugs.
That is why the people using them are professionals. Accidents do happen and that's what insurance is for. I haven't used a Hasselblad digital but I shot with the 500 and 503 series film cameras and a Phase One IQ4 150mp camera.
I owned a photography studio for 18 years. I preferred the Mamiya RB67/RZ67 Professional in the studio as the frame format (6x7 cm), meant less cropping was needed than with the Hassleblad. 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and up were ideal sizes for this format. Just rotate the film back to either horizontal or vertical and you’re good to go. I had a 30x40 inch portrait that was the center piece in the lobby that was crystal clear and got a lot of attention and great comments as people would study the subject matter. I also liked to use related props or decorations around the portraits on the wall to give ideas of how it would look in the home. I also used the Mamiya 645 for weddings with great results. Weddings were lucrative, but I preferred in studio doing portraits and product/catalog shooting. I will also add that good lighting and a great photo lab that understands your wants is very essential. I had a very successful portrait studio using nothing but the Mamiya cameras. When digital came on the scene, that’s when I decided it was time to sell and get out….too expensive.
There is one factual error: Hasselblad introduced X1D for $9,999.00 - not for $5,750.00, as stated in the video. X1D was full of bugs and some premature material failure. So after a year or so, and many heated complaints aimed at Hassleblad and its under-performing X1D, Hasselblad dropped price of X1D to $5,750.00, then quickly released X1D II, selling it for the same price tag of $5,750.00. That left many loyal X1D customers in the dark with grossly depreciated camera, that didn't work to its expectations, not to mention it now had very little resale value. X1D just became your new paperweight on your desk. Shame on Hasselblad for abandoning its loyal base. Victor must be turning in his grave.
Hassy has come out with firmware upgrade ''à la Fuji'' though. Take a look at 1st generation on X1D on the used market, they are holding their value just fine...
@@gibcoprobe66 : I have all the latest FW updates. Unfortunately, Hassy moved on. They don't care about X1D any more. Word is out there that sensor reached its limitations and no future FW upgrades will include X1D. Btw: I paid $9,999.00 for my X1D. Four months later, Adorama dropped the price to $5,999.00, killing resale value of any X1D out there. Nikon and Canon protect their prices in the US, Hasselblad doesn't. Go figure...
Super useful comment. Like many expensive EU cars. totally unreliable and after-sales customer care is 'SHOCKING'. See John Cadogan Autoexpert on TH-cam for supporting evidence of my statement. Korean brands are always one step ahead with warranty periods and reflect their far superior reliability and minimal warranty claims. German and French crap can't compete. eg. Kia Stinger comes with TEN YEAR warranty in USA - again see John Cadogan's take on this.
I've shot Hasselblad off and on (owned a film version and rented the digital). Medium format was always a great film format for still subjects. Hasselblad was arguably the best at it back in the day. You still have to use them if a client requests it because they heard of the name and wants it. I wasn't as blown away by the digital version. Zeiss hasn't been Zeiss for awhile. They made a line of "premium" glass for Sony a few years back. Sony almost instantly replaced the line with updated glass. They just weren't great. Not horrible, but not worth the legacy brand mark up you were being hit with. I kinda felt that way about the Hasselblad glass too that is available. Very good, not great. I do love their color science but I don't think it justifies $32,000. They were bought out by DJI a few years ago. Unfortunately a bit of the Chinese urge to cut corners has been shining through. There are rumors that Sony is coming out with a medium format camera soon. It will likely have the same sensor. It will probably also be around $10K. I dunno, medium format looks great but has very limited applications. If you do tons of studio fashion and advertising work that's going to be blown up to a huge poster or billboard size, you'll need the 3xtra resolution. For basically every other photographer, a full frame mirrorless from Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Fuji (who have a medium format line) will do what you need for 1/3 to 1/6th the cost.
Those Zeiss lenses weren't actually Zeiss, just Sony lenses which licensed the Zeiss name. Similar to the 'Leica' lenses Panasonic make for Micro Four Thirds.
Shame you have to use them just because of the name, considering the fact that when shooting film the image is dependent entirely on the lens and the actual film itself, while the "camera" is irrelevant
I began shooting with a Hasselblad back in 1983. I found the simplicity and mechanical precision coupled with exceptional reliability gave me a feeling of deep satisfaction every time I used it. Very few possessions I have ever owned matched that however after going digital in 2007 my fine medium format camera was relegated to storage. The prohibitive cost of a digital back just made it impractical to consider. I recently sold my Hasselblad gear to a young fellow whom was very excited to own it. Unbelievably I sold it for almost what I had paid for it back in 83. Still working like the day I bought it is a testament to the quality of Hasselblad and Zeiss optics which cannot be beaten. there’s a reason the 500 c was taken to the moon.
There are many great photographers today that got Hasselblads 10-15 years ago when commercial work payed that much more on average, making them sort of accesible. Back then Sony, Canon and Nikon were basically toys in comparison (not to mention the lack of quality retouching in that era didn't help in smaller lower res sensors), which is why Hasselblad could stand head and shoulders above the competition and ask 10x prices over everyone else. These days that's no longer the case, consumer cameras come with 50 mp sensores that render color and detail accurately, which is why medium format cameras are about 6-10k now. If you want a specialty H-system it's most likely for research reasons or for specific fine art printing (which mostly can be achieved with lower priced models anyway).
Yeah these days most people who buy medium format cameras work on the fashion photography or advertising industries and it’s most of the time not even them buying the cameras, but the studios they work at
Alfred Stieglitz, whose photographs sell for more money than any other photographic image today, had a delapidated 8x10 view camera with a bellows stitched up in tape, and his darkroom was under a stairwell, surrounded by tarp, and very claustrophobic. In the 1960s, the great Walker Evans was on q&a peroid after a lecture at Yale when a student asked him "what camera he used". His answer was -"have you ever asked a writer what typewriter he uses"? To me, this wraps up this photo gear acquisitive delirium from people who are more interested in the equipment than in photography itself.
The professionals who earn tens of thousands a month won't think twice in purchasing it if they feel this brand will significantly improve their work. For them, it's a worthwhile investment.
Really it's more Fujifilm that has put more pressure on Hasselblad than Sony. It's "medium" format cameras has much more versatility. It is good you covered the point of the true medium format sensor that the $32,000 H6D has in compared their less expensive models but Hasselblad's smaller sensor based medium format cameras are still behind the performance of Fujifilm.
all true. and even though nobody knows what a hasselblad is, well, it's like driving a Rolls instead of a Bently. I've said my nikons are like my rolexes and brietlings my hasselblad is like Patek Phillipe and panerai! niether of which i have...but i'd really really like that Panerai diver's chronograph!!! hahahahaha
@@miamitten1123 I really don't know that much about Fuji. AND... I certainly made NO disparaging comments about that venerable company. BMW, that's a different story.... I'm too drunk coming off a 13 hour drive in a motorhome ( and unpacking! ARRGHHH! That's the drunk part! ) to open that can of worms. Do you like your beemer? do you like your Fuji? Do you like your patek? Fantastic! I didn't say ANYTHING bad about any of them.... drunk john? yes, lets leave now...
So basically the most expensive part is made by Sony, and those are made in Thailand for Sony. Thai labor is inexpensive. Either Sony overprices these sensors for Hasselblad, or like we all expected: If you buy a Hasselblad you pay for the name.
@@mynameisnickeif they make €7k a month, that still only comes to an hourly wage of €40, multiplied by 8, and thats €320 assembly cost, or less than 1% the price of the camera. Now imagine if they made €10k a month, and it took 10 hours to make one camera, thats still only around 1.76%. It's simply not swedish labour that makes this camera "So Expensive"
This is a niche product. I work as a professional product photographer, but I also do weddings and other events. As a hobby, I also do astrophotography, landscape and so on and for me, a Hasselblad simply doesn't make sense. I need a higher burst rate, reliable autofocus and other things that are provided with consumer grade full frame cameras from Canon/Nikon etc. Hardly any photographer will see a benefit of owning a Hasselblad. But the very few that do... well, that's where the market is at.
Sometimes, It’s not about prestige or unique. It’s about the result for specific purpose in specific areas of photography and industry. For better understanding, this camera is sucks for speed or sport photography but great for fashion or product shot. Also the image is still sharp even though you blow up it 10x, no noise no grain no distortion.
NGL, this video both informed me of the existence of this company and its products while also convincing me that they're a total rip off and don't at all deserve the success or reputation they've somehow achieved. Seems like a bunch of people overpaying for the sake of tradition.
you guys aren't gonna mention the Fujifilm GFX line that have been grinding Hasselblad's market share in Medium -ish format cameras in the pas 2 years? The GFX 100s is basically the death of cameras like the X1D Mark 2 : better autofocus, same dynamic range, similar price but twice the pixel size, no leaf shutter, better lens selection etc, etc. Not mentionning the fact that Fuji also has pro and more compact bodies like the GFX 100 or the GFX 50R
From what I've seen in TH-cam reviews the Fuji medium format cameras are great but they do say that they aren't true medium format cameras. The Hasselblad still has a larger sensor.
The others are correct the GFX is a smaller sensor BUT it is still medium format, basically anything over FF is usually considered medium format. BUT for the price, I have the means to buy a Hasselblad right now, but it just doesn’t interest me. You REALLY have to need one to go buy one. They don’t make sense for like 99% of photography. If I wanted a larger than FF sensor I would totally go with the full body GFX, it might not have as big of a sensor BUT it’s more versatile, I would be more likely to use it by itself in an greater array of work.
But, read through the comments here from people who have used their high end cameras. I would say that their reputation amongst photographers is not being over-hyped here. And I have to approve of giving more visibility to companies that build things by hand. So many of us complain about the throw away consumer world we live in, but then act like any companies that are trying to do the opposite are elitist.
@@heytheist9349 OK...but did you stop to think that maybe sony OEM manufactures the sensors for them? You act like you're "thinking critically" about it but you're pretty much ignoring the most obvious conclusion....lol.
@@imharikrish the lenses for the GFX are mega bucks! I had to save save! The GF 110mm is incredible too! Which I own with the 45mm 2.8. Medium format rules supreme. I own the XT3 and luv it too! 55-140mm & 16mm 1.4 is pure perfection!
Their lenses are great. I bought an adapter so I could use Carl Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad on my Nikon D80. Impressive results -- the colors, the perspective, everything looked better, more professional. And that was on a small chip long ago.
In the film days, Hasselblad proudly claimed that they used husk for polishing, horse hairs for some internal mechanics, leather for covers, nickel plated brass covers, freeze box and exposure to high temperatures for testing, tack nails for deburring of gears etc... now with precision manufacturing already in place for a very long time in place, third-party (Japanese) manufacturers supplying many parts, and reliability sometimes in a question, one sees no rational in demanding such a high price, when better and equally better performing cameras around... today's Hasselblad are not made the same way a 500 cm or elx were made. Zeiss lens are an another topic for another day...
The thing is, manual labor is probably not contributing positively to the quality of product. Relying on people's *feel* about the quality of the part they produce (the sound of the click that takes months to learn) instead of relying on specialized equipment is actually a pretty bad argument for quality/price. The idea that the quality is better because it takes time for a worker to develop the production skill, it's pretty much a luddite argument. It actually just means that it's badly industrialized, and they aren't using the most appropriate equipment for the job. As they said, not much different than what they had in the '70s On the other hand , they don't even have to improve. People will pay a *lot* for their brand-name cameras anyway, and Hasselblad's workers will make their money for their fiddly work, even if there were a machine to do that quicker and better than them. Otherwise, that "click" sound that takes ages for a human to learn when it sounds good, could be quite easily recognized and classified by a computer today. And there are also probably better ways to check the quality of that part. I work with DFM of electronic products so that's pretty much what I do for living. But they don't expect a million orders per year, so there's not that much incentive to improve. Also, the parts cost (sensor and such) is high enough that they just don't care.
I’ll never forget how giddy I was the first time I played with hasselblad files for the first time. The details are fantastic but the dynamic range is ludicrous.
@@nickblyth166 I guess time has changed. Perhaps gone are the days where Hassel was king . . . Buying Hassel now seems more for prestige and brand name . . .
@@justscanningby9902 lol no. try taking still car or product photos side by side with a canon vs a hasselblad. once you get into post processing you'll see how much more information the hasselblad picks up.
@@justscanningby9902 16 bit and leaf shutter. Most people using these are using ocf and it sucks to lose lots of power and battery life of the strobes with HSS. Color science is great, the menu system is amazing, wireless tethering, great weatherproof rating, build quality, etc. But there is a stigma with prestige and brand name like you mentioned for sure but if youre trying to get commercial work with a canon or sony then you better have a strong ass portfolio and a foot in the door somehow. Most of the consumer cameras are 24mpx and thats not gonna fly either.
Doing my military service in the Swedish Navy on surveillance boats back in 1978, we used the Hasselblad camera to take detailed pictures of Soviet warships that passed by swedish waters on their way out of the Baltic Sea during the Cold War. Today 43 years later it´s still the closest I will ever come to a Hasselblad camera.... to buy and own one I can only dream about!
The Shutter sound of the Hassleblad cameras are just so satisfying and so very sturdy and clicky.... I can't believe the partnered with OnePlus! And the output wasn't great!
Coz OnePlus just allowed hassleblad to do colour callibration only. Not to develop the sensor itself. OnePlus just used a marketing gimic to create the hype
@@Ignacio.Romero actually, I returned my OnePlus 9 Pro because the colours were totally off normal! The colours are too saturated or too dull! Once I was wearing a British Racing green Sweat Shirt and the the photo came out like I was wearing a Brown Sweatshirt, the camera is the worst part of the phone! Period!
I started my freelance photography business in 1990 with a legacy from my Uncle Jack. I wanted the best film gear so I bought two new Hasselblad 503CWs and three lenses, brand new. The legend was you could use your Hasselblad for your whole career and get your money back on retirement (although not in real terms of course). Well it was the worst thing I ever did. I'd compare it to buying a new Rolls Royce and having it constantly breaking down at every street corner. My first new camera had a chewed off screw head in the baseplate, straight out of the box. No huge deal - I managed to extract the screw, photographed it and sent it to Hasselblad who promptly sent me two replacements. As I say no real problem but that was only the start of it. Missed frames on the A12 backs, cameras that jammed solid - multiple times, lenses that fell off due to locking spring failures, dark slide interlock failure leading to blank films, failure of leaf shutters, I could go on - I collected a couple of dozen guarantee repair dockets from Hasselblad UK. I wrote to the MD in Sweden who never replied until I sent an irate second letter. I was refunded my postage and that was it basically. That camera stuff had me in tears. I should have stuck to my old faithful Japanese Bronicas. Never, never, EVER again would I ever trust this brand, whether they are made in Sweden, Japan or Timbuktu. This is my own private experience and opinions. -
I paid the price and shot with Hasselblad film cameras for many years. My German camera repairman lamented the decline of quality of Hasselblad even in the late '80's. I believe Hasselblad is still manufactured to very high standards, but I question the value.
@@el_fucko AS LONG AS I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT GERMANY'S WAR MACHINE. LOL 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂THE SONY A7S 3 IS THE BEST CAMERA I HAVE EVER USED FOR NIGHT SHOOTING AND ASTROMANY.
The hairnet is not so much to prevent hairs in the process as it is to prevent other dirt that lives in the hair from getting in the process. And in practical sense it reduces both.
I’ve only used an old, old hasselblad 500C, but it is the coolest, most fun, most satisfying camera I have. I only use it on special occasions. I love it so much.
"Unlike other manufacturers, Hasselblad doesn't mass-produce its cameras, it makes them in small batches assembled by hand. This is partly because Hasselblad doesn't make that many Cameras" What? Thats not a reason.. that's a double statement. Who proofs these voice over scripts....
i dont get whats wrong with it , " they dont mass produce partly cos they dont make many cameras" *implying that there are other factors for not mass producing* -- this is what i inferred from that dialogue..
@@avonflex5031 the reason Hasselblad ‘do not make many cameras’ (thus not mass produced) is not because they ‘do not make many cameras’….. it’s because they ‘do not "Sell" many cameras’ due to the high price tag of being hand made
@@NicolaosSoldal i think mass produce means a *production method* in contrast to a hand-made production method in this context , so they use a hand-made production method instead of a mass *production method* partly because they dont make many cameras .
@@puntoni True, but a Lot of companies have gone Broke because they Diluted their BRANDS too... I personally don't see a position in the Prosumer market next to SONY, CANON, PANASONIC, and NIKON for HASSELBLAD to get a foothold in. But then again, I could be wrong?
One of the best features of the digital back is that it compatible with their analog cameras. Being able to shoot digital images with my 1970’s SW-C is huge. The motivation for me to save up and dive in. Surprised that wasn’t mentioned.
My father bought a Hasselblad in the mid-70s for magazine photography, and it was about $6,000 at the time. One of the reporters took it on a motorbike ride, and Dad was not impressed. For price comparison, my mother's brand new Volkswagen bought new at that time cost half the price of the Hasselblad.
It's great for them. I was using Bronica and Mamiya medium format film cameras, like most photographers I was building up to a Hasselblad system. Then digital arrived, digital wasn't the great equalizer that everyone claimed it to be. It actually turned the photography clock back more than 100 years. Making it the domain of professionals or the super rich, because amateurs can no longer afford medium format. Labs that process my other film camera are few and far between 5×4 gives me advantages but it is a bit of a hassle to take to location.
Yea, but who are those that "truly needs" one of these? There is no way you are going to notice this amount of detail when a photograph from this camera is printed. Sure you can print huge, but no one ever looks at a billboard point blank...Maybe im missing something, but i really cant see what this camera can do that justifies the price difference relative to other high end cameras. Unless, pixel peeping is your hobby ofc...
@@artyomandreev1890 you don’t look at a billboard close up but you do look at an art print close up. Anything less than 300dpi isn’t considered good enough. It’s not just for printing by the way. It’s to give your retoucher enough information to do their job cleanly so it looks natural. Also 16 bit let’s you push the colors which is important when working like an artist would by using the color circle. This isn’t for your everyday joe, they’re rented out for large commercial shoots. Just Annie Leibovitz day rate is 100-250k. The cost of this camera is a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent in marketing/advertising. Without the photo their is no marketing/advertising
Sure, even i look at prints up close and enjoy it. But at the end of the day, what matters is how an image looks as a whole. And in order to see an image as a whole you cant be looking at it up close, especially if we are talking bilboard sized art prints (does that even exist?). I truly dont believe that the extra details when looking at an image up close justifies the price difference. As for bit depth, there are no printers that can reproduce 16 bit images as far as i know. Dont get me wrong, its a great camera, and i can see a very tiny niche for it in areas such as archival purposes. However, what annoys me is when people buy these beasts for things like landscape/portrait photography and then try to justify it by looking at the images on a computer screen at 400%...
@@artyomandreev1890 its not about reproucing the 16 bit in print its about having the information to edit with. Its why jpgs fall apart when pushing them too far. hightlight and shadow recovery, etc. Also dont forget that for a pro this is a write off, its also a camera you can rent out for additional income but most people are going to get these from a rental house for a specific high paying job. Its mostly information for editing purposes.
Not necessarily. Old film cameras were 90% film quality, 9% lens, 1% body (assuming shutter functions as it should). Now it's 90% sensor+hardware+software to get an image. In the past Hasselblad did not produce their own film, so the quality of the shot was mostly dependent on you film manufacturer of choice and your developing lab.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 the quality of Hasselblad lenses or Zeiss or Leica lenses were always the selling point. Any one of their “normal “ lenses cost more than most Nikon or Canon bodies. The glass cost a lot but it might outlast several bodies.
@@techguy9023 Their lenses may have been the selling point, but that doesn't mean the cost was justified. Glass only goes so far with film. Most of your quality comes from the actual film and the development process. Not to mention back then also the lab that put your negatives onto color paper using a chemical process. Now we have scans, so scanner also matters. Hence my comment that even a perfect lens only makes up of a small amount of a film picture's quality.
Interesting no mention of Phase One who is actually the leader in high end medium format cameras. Also video focuses on Sony A1 as a competitor when really Fujifilm is the one eating Hasselblad's lunch in lower end medium format.
If I were to get on the MF train it'd definitely be a GFX-100s and not a Hasselblad. The stories I've heard from fellow photographers of the Hasselblad breaking on location and the repair process keeps me far, far away
Beautifully done video. However, I failed to find any technical reason why the price has to be so ridiculously expensive. yes, they made space cameras, but this is not a space camera and mechanical engineering has progressed since 1969. Proper manufacturing tolerances and automated calibration and testing would make their excessive manual work unnecessary. The part that mostly broke my heart was learning that they don't even make the image sensor themselves.
@@grandrapids57 My bad, I didn't want to imply there's something wrong with 3rd party suppliers. My criticizing was aimed to the lack of R & D. Or forget R & D, just removing the software bugs. Or leave the bugs alone, but at least buy a cheap optical comparator at ebay ...instead of checking part tolerances "by sound".
@@Cockalicious In that instance, almost no maker of video equipment make the LCDs. GM for example doesn't make the chips, tires, steel, plastics, leather, some times entire interiors... but they do create the specifications. Get into the world of manufacturing, and one will see. Confer the early history of Dodge cars- they made nothing, only assembled. Harley, for example, does not make any gauges, brakes, wire, hose, tires, steel, glass, plastic, hand grips, chips, filters, oil, grease, paint, etc. Chevrolet for decades didn't even make one car body. If someone makes a tree house for a kid.. will that person fell his own trees, and buy iron ore to make his own screws?
Hasselblad is a small (210 employee) specialty company making cameras to an extremely high degree of quality that's sought for every specific applications. Their insanely high quality standards and the relatively tiny size of the company means that they're only able to produce roughly 10,000 cameras a year compared to other companies which are making millions of cameras every year (not every company benefits from economies of scale). Of course they're going to be very expensive. This video shows the insane amount of work they put into each one. Not making the image sensor themselves doesn't mean their cameras should be less expensive. From the video, you'll see there's A LOT more that goes into their cameras than just the image sensor (not to mention, those image sensors are very expensive to begin with). I don't understand what you think you mean by "proper manufacturing tolerances and automated calibration and testing would make their excessive manual work unnecessary". They're not trying to make mediocre high quality cameras, they're trying to make the best cameras around. You don't understand the value of that highly skilled manual labor from individuals with years of training to perfect their craft if you think it could be automated without a significant drop in quality.
Typically, when you're looking at a high-end digital Hasselblad, you're looking at something that far exceeds what it's needed to do. I would challenge anyone to pick out which ad campaign was shot on an H6D-100c vs a Fuji GFX 100. Both do 16-bit RAW (a practically useless feature for prints), both have 100 million pixels, both have superb glass available, and the Fuji provides a better user experience. The extra bit of performance from the larger sensor on the H6D will be invisible to seasoned photographers and laymen alike. Those Hasselblads might still have a place in archival work, surveying from the sky, etc. But the majority of ad agencies that carry them do-so for the prestige and bragging rights. All else being equal, the firm with the Hassy can flaunt their techno-superiority. Very few (if any) solo photographers can justify a $33,000 camera as an intelligent business decision. I'll bet they sell a thousand X1D units for every one of the big guys.
I disagree. Never seen colors like the ones you get from an Hassy. Microcontrast from their lenses is also in a league of its own. I'm underwhelmed by the Fuji MF offerings. Yes, they have tons of features for a very good price but I don't see that MF look that I see with Hassy. I would challenge you in return to pick out which ad campaign was shot with a Fuji GFX100 vs a Sony FF...
FYI sensor/film size is not only for image quality, it also effects field of view and scene compression. In other words, ultra wide angle lenses can look less fish eye. I want a medium to large+ format camera for that reason alone. When you print medium to large format images large, shot with normal or semi wide lenses. It doesn't look like a photograph, it looks like you're looking out a window. It's beautiful.
@@methujeraya I have one really good example in mind but I forget the photographers name. Watch this space and I'll get my parents to look for the book of his I have at their place. It's worth it because this guy photographed on film sheets that were almost 2 feet wide and tall. My Google search skills are failing me. In the meantime I quite like the series by Richard Renaldi, "Touching Strangers". The portraits where there is more environment than just a wall behind them display the spacial rendering I was talking about. It's not just the shallow focus that many talk about.
@@StephenAR Forgiven and appreciated! The thing about my claim is that there aren't that many examples because wide angle lenses are relatively new to photography and only became popular after the phase out of larger film formats and the industry conversion to 35mm film and sensors. So many famous and prolific photographers that shot with medium or large format tended to shoot at normal or tele focal lengths, both past and present, for personal and commercial work. The famous photographers that would shoot wide landscapes would do so from a large distance with what appears to be normal or only very semi wide lenses. And their focus point is nearly always off in the distance. So not a lot of foreground tangibility. This photographer I'm trying to remember would do these juxtaposed environmental semi glamour portraits of young Chinese women in traditional dress standing in hazy landscapes completely decimated by the Chinese industrial revolution. The images are incredible. But the technical point of interest is that the subject in focus is often in spitting distance, but the field of view for the environment is between 120° to 170° without noticable distortion. It's like a GoPro field of view but 50mm lens lack of distortion. Which is how our eyes see, hence it's like looking at real life, not a photograph. Does that make sense?
I have three Hasselblad bodies, a bunch of film backs, and six lenses, all dating to the late ‘70s through early ‘90s. I haven’t shot with one since my professional lab stopped processing film back around 2009-2010. I just couldn’t justify the cost of a digital Hasselblad. I heard from other professionals that they abandoned the digital ‘blad when they realized how much data storage was required for those huge images. People were having to carry dozens and dozens of memory cards just to photograph a wedding, that has, of course, changed as storage capacity has increased, but shooting 500+ images at an event still takes up way too much data storage. I’ve retired from the business, but I’m very happy with my Nikon digital equipment. Since I don’t ever have to shoot images that will be enlarged to 40"x60" anymore, I just don’t need my images to be that detailed.
When I was a professional photographer, I used my Hasselblad (500 c/m) most of the time. It had an excellent build quality and never ever let me down (not a single time). I could even manage to ruin my Nikon F2 and F3 once in a while (both are super duper reliable in general) but Hasselblad always worked. In the beginning, Hasselblad had some problems when they went digital, I don't know how good they are these days. But the camera body is just half the camera, the other important part Is the lens and IMO Hasselblad and Leica are still producing the best lenses by far. There are other manufacturers who occasionally design an extremely good lens too, but with Hasselblad and Leica every single lens is awesome across the board. That's why you buy it. In 35mm (compact cameras) it works a little differently because the rigidity of the body plays a higher role due to the kind of jobs where you use compacts. Is Hasselblad the best camera on the planet? That's a almost religious question, but using a Hasselblad will make sure that if your photo sucks it is your fault and not because you used an insufficient camera. That's good enough for me.
Never heard about this company until today. Looking for more data, I found the following: “Medium format” is used to refer to sensor sizes that are larger than 35mm "full frame" (24×36 mm) but smaller than large format (4×5in). So, the 43.8×32.9 mm sensor in Fuji’s 50S is medium format, but so is the larger 53.7×40.4 mm sensor found in Phase One’s 100MP XF camera.
I work at McDonalds. I am a Softserve Dispensation Technician. It takes months, maybe years to learn to serve ice-cream in a cone right. Many factors come into play. The sound, the smell, the weight of the ice-cream. This is why we charge 30 cents for an ice-cream.
That's standard practice in the camera world. Sensor is not the end all be all outcome of the image. There's the image processing pipeline, which processes colors, akin tones, etc. there's the camera specific color science for good color reproduction (other cameras sometimes struggle with this)
@@magno5157 fuji, some nikon, and a bunch of other big name camera companies all use Sony made sensors. They own about a third of the camera sensor market and nearly all of mobile camera sensors
@@magno5157 this isn’t unique to anything tho. In almost every industry, Brand’s just buy components from other companies and tailor it to fit their description
@@hfvvffvhh9719 you guys should just read up a bit on the Lunar, before commenting buying components is fine... buying a fully functional camera and pimp it up is not. and definately not for 4x the price
When selling cameras in the 80’s I remember a chap in his late 50’s coming in & buying a new 500CM kit with 80 mm lens , he paid in $10 bills, he had saved $10 a week for almost 5 years t buy his dream camera.
But things are changing nowadays and Fujifilm has entered the medium format segment in recent years. Mamiya and Hasselblad have enjoyed the monopoly for many years in high end commercial photographers. Good competition between companies is always great so that the customers have the freedom to choose and more better product innovations.
@@0741921 They're bigger than the entry level hasselblad sensors but still not bigger than the top end model. Fujifilm GFX lineup is affordable when compared to the entry level hasselblad.
Indeed it is so - as a pro I went from Hasselblad H6D100c - £60K + with lenses to Fuji GFX100 and so far I have noticed it is that is quicker to use all round, the AF actually works, my back isn't broken and I have a new car on my drive - yep seriously.
@@keshav1358 They are the same sensor in the x1d and fuji lineup. The entry level hasselblad is 5750usd and no leaf shutter on the fuji lineup. The good fuji is 10k
I own a hassie 555 ELD and I can unequivocally say that these cameras ARE different. It's still a lot of work to get a good shot but when it does happen it's like a lightning strike. You get out what you put in. And in this case, a Hasselblad is definitely one of these things! They really are that good!
I still own Casio QV4000 4meg camera that I took incredible shots of my growing family.Seriously breathtaking portraits.I think in proper knowledge even Casio is brilliant.
One time I was assisting a photoshoot at an airport and the photographer handed the camera to me while he went to adjust the model's outfit. That was the longest couple of minutes in my life.
Fun fact: before becoming the Apollo 11 astronaut everyone forgets because he didn't land on the moon, Mike Collins lost a Hasselblad in space during a Gemini-mission
I've owned/used H3D, H4D and H5D. The colour science and IQ are very unique. The high light recovery and the transition is also very special. It's very organic and film-like. By comparison, the images from PhaseOne(the camera my workmate uses)is very clean and clinical. Not saying which one is better, but they are just different. However, it really is a camera that requires a lot of time to operate. Compared to other systems, if we don't look at the sensor, the Hasselblad cameras are terrible. The colour calibration for rear LCD is all over the place, everything is slow and noisy. The shutter shock is massive. Even the build feels very "plasticy" compared to PhaseOne and Pentax. Now, they may have changed it for H6D, but yeah, it's a love-hate relationship between myself and Hasselblad.
Yeah and the discontinuation of the film back makes the H4X,H5X and H6X pointless imo. Imagine if they brought it back as a newer version, how useful it would be to switch between 120 film and a DB
Considering most of the parts affecting the cameras performance are made by Japanese companies - it’s for people with tons of money who don’t mind overpaying just to show the label.
Back in the day of film using a Hasselblad made good sense. I’m a pro and I owned three, the first bought in 1974 and I used them until film died for pros around 2005, day in day out. They were well designed, reliable, efficient tools and over those 30 odd years I had, maybe , two or three times I needed something fixed - usually a lens issue. However, as film and repro technology improved I used 35mm more and more and, if I was going to do a high end product shot it’d be 5x4, 5x7 or 8x10. So, the ‘ Blads were used less and less. Anyhow, these big SLRs needed to be well built because they were so mechanical, with big moving parts etc. and the ‘Blad’s expense made sense because of the quality build. However, these days when everything’s going mirrorless it really doesn’t matter much and , also, technology changes so fast that there’s no camera you’ll keep beyond a few years. In reality 50Mp is about all that’s needed for most pro work and, especially if you use primes , you’ll get all the quality you’ll need so, if I was starting again , there’s no way I’d buy a camera like a ‘Blad - especially as the sensor size isn’t really that big that it makes a practical, real world , difference in most applications. I might also add that in the nineties a colleague sold his ‘ Blad gear and bought a Japanese medium format camera system because the Nikkors they used were better than the Ziess lenses- according to him.
I remember the days in the studio I whip out the mamiya or hassy with the phase one , and we'd shoot for your traditional ads. Now 90% of my work can be done with a high end dslr , and when my output is mainly Instagram or web , I don't really see a point for hasselblads, unless if you're those 0.1 percent elite commercial photographers
@@letsgoletsgoletsgoletsgoletsgo No problem, actually last time I checked Phase make backs that are at least as expensive, if not more so than a Hasselblad.
"look at these 3 photos from before hasselblad became digital to try to show a reason why they're expensive" 30 seconds later: "they only became expensive when they became digital" ???
Hasselblad respects Quality and for many other many others great reasons, Hasselblad is what it had been, it is and always be in future. And Thank you Insider for this Great Knowledge and Keep It Up : )
This is mostly nonsense. The only reason these cameras are expensive is because the yield rate drops exponentially as the sensor size increases. You’re paying for all the CCDs that get thrown away due to a single dead pixel. It has nothing to do with the handmade quality (as if that’s even a thing in electronics).
As far as I know, a bigger sensor does not necessarily mean a higher resolution. My Nikon might have the same resolution, although it has a much smaller sensor. The sensor size affects how much light can be captured per pixel, meaning the Hasselblad camera can output a better image quality at less light than the Nikon.Or the other way arround: the detail on that motorcycle might have been similar on a Nikon with a lot more light. That is obviously leaving out factors such as glass quality and building precision.
They are expensive because Hasselblad have know for a while now that there is a certain groupe of "photographers" with unlimited access to cash who just want to buy the most expensive camera just to impress others with the camera's brand name and design, but the camera itself does not take better photos than say a canon camera. These same people will also buy the most expensive phone, car, watch etc.
briefly worked for a Japanese camera brand as an engineer a year ago and I can attest how meticulous the calibration of these cameras. I was lucky enough to test super expensive DSLRs and lenses during my stay at the company.
As a professional photographer for the last 30 years, I don't think a single one of my peers has bought or probably used a Hasselblad or Phase One camera for the last 10 years. The advent and advance of mirrorless cameras - most recently the Canon R5 and Sony A1 make it very unlikely this will change - possibly ever. I'm sure purists will wail and argue - no problem - you're entitled to your opinion - I'll make my living with cameras the way it best suits my business - I need 2 or 3 bodies on every shoot for multiple set ups and redundancy. These days I also increasingly need those camera bodies capable of shooting 4K 60 video, capable of shooting amazing footage at high ISO, having great auto focus and image stabilization. As such I anticipate upgrading cameras every 4-5 years. enough
Depends on the customers. For people like me, I wouldn’t hire photographers who uses Sony or Canon, simply because I demand the highest image quality possible. They autofocus much faster, but I want my images to stand out from the rest. Canon and Sony makes the life of the photographer much easier but sacrifices image quality.
every company will have the die hards, blind thoughtless human beings who just think the product is perfect no matter how many flaws it ends up having, they think it's loyalty i guess, loyalty to the brand, i see brand loyalty as a kind of slavery, if you like a brand, thats fine, but i just dont see how anyone can look at what hasselblad is offering and then compare it to anything else, and be okay with it. it's just weird to me, maybe it's because i didnt shoot film, or medium format, but i just can read, i look at the specs on hasselblads, and the price, all the features it's missing, the extra things you need to buy (at great cost, such as a handle for 800$) i guess it's similar with supercars, "i got a hasselblad" *insert smug face here* thats the only reason you'd buy one, even if i had the money, i would buy something else, something that arrives whole and useable at the time i buy it.
@@seanc8054 Hasselblad has less features, true, it probably only has one thing that is better than Sony or Canon and that is image quality. Sony or Canon has dozens of features that are better, but there are people out there who only cares about one thing and that is image quality. It’s about what people are after, there’s a market for everything. There’s no need to insult people who like Hasselblad or Leica, these two brands simply offer results that others can’t deliver. I’ve been using Canon for the past 10 years, I know what I am sacrificing when using Hasselblad. And really it depends on shooting situations, you wouldn’t use Hasselblad for sports etc..
As a mechanical design engineer that works in the consumer electronics industry, I would guess 99% of canon, nikon and sony cameras are also assembled by hand. Just not by Swedish people.
Swedish don’t work for a bowl of rice a day!
The Children assembling the cameras have much smaller hands, that is why Canons cameras are so small. It's not the sensor.
maybe youre wrong.. 100% handmade.. canon and others not 100% made by hand.. it's machine lol
@@officiallyrics9469 is there screws in those other cameras? Pretty much guarantees it’s done by hand (with torque limited electric screw drivers). Have you seen consumer electronics assembly lines?
Every Swedish brand price is 10000x by saying it was handmade meanwhile other countries handmade too & put it inside their products 🤣😂🤣
Hasselblad: *sells camera without lens for 32,000*
Apple: "Write that down, WRITE THAT DOWN"
I'm not a big fan of apple but they need to stay away from this video 😅
actually, i would love to get one phone without any cameras
well to be fair in the camera world most cameras are sold without lens
Any camera that isn’t a point and shoot is sold without a lens. Nothing specific to Hasselblad
Still laughing 😆
My photo of the motorcycle appears in this video at around 1:50. I've shot with Hasselblad medium format for the last 16 years and the image quality in my opinion is unsurpassable. There are many sectors of the image making world that benefit from this quality and the cost is simply an investment in tools and is no different to a top restaurant spending 100K on ovens and kitchen equipment compared to a small take away spending much less. It's just business economics, if there is a market for these tools then someone will make them and price them accordingly for that market.
Is all of the cost upfront for this camera? Is there any after purchase servicing that increases the price of the camera?
The vast majority of people watching this video (including me) come from the perspective that spending more than a few grand on a body (and perhaps the same again on a lens) is 'a lot of money'... To be fair if its just a hobby and your an average person it is. If its a profession then a whole lot more factors come into play, is the client going to see the difference? Am I going to make margin on the body of my work if my tools cost so much? Etc. etc.
By the way, great picture, sir.
But if we are talking about Hasselblad, then in this case the image quality is essentially formed by Fujinons and a Sony`s "medium format" (sorry, I'm from film times and for me the real medium format starts from 6 × 4.5 cm) sensors. And as a result, a considerable part of the cost is formed by the prestige of the name. Fortunately, some Chinese companies (including DJI) that are now buying up European ones (those who could not stay afloat themselves in the conditions of the business economics and the market) are in no hurry to deprive them of at least an authentic place of production (assembly), adding some sense to the inflated cost. Ironically and unfortunately, a company from Europe actually eliminated another glorious medium format equipment company from Asia in whose products I always found much more common sense - Mamiya.
@@MitosVC .... not to forget sony eliminating (though on the sly) Minolta...
Although Minolta paid a hefty fine to HP for adopting HP's fuzzy logic in their xi cameras, Minolta was sailing well at that time. Konica too played a part... Corporate cannibalism...
I worked with Annie Leibovitz in the early 1990s, in the days of campaigns like AmEx, cardmember since, The Gap, Vanity Fair, and many books being published. She owned just about every piece of equipment available in medium format, and her overwhelming choice was always the Mamyia RZ67 cameras and lenses. One of the reasons was because she shot Polaroid 665 positive/negative b&w film profusely and the Mamyia Polaroid back yielded a 7x7 negative, from which Jim Megargee, her maestro printer, made gorgeous prints in #1 Agfa Portriga paper. But I once asked her, out of curiosity, why she preferred the Mamyia system rather than the Hasselblad, and after thinking for a few seconds her answer was -"I think the Hasselblad lenses are obnoxiously sharp".
I own a Mamiya RB67,the RZ67's predecessor...and the lenses I have for that are sharp too...very sharp. Mamiya Sekor glass is superb, as anyone who owns one will tell you.. but to say Hasselblad lenses are obnoxiously sharp is unfair in a way, as that is what you are paying for, to get the quality in your images. I also own 3 Leica's , which, like Hasselblad's are expensive..the only reason I have mine is I got them for good prices when I had the money. their glass especially is expensive, and produces beautiful images, part of the reason they cost so much. you want quality, you have to pay for it.
@@catey62 I was just telling a story that happened 30 years ago, there is no need to get personal on the subject of whether one lens from 3 decades ago was "sharper" than the other; Annie Leibovitz did not say the Mamyia lenses were not sharp, she simply philosophied on the fect the kind of "sharpness" from the Zeiss T* lenses from the period didn't please her, and she preferred the Mamyia lenses. No need to get uncomfortable, or competitive about it; it is ancient history.
"Obnoxiously sharp." I have been struggling for years to explain why I don't prefer digital images. Thank you.
@@catey62 Can confirm as a M645 owner, Sekor glass is extremely impressive. I get 80 MP scans back to work with and it looks razor sharp to the pixel level.
Woow its a huge honor to work with the great Annie Leibovitz😻😻
So expensive in a nutshell:
Made by hand,
very rare,
made by hand and rare.
Made by soft and caring Swedish hands. Lol
This one is actually reasonable as it sensor is medium format.
Art
The sensor is made by Sony. This is the least impressive so expensive that makes no sense. They "tune" the sensor and each camera takes a whopping 6 hours!
@Aqua Fyre PERKELEEE
Literally every expensive product rule:
1. Handmade
True, but not the other way around
2. Or either made in Europe or Japan with an extremely hard pronunciation.
@@slr7075 3. with a limited run
I’m selling my finger nails..because they are..
@@tzr5864 and it takes a long time to make or it needs “extreme precision or it won’t be as good”
Some extra notes: lens play a bigger role preserving sharpness and color reproduction. Sensor and post processing (color science and dynamic range) are the ones unique to hassleblad.
That's why Hasselblad will disappear soon.
@@andersgale9544 will it though? This camera is not just luxury, it does what DSLRs struggle to do. If you're a person or company looking for the best image quality out there, you might need to hire a photographer that operates this level of equipment. Jewelry, fashion, art, high-end products, etc., these require the highest level of photography in the market and it will continue this way.
I agree. I have the oldest Sony A7R, and I had the standard lens that comes with it. 28-70. The taken photos were bad. I was stunned by this. Because it was supposed to be a good camera. I sold the Lens and got a better one. It's like I got a new camera. The photos were so different !
They don’t make their lenses! The old ones had Ziess lenses and the modern ones are made by Fuji!
@@polluxblaze : yes as it is not a DSLR - it is a unique mirrorless system, very well suited for remote operation and multi camera arrays.. (think multiple robotic gimbal dollies - controlled from a central station. - Directors cut in real time.)
Large sensors really do excel at low light operations - natural look high detail. (edit: - low light performance due to larger detector site per pixel - for any given number of pixels compared with smaller sensor - pixel size and performance in this camera will be comparable with other Sony - with more detail)
The Hasselblad x1d is generally considered a step down from the Fujifilm GFX100 among working professionals. The H6D is widely regarding as a pig of a camera to use, and that's been my experience during the few times I've used one. But there's definitely a clientele that only use these cameras because they enjoy the brand recognition. But in terms of day-to-day usability and image quality, it's not really in the game any more.
Hasselblad x1d is an old model. You mentioned nothing about the X2D 100C .
In the beginning of the DTP revolution everyone was like this with Macintosh, turned out to be hot air, basically
i owned a GFX100 now a X2D, no way i'm going back to fuji
@@lnz971You mean you owned a GFX100 and now own a Sony.
@@lnz971why?
This is one of the so expensive ones that actually isn't entirely pointless, it's not just overpriced clothing or something.
@@chiquita683 fuji gfx doesn't even come close to the sensor size of the Hasselblad.
If you buy a camera from Sony for 30k it will definitely beat this one
@@It-s-me-P "my phone has 200 mp so it wins"
@@It-s-me-P but sony doesn't have any 30k cameras.
@@enkaphalin1111 actually the sensor size matters because of the details
Answer: Very big sensor, accurate color, and high quality standards.
True
Big sensor, yes. Very big? NO.
I believe everyone would really appreciate the quality in their pictures
Yup but still i really need a camera like that
@@atXP. but i guess you gotta wait a decade for the prices to drop because even till now making high quality pics is hard
Funny that nobody really ever speaks about the issues with these cameras. The slow and bad autofocus, all the error messages, the rear screen issues with weird green/pink colors etc... The H5D-40 I owned in 2015-2016 was sadly enough the most expensive camera I ever bought, and the worst functioning one. So many error messages it was unbelievable, couldn't trust it at all. And after about six months of (extremely careful) use and handling it broke down completely... I haven't tried the H6D series, but I REALLY hope they fixed the issues from the H5D series.
I have the X1D II now which works a lot better, so I'm glad they're moving in the right direction at least.
Yeah the H6D is far better than H5D from my very little experience with it.. Yet.. most of the time i use my H2D and "knock knock" no issues
Jfc tell me about it. The H-series cameras are always finding new ways to break, the X1D is just starting to gain traction, and nobody's figured out why to buy the 907x yet. There's a reason most Hasselblad shooters still use the old V-series.
I work daily with 3 different H5D cameras and can understand your frustrations with them completely. All 3 of ours last about 5-6 months before breaking down completely and needing to have sensors replaced by shipping them back to Sweden...
Our technic-profs said the same. I trust on the Fuji GFX line. Medium format too and way consumer friendly. Hasselblad works only analogue. And then the prize gets mad because of all the collectors who buy them.
This seems to be common with high-end electronics. More consumer-grade electronics that sell millions of units have honed their software and worked out all the bugs but at the top end you're looking at proprietary software developed by just a few people with minimal testing and there will be bugs, lots of bugs.
Hasselblad: *Sells camera for $32,000*
8K Red Cameras: Baby numbers
Me watching this video on 240p: mmm yes the picture quality is amazing
Same bro same
Saaame
Hha
LMAO, Good point
😂😂😂
Can you do “Why Sony, Canon, and Nikon are expensive” for the rest of us super peasants? Haha
they aren't that expensive though. you can get a z5 for 1k. its got a computer inside it and a full frame sensor
Photography is an expensive hobby
Extremely good bodies are available for around $1,000 from all three manufacturers.
You are peasant
@@peterdecroos1654 Z5 is kinda bad imo
Just so you know, if you drop this camera, you're literally droping a car from your hand. And some might say it's a house, that you've dropped.
That is why the people using them are professionals. Accidents do happen and that's what insurance is for. I haven't used a Hasselblad digital but I shot with the 500 and 503 series film cameras and a Phase One IQ4 150mp camera.
@@bnkrazie wow! Thabks for giving idea
What is wild is that I have dropped two of them. Both worked fine.
So you’re saying you could kill a witch with this camera.
That’s 3,200 Detroit homes you’re dropping
I owned a photography studio for 18 years. I preferred the Mamiya RB67/RZ67 Professional in the studio as the frame format (6x7 cm), meant less cropping was needed than with the Hassleblad. 5x7, 8x10, 11x14 and up were ideal sizes for this format. Just rotate the film back to either horizontal or vertical and you’re good to go. I had a 30x40 inch portrait that was the center piece in the lobby that was crystal clear and got a lot of attention and great comments as people would study the subject matter.
I also liked to use related props or decorations around the portraits on the wall to give ideas of how it would look in the home.
I also used the Mamiya 645 for weddings with great results. Weddings were lucrative, but I preferred in studio doing portraits and product/catalog shooting.
I will also add that good lighting and a great photo lab that understands your wants is very essential. I had a very successful portrait studio using nothing but the Mamiya cameras.
When digital came on the scene, that’s when I decided it was time to sell and get out….too expensive.
cool
I agree with you on the Mamiya format and quality. I personally didn't enjoy the weight of the RB.
@@kenlor71 Wieso? Die RB/RZ waren eh reine Stativ Studio Kameras, also vollkommen egal. Für unterwegs gab es die 4,5*6 und die war richtig gut.
Hasselblad is like the Rolls Royce of cameras
And Leica is the Cadillac
@@ilistentoshoegazeandimdead8014 nope Leica is way better than that
Hasselblad is the Bugatti and Leica is the Rolls Royce
@@fryderykchopin1381 good analogy
@@Uns46 Old caddy are good
My doctor opted to use a Hasselblad camera for my colonoscopy. The pictures were amazing but it was quite uncomfortable.
He's not supposed to stick in the camera, lol.
@@heru-deshet359 that’s the joke lol
@@Isai314 I know. I said it because I'm sure some people won't get it, lol.
I'm sure you were fine after the "entry level". ;-)
hahahahhaha
There is one factual error: Hasselblad introduced X1D for $9,999.00 - not for $5,750.00, as stated in the video. X1D was full of bugs and some premature material failure. So after a year or so, and many heated complaints aimed at Hassleblad and its under-performing X1D, Hasselblad dropped price of X1D to $5,750.00, then quickly released X1D II, selling it for the same price tag of $5,750.00. That left many loyal X1D customers in the dark with grossly depreciated camera, that didn't work to its expectations, not to mention it now had very little resale value. X1D just became your new paperweight on your desk. Shame on Hasselblad for abandoning its loyal base. Victor must be turning in his grave.
Those were never fans!
Hassy has come out with firmware upgrade ''à la Fuji'' though. Take a look at 1st generation on X1D on the used market, they are holding their value just fine...
@@gibcoprobe66 : I have all the latest FW updates. Unfortunately, Hassy moved on. They don't care about X1D any more. Word is out there that sensor reached its limitations and no future FW upgrades will include X1D. Btw: I paid $9,999.00 for my X1D. Four months later, Adorama dropped the price to $5,999.00, killing resale value of any X1D out there. Nikon and Canon protect their prices in the US, Hasselblad doesn't. Go figure...
Super useful comment. Like many expensive EU cars. totally unreliable and after-sales customer care is 'SHOCKING'. See John Cadogan Autoexpert on TH-cam for supporting evidence of my statement. Korean brands are always one step ahead with warranty periods and reflect their far superior reliability and minimal warranty claims. German and French crap can't compete. eg. Kia Stinger comes with TEN YEAR warranty in USA - again see John Cadogan's take on this.
@@elmono3939 capitalist moment
I've shot Hasselblad off and on (owned a film version and rented the digital).
Medium format was always a great film format for still subjects. Hasselblad was arguably the best at it back in the day. You still have to use them if a client requests it because they heard of the name and wants it.
I wasn't as blown away by the digital version. Zeiss hasn't been Zeiss for awhile. They made a line of "premium" glass for Sony a few years back. Sony almost instantly replaced the line with updated glass. They just weren't great. Not horrible, but not worth the legacy brand mark up you were being hit with. I kinda felt that way about the Hasselblad glass too that is available. Very good, not great.
I do love their color science but I don't think it justifies $32,000. They were bought out by DJI a few years ago. Unfortunately a bit of the Chinese urge to cut corners has been shining through.
There are rumors that Sony is coming out with a medium format camera soon. It will likely have the same sensor. It will probably also be around $10K.
I dunno, medium format looks great but has very limited applications. If you do tons of studio fashion and advertising work that's going to be blown up to a huge poster or billboard size, you'll need the 3xtra resolution.
For basically every other photographer, a full frame mirrorless from Sony, Canon, Nikon, or Fuji (who have a medium format line) will do what you need for 1/3 to 1/6th the cost.
Those Zeiss lenses weren't actually Zeiss, just Sony lenses which licensed the Zeiss name. Similar to the 'Leica' lenses Panasonic make for Micro Four Thirds.
get a Pentax Medium Format
Shame you have to use them just because of the name, considering the fact that when shooting film the image is dependent entirely on the lens and the actual film itself, while the "camera" is irrelevant
@@fakename287 why shame on them if its not their fault there’s nothing wrong with using brandname
That's the point. Knowing nothing of less than nothing and demanding something by name. Madness.
No wonder OnePlus is paying Hasselblad $150 million to tune their phone camera.
Oh wow
And the 9 Pro camera photo quality is still god-awful. Sad stuff.
@@CitarNosis317 nope... compared to the pictures at the launch...I actually prefer my OnePlus 9 pro photos over my iPhone 11 pro max
Mostly marketing gimmic. Like beats tuned audio in HTC phones, lol
@@0741921 lol, and people really use phone speakers to listen to music. how pathetic
I began shooting with a Hasselblad back in 1983. I found the simplicity and mechanical precision coupled with exceptional reliability gave me a feeling of deep satisfaction every time I used it. Very few possessions I have ever owned matched that however after going digital in 2007 my fine medium format camera was relegated to storage. The prohibitive cost of a digital back just made it impractical to consider. I recently sold my Hasselblad gear to a young fellow whom was very excited to own it. Unbelievably I sold it for almost what I had paid for it back in 83. Still working like the day I bought it is a testament to the quality of Hasselblad and Zeiss optics which cannot be beaten. there’s a reason the 500 c was taken to the moon.
@pan Potejtoyea yea, everything is a conspiracy for you
@pan Potejto what is corona virus story 💀😂. You must be american
@pan Potejto bravo bro, bravo
Dif you believe 60s tech can reach the moon?
@pan Potejto let me guess, you belived that the earth is flat.
There are many great photographers today that got Hasselblads 10-15 years ago when commercial work payed that much more on average, making them sort of accesible. Back then Sony, Canon and Nikon were basically toys in comparison (not to mention the lack of quality retouching in that era didn't help in smaller lower res sensors), which is why Hasselblad could stand head and shoulders above the competition and ask 10x prices over everyone else. These days that's no longer the case, consumer cameras come with 50 mp sensores that render color and detail accurately, which is why medium format cameras are about 6-10k now. If you want a specialty H-system it's most likely for research reasons or for specific fine art printing (which mostly can be achieved with lower priced models anyway).
Yeah these days most people who buy medium format cameras work on the fashion photography or advertising industries and it’s most of the time not even them buying the cameras, but the studios they work at
@@alvareo92 And also not to mention how quality cameras on phones are getting
Alfred Stieglitz, whose photographs sell for more money than any other photographic image today, had a delapidated 8x10 view camera with a bellows stitched up in tape, and his darkroom was under a stairwell, surrounded by tarp, and very claustrophobic. In the 1960s, the great Walker Evans was on q&a peroid after a lecture at Yale when a student asked him "what camera he used". His answer was -"have you ever asked a writer what typewriter he uses"? To me, this wraps up this photo gear acquisitive delirium from people who are more interested in the equipment than in photography itself.
My bank account: “Don’t even think about it.”
Your profile picture make this 10 times better
Bro you have a bank account?
The professionals who earn tens of thousands a month won't think twice in purchasing it if they feel this brand will significantly improve their work. For them, it's a worthwhile investment.
Really it's more Fujifilm that has put more pressure on Hasselblad than Sony. It's "medium" format cameras has much more versatility. It is good you covered the point of the true medium format sensor that the $32,000 H6D has in compared their less expensive models but Hasselblad's smaller sensor based medium format cameras are still behind the performance of Fujifilm.
all true. and even though nobody knows what a hasselblad is, well, it's like driving a Rolls instead of a Bently. I've said my nikons are like my rolexes and brietlings my hasselblad is like Patek Phillipe and panerai! niether of which i have...but i'd really really like that Panerai diver's chronograph!!! hahahahaha
@@havocproltd Please dont put Panerai in the same sentence as a Patek.
@@havocproltd what’s a FujiFilm then? BMW?
@@Irfan87 wow. i thought "I" was a snob!!!
@@miamitten1123 I really don't know that much about Fuji. AND... I certainly made NO disparaging comments about that venerable company. BMW, that's a different story.... I'm too drunk coming off a 13 hour drive in a motorhome ( and unpacking! ARRGHHH! That's the drunk part! ) to open that can of worms. Do you like your beemer? do you like your Fuji? Do you like your patek? Fantastic! I didn't say ANYTHING bad about any of them.... drunk john? yes, lets leave now...
So basically the most expensive part is made by Sony, and those are made in Thailand for Sony. Thai labor is inexpensive. Either Sony overprices these sensors for Hasselblad, or like we all expected: If you buy a Hasselblad you pay for the name.
Swedish labor comes with a heavy cost, so does the name ofc.
Well it's just another case of different nationalities working together to make expensive stuffs....
@@mynameisnickeif they make €7k a month, that still only comes to an hourly wage of €40, multiplied by 8, and thats €320 assembly cost, or less than 1% the price of the camera. Now imagine if they made €10k a month, and it took 10 hours to make one camera, thats still only around 1.76%.
It's simply not swedish labour that makes this camera "So Expensive"
This is a niche product. I work as a professional product photographer, but I also do weddings and other events. As a hobby, I also do astrophotography, landscape and so on and for me, a Hasselblad simply doesn't make sense. I need a higher burst rate, reliable autofocus and other things that are provided with consumer grade full frame cameras from Canon/Nikon etc. Hardly any photographer will see a benefit of owning a Hasselblad. But the very few that do... well, that's where the market is at.
You pretty much repeated the video. It's a niche product that won't work for everyone. It's not expensive because its best at everything
@@0741921 so what's the point for those who actually buy it
@@SKULCRUSHR if you shoot commercially you want your colours to be same as in real life.
@@bentejd8927 got it, thanks man
They once had the biggest, best accessory system for pros in the world. Not so today although their special products division still has some goodies.
It's pretty much why Leica's are so Expensive. Prestige, Quality/Craftsmanship with a unique shooting experience and unique rendering to their images.
Yes
No!
This sensor is bigger. You can see it is clearly bigger.
Leica just has the name, which is bullshit.
Sometimes, It’s not about prestige or unique. It’s about the result for specific purpose in specific areas of photography and industry.
For better understanding, this camera is sucks for speed or sport photography but great for fashion or product shot. Also the image is still sharp even though you blow up it 10x, no noise no grain no distortion.
@@Samtagri No! Just get a Fuji medium format for 1/5th the price. Lol
@Hazim Musa I concede but my point and your conclusion still stand lol
4:49 I'm no hair net expert, but I'm not guessing that's up to Swedish code 🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂
Can’t wait to read a “Hair net expert” rebuttal. You know it’s coming!
Industrial Pharmacy Intern, (pharmaceutical manufacturing)
Yes, ideally the hairnet should hold all loose hair similar to fastfood hairnets.
LMAOooooo! I’m laughing so hard hahaha and probably tomorrow too thanks👍
@@saniuca9691 aaaand there he is…
NGL, this video both informed me of the existence of this company and its products while also convincing me that they're a total rip off and don't at all deserve the success or reputation they've somehow achieved. Seems like a bunch of people overpaying for the sake of tradition.
you guys aren't gonna mention the Fujifilm GFX line that have been grinding Hasselblad's market share in Medium -ish format cameras in the pas 2 years? The GFX 100s is basically the death of cameras like the X1D Mark 2 : better autofocus, same dynamic range, similar price but twice the pixel size, no leaf shutter, better lens selection etc, etc. Not mentionning the fact that Fuji also has pro and more compact bodies like the GFX 100 or the GFX 50R
Sensor is much bigger on the hasselblad
From what I've seen in TH-cam reviews the Fuji medium format cameras are great but they do say that they aren't true medium format cameras. The Hasselblad still has a larger sensor.
The others are correct the GFX is a smaller sensor BUT it is still medium format, basically anything over FF is usually considered medium format. BUT for the price, I have the means to buy a Hasselblad right now, but it just doesn’t interest me. You REALLY have to need one to go buy one. They don’t make sense for like 99% of photography. If I wanted a larger than FF sensor I would totally go with the full body GFX, it might not have as big of a sensor BUT it’s more versatile, I would be more likely to use it by itself in an greater array of work.
@@lord6162 But the Fuji is still overall much superior. Tried all medium format cameras and finally bought the Fuji GFX 100s. It’s a monster.
@@retardinho5048 I use a X-T30 which I really like but I can't imagine how awesome a medium format fujifilm camera must be. 👌
This video sounds like a marketing advertisement for Hasselblad. I'm almost surprised they didn't say "we make each pixel by hand"....
But, read through the comments here from people who have used their high end cameras. I would say that their reputation amongst photographers is not being over-hyped here.
And I have to approve of giving more visibility to companies that build things by hand. So many of us complain about the throw away consumer world we live in, but then act like any companies that are trying to do the opposite are elitist.
As someone who owns hasselblad cameras, everything stated was true. It’s a camera used by many of the greats photographers to have lived
@@heytheist9349 OK...but did you stop to think that maybe sony OEM manufactures the sensors for them? You act like you're "thinking critically" about it but you're pretty much ignoring the most obvious conclusion....lol.
@@deanroddey2881All cameras are built by hand 😂
Most professional photographers use full frame cameras, not medium format.
@@michellecarmona4627In the film era, but not in the digital era.
That’s why I own a Fuji GFX 50R, it’s absolutely incredible. And yes it’s a crop medium format. And it’s affordable!
Thanks
You and I have a different meaning for the term "affordable". I own a used X-T3 with a used 18-55 lens, and that alone took my last 6 month's savings.
@@imharikrish mine will take whole 2 years
@@imharikrish affordable compared to phase one and the Hasselblad. And I did sell all my Nikon gear to acquire the GFX 50R…was it worth it? Heck yes!
@@imharikrish the lenses for the GFX are mega bucks! I had to save save! The GF 110mm is incredible too! Which I own with the 45mm 2.8. Medium format rules supreme. I own the XT3 and luv it too! 55-140mm & 16mm 1.4 is pure perfection!
Their lenses are great. I bought an adapter so I could use Carl Zeiss lenses made for Hasselblad on my Nikon D80. Impressive results -- the colors, the perspective, everything looked better, more professional. And that was on a small chip long ago.
In the film days, Hasselblad proudly claimed that they used husk for polishing, horse hairs for some internal mechanics, leather for covers, nickel plated brass covers, freeze box and exposure to high temperatures for testing, tack nails for deburring of gears etc... now with precision manufacturing already in place for a very long time in place, third-party (Japanese) manufacturers supplying many parts, and reliability sometimes in a question, one sees no rational in demanding such a high price, when better and equally better performing cameras around... today's Hasselblad are not made the same way a 500 cm or elx were made. Zeiss lens are an another topic for another day...
Basically, they are charging exorbitant prices because they failed to adapt to more efficient manufacturing methods.
I see you don't like to use period in writing.
It's another day, can we talk about Zeiss lens?
@@whoeverwhoever400
... ... ... !!! Nice... thanks...
@@Jalaljr-cs3jq .... Okay... haha.. love it..
Hassy: Fuji makes our lenses and Sony makes our sensors
Also Hassy: and we are owned by DJI
what is Hassy?
your little brother?
@@redwarf8118 short for Hasselblad. People in the photography community do use that name for Hasselblads.
@@aradhyakumar7383 in the community...ah, I know those pretentious people, they have never seen a Hasselblad live probably.
Really?? Now I understand the Mavic 2 Pro with a Hasselblad camera
@@redwarf8118 we had 2 hassleblad H4Ds, an IQ160 and an IQ 120 Phaseone back in our college. Some faculty and students used to call them Hassey.
The thing is, manual labor is probably not contributing positively to the quality of product.
Relying on people's *feel* about the quality of the part they produce (the sound of the click that takes months to learn) instead of relying on specialized equipment is actually a pretty bad argument for quality/price.
The idea that the quality is better because it takes time for a worker to develop the production skill, it's pretty much a luddite argument.
It actually just means that it's badly industrialized, and they aren't using the most appropriate equipment for the job.
As they said, not much different than what they had in the '70s
On the other hand , they don't even have to improve. People will pay a *lot* for their brand-name cameras anyway, and Hasselblad's workers will make their money for their fiddly work, even if there were a machine to do that quicker and better than them.
Otherwise, that "click" sound that takes ages for a human to learn when it sounds good, could be quite easily recognized and classified by a computer today.
And there are also probably better ways to check the quality of that part. I work with DFM of electronic products so that's pretty much what I do for living.
But they don't expect a million orders per year, so there's not that much incentive to improve. Also, the parts cost (sensor and such) is high enough that they just don't care.
exactly it’s ridiculous
I couldnt care how much workers get paid.
Wow, the way he solder 4:22 makes my eye twitching.
I’ll never forget how giddy I was the first time I played with hasselblad files for the first time. The details are fantastic but the dynamic range is ludicrous.
What's the dynamic range for a standard Hasselblad camera?
Dynamic range is 15 stops. A LOT of new cameras can do that these days. My canon R5 is capable of that and so is the nikon Z7
@@nickblyth166 I guess time has changed. Perhaps gone are the days where Hassel was king . . . Buying Hassel now seems more for prestige and brand name . . .
@@justscanningby9902 lol no. try taking still car or product photos side by side with a canon vs a hasselblad. once you get into post processing you'll see how much more information the hasselblad picks up.
@@justscanningby9902 16 bit and leaf shutter. Most people using these are using ocf and it sucks to lose lots of power and battery life of the strobes with HSS. Color science is great, the menu system is amazing, wireless tethering, great weatherproof rating, build quality, etc. But there is a stigma with prestige and brand name like you mentioned for sure but if youre trying to get commercial work with a canon or sony then you better have a strong ass portfolio and a foot in the door somehow. Most of the consumer cameras are 24mpx and thats not gonna fly either.
Doing my military service in the Swedish Navy on surveillance boats back in 1978, we used the Hasselblad camera to take detailed pictures of Soviet warships that passed by swedish waters on their way out of the Baltic Sea during the Cold War. Today 43 years later it´s still the closest I will ever come to a Hasselblad camera.... to buy and own one I can only dream about!
The Shutter sound of the Hassleblad cameras are just so satisfying and so very sturdy and clicky.... I can't believe the partnered with OnePlus! And the output wasn't great!
Coz OnePlus just allowed hassleblad to do colour callibration only. Not to develop the sensor itself. OnePlus just used a marketing gimic to create the hype
You're talking like the cameras aren't great
@@Ignacio.Romero i haven't said so that cameras are bad. I have just said relatively the price the cameras are average
@@Ignacio.Romero actually, I returned my OnePlus 9 Pro because the colours were totally off normal! The colours are too saturated or too dull! Once I was wearing a British Racing green Sweat Shirt and the the photo came out like I was wearing a Brown Sweatshirt, the camera is the worst part of the phone! Period!
@@abishek4300 I disagree
I started my freelance photography business in 1990 with a legacy from my Uncle Jack. I wanted the best film gear so I bought two new Hasselblad 503CWs and three lenses, brand new. The legend was you could use your Hasselblad for your whole career and get your money back on retirement (although not in real terms of course). Well it was the worst thing I ever did. I'd compare it to buying a new Rolls Royce and having it constantly breaking down at every street corner. My first new camera had a chewed off screw head in the baseplate, straight out of the box. No huge deal - I managed to extract the screw, photographed it and sent it to Hasselblad who promptly sent me two replacements. As I say no real problem but that was only the start of it. Missed frames on the A12 backs, cameras that jammed solid - multiple times, lenses that fell off due to locking spring failures, dark slide interlock failure leading to blank films, failure of leaf shutters, I could go on - I collected a couple of dozen guarantee repair dockets from Hasselblad UK. I wrote to the MD in Sweden who never replied until I sent an irate second letter. I was refunded my postage and that was it basically. That camera stuff had me in tears. I should have stuck to my old faithful Japanese Bronicas. Never, never, EVER again would I ever trust this brand, whether they are made in Sweden, Japan or Timbuktu. This is my own private experience and opinions.
-
Wow that's a lot of trouble
I paid the price and shot with Hasselblad film cameras for many years. My German camera repairman lamented the decline of quality of Hasselblad even in the late '80's. I believe Hasselblad is still manufactured to very high standards, but I question the value.
YOUR JUST PAYING TO USE THE NAME HASSELBLAD IT USES A SONY SENSOR SO JUST BY A SONY A A7S 3 NO ONE WILL KNOW THE DIFFRENCE.
@@stormchaser300 It would be the rational choice, but do you really want to be seen in public with a Sony camera?
@@el_fucko AS LONG AS I DON'T HAVE TO SUPPORT GERMANY'S WAR MACHINE. LOL 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂THE SONY A7S 3 IS THE BEST CAMERA I HAVE EVER USED FOR NIGHT SHOOTING AND ASTROMANY.
@@stormchaser300 What are you talking about, and why is it in all capitals? Are you having some kind of medical issue?
@@el_fucko if it gets the job done and saves me 30000 euros then yes. im not a snob
But don't forget the lenses. Hasselblad also makes extraordinary good ones.
Becky5205
Why you need them, what is it you do here?
@@lucasrem what?
*extraordinary ones
@@aphenioxPDWtechnology yup, hassy’s lenses are all made by Fuji and Carl zeiss
I've never even heard of Hasselblad cameras until now.
me too and glad i did
same.. seems pointless really..
It’s because we all weren’t worthy enough before
I heard they are on one plus phones.
Unless you're an actual photographer that a camera is your bread and butter then no, you're not their target buyer.
So this type of cameras are mainly focus in details of a photo, not for the majority of photographers, but that "zoom in" is fricking impressive
No matter how good photos are, after they are shared on WhatsApp they all end up being the same kind 😂
These are for real professionals whose pics are used in websites in maximum resolution
@@SKULCRUSHR Just a joke mate I'm aware of it :)
@@Xavier-gl3cj aaahh gotcha😂
As a pro shooter, I have never shot anything to post on social media. My camera helps me make 30k a month. They are not made for iPhone people.
@@travis8665 30k a month ? 😳
I didn't know photographers were that well paid...
I love how the long haired assembler are wearing their cap only on the top part of their head.
she has a woman moment
i wondered if i was the only one who noticed that!
The hairnet is not so much to prevent hairs in the process as it is to prevent other dirt that lives in the hair from getting in the process.
And in practical sense it reduces both.
THE HAIR NET IT TO STOP THE NITS JUMPING INTO THE CAMERA SO THE CAMEREA DOESNT HAVE ANY BUGS IN IT AFTER THEY SELL IT.🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂
Interesting they're owned by DJI, which explains why the drone has their cameras
Really?
@@ИванИванов-я9ы8н Majority owner since 2017
Nice. First Sweden allowed China to get their grimy paws on Volvo, now Hasselblad.
@@littlejackalo5326 volvo is chinese now...what?
@@ankn01 - yep the Chinese bought Volvo around 10 years ago.
I’ve only used an old, old hasselblad 500C, but it is the coolest, most fun, most satisfying camera I have. I only use it on special occasions. I love it so much.
"Unlike other manufacturers, Hasselblad doesn't mass-produce its cameras, it makes them in small batches assembled by hand. This is partly because Hasselblad doesn't make that many Cameras"
What? Thats not a reason.. that's a double statement.
Who proofs these voice over scripts....
i dont get whats wrong with it , " they dont mass produce partly cos they dont make many cameras" *implying that there are other factors for not mass producing* -- this is what i inferred from that dialogue..
@@avonflex5031 the reason Hasselblad ‘do not make many cameras’ (thus not mass produced) is not because they ‘do not make many cameras’….. it’s because they ‘do not "Sell" many cameras’ due to the high price tag of being hand made
@@NicolaosSoldal i think mass produce means a *production method* in contrast to a hand-made production method in this context , so they use a hand-made production method instead of a mass *production method* partly because they dont make many cameras .
Hasselblad shouldn't go low entry, quality will be sacrificed for price.
Quality in photography is really subjective subject.
Yup. They are Diluting their BRAND NAME to make more Profit.
@@annoyboyPictures What’s wrong with that? Alot of companies go broke because they sell expensive products for limited quantities.
@@puntoni True, but a Lot of companies have gone Broke because they Diluted their BRANDS too... I personally don't see a position in the Prosumer market next to SONY, CANON, PANASONIC, and NIKON for HASSELBLAD to get a foothold in. But then again, I could be wrong?
I totally agree. Fast profits have ruined legendary products.
In summary, it's so expensive because the sensor is fat and production is slow.
literally. It doesn't even have any insane features besides that
One of the best features of the digital back is that it compatible with their analog cameras. Being able to shoot digital images with my 1970’s SW-C is huge. The motivation for me to save up and dive in. Surprised that wasn’t mentioned.
My father bought a Hasselblad in the mid-70s for magazine photography, and it was about $6,000 at the time. One of the reporters took it on a motorbike ride, and Dad was not impressed. For price comparison, my mother's brand new Volkswagen bought new at that time cost half the price of the Hasselblad.
woah niiicere
Mine was $735 Can complete in 1973.
@@heritageimaging7768 wow! I wonder why the price difference?
Tell me you're rich without telling me that you're rich
as a photo/videographer i waited for something like this
what do you mean?
waited?? they've been making cameras for 80 years
@@dopeytripod I think they meant the video
These so expensive documentary's are becoming my favorite
2:10 "... and it's what makes these cameras so expensive."
**roll credits**
My dad: You get what you pay for.
Hasselblad: Hold my cognac
Your dad is old school. Some might argue that philosophy no longer applies.
It's great for them. I was using Bronica and Mamiya medium format film cameras, like most photographers I was building up to a Hasselblad system. Then digital arrived, digital wasn't the great equalizer that everyone claimed it to be. It actually turned the photography clock back more than 100 years. Making it the domain of professionals or the super rich, because amateurs can no longer afford medium format. Labs that process my other film camera are few and far between 5×4 gives me advantages but it is a bit of a hassle to take to location.
Don't worry about the price.
Anyone who truly needs one of these is making their money back and more.
This guy gets it
Yea, but who are those that "truly needs" one of these? There is no way you are going to notice this amount of detail when a photograph from this camera is printed. Sure you can print huge, but no one ever looks at a billboard point blank...Maybe im missing something, but i really cant see what this camera can do that justifies the price difference relative to other high end cameras. Unless, pixel peeping is your hobby ofc...
@@artyomandreev1890 you don’t look at a billboard close up but you do look at an art print close up. Anything less than 300dpi isn’t considered good enough. It’s not just for printing by the way. It’s to give your retoucher enough information to do their job cleanly so it looks natural. Also 16 bit let’s you push the colors which is important when working like an artist would by using the color circle. This isn’t for your everyday joe, they’re rented out for large commercial shoots. Just Annie Leibovitz day rate is 100-250k. The cost of this camera is a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent in marketing/advertising. Without the photo their is no marketing/advertising
Sure, even i look at prints up close and enjoy it. But at the end of the day, what matters is how an image looks as a whole. And in order to see an image as a whole you cant be looking at it up close, especially if we are talking bilboard sized art prints (does that even exist?). I truly dont believe that the extra details when looking at an image up close justifies the price difference. As for bit depth, there are no printers that can reproduce 16 bit images as far as i know.
Dont get me wrong, its a great camera, and i can see a very tiny niche for it in areas such as archival purposes. However, what annoys me is when people buy these beasts for things like landscape/portrait photography and then try to justify it by looking at the images on a computer screen at 400%...
@@artyomandreev1890 its not about reproucing the 16 bit in print its about having the information to edit with. Its why jpgs fall apart when pushing them too far. hightlight and shadow recovery, etc. Also dont forget that for a pro this is a write off, its also a camera you can rent out for additional income but most people are going to get these from a rental house for a specific high paying job. Its mostly information for editing purposes.
For the adhd gang: Hassleblads cameras are expensive because they are handmade and has a very very big medium format sensor.
These were undoubtedly the finest 2-1/4" square format film cameras ever made. I'm sure the digital version is equally as impressive.
YES! My 555ELD is a picky thing but if I do my part it definitely upholds it's end of the deal!
Not necessarily. Old film cameras were 90% film quality, 9% lens, 1% body (assuming shutter functions as it should). Now it's 90% sensor+hardware+software to get an image. In the past Hasselblad did not produce their own film, so the quality of the shot was mostly dependent on you film manufacturer of choice and your developing lab.
I am selling the R3 for just $3500
You can reach out to me👆👆
@@tinytownsoftware3837 the quality of Hasselblad lenses or Zeiss or Leica lenses were always the selling point. Any one of their “normal “ lenses cost more than most Nikon or Canon bodies. The glass cost a lot but it might outlast several bodies.
@@techguy9023 Their lenses may have been the selling point, but that doesn't mean the cost was justified. Glass only goes so far with film. Most of your quality comes from the actual film and the development process. Not to mention back then also the lab that put your negatives onto color paper using a chemical process. Now we have scans, so scanner also matters. Hence my comment that even a perfect lens only makes up of a small amount of a film picture's quality.
Apple: Write that down...Write that down
Apples Sensors cost $13 from Sony
Interesting no mention of Phase One who is actually the leader in high end medium format cameras.
Also video focuses on Sony A1 as a competitor when really Fujifilm is the one eating Hasselblad's lunch in lower end medium format.
Thanks, you are 100% right
If I were to get on the MF train it'd definitely be a GFX-100s and not a Hasselblad. The stories I've heard from fellow photographers of the Hasselblad breaking on location and the repair process keeps me far, far away
Maybe Pentax should do a refresh of their 645s with a newer sensor..
@@_CRiT_hits_ Same. That manual assembly and housing looks wonky. The $32K HB will be a dinosaur soon.
yeah they usually couple P1 backs with hasselblad bodies for optimum quality and comfort.
Beautifully done video. However, I failed to find any technical reason why the price has to be so ridiculously expensive. yes, they made space cameras, but this is not a space camera and mechanical engineering has progressed since 1969. Proper manufacturing tolerances and automated calibration and testing would make their excessive manual work unnecessary. The part that mostly broke my heart was learning that they don't even make the image sensor themselves.
I doubt there is any manufacturer who makes every part of a product, even for a pencil.
@@grandrapids57 My bad, I didn't want to imply there's something wrong with 3rd party suppliers. My criticizing was aimed to the lack of R & D. Or forget R & D, just removing the software bugs. Or leave the bugs alone, but at least buy a cheap optical comparator at ebay ...instead of checking part tolerances "by sound".
@@grandrapids57 but as a company focused on manufacturing cameras , not making the sensor for your camera is like not making screens for TVs.
@@Cockalicious In that instance, almost no maker of video equipment make the LCDs. GM for example doesn't make the chips, tires, steel, plastics, leather, some times entire interiors... but they do create the specifications. Get into the world of manufacturing, and one will see. Confer the early history of Dodge cars- they made nothing, only assembled. Harley, for example, does not make any gauges, brakes, wire, hose, tires, steel, glass, plastic, hand grips, chips, filters, oil, grease, paint, etc. Chevrolet for decades didn't even make one car body. If someone makes a tree house for a kid.. will that person fell his own trees, and buy iron ore to make his own screws?
Hasselblad is a small (210 employee) specialty company making cameras to an extremely high degree of quality that's sought for every specific applications. Their insanely high quality standards and the relatively tiny size of the company means that they're only able to produce roughly 10,000 cameras a year compared to other companies which are making millions of cameras every year (not every company benefits from economies of scale). Of course they're going to be very expensive. This video shows the insane amount of work they put into each one. Not making the image sensor themselves doesn't mean their cameras should be less expensive. From the video, you'll see there's A LOT more that goes into their cameras than just the image sensor (not to mention, those image sensors are very expensive to begin with).
I don't understand what you think you mean by "proper manufacturing tolerances and automated calibration and testing would make their excessive manual work unnecessary". They're not trying to make mediocre high quality cameras, they're trying to make the best cameras around. You don't understand the value of that highly skilled manual labor from individuals with years of training to perfect their craft if you think it could be automated without a significant drop in quality.
Typically, when you're looking at a high-end digital Hasselblad, you're looking at something that far exceeds what it's needed to do. I would challenge anyone to pick out which ad campaign was shot on an H6D-100c vs a Fuji GFX 100. Both do 16-bit RAW (a practically useless feature for prints), both have 100 million pixels, both have superb glass available, and the Fuji provides a better user experience. The extra bit of performance from the larger sensor on the H6D will be invisible to seasoned photographers and laymen alike.
Those Hasselblads might still have a place in archival work, surveying from the sky, etc. But the majority of ad agencies that carry them do-so for the prestige and bragging rights. All else being equal, the firm with the Hassy can flaunt their techno-superiority.
Very few (if any) solo photographers can justify a $33,000 camera as an intelligent business decision. I'll bet they sell a thousand X1D units for every one of the big guys.
I bought a 1Dx cause it looks cool.
they are paying a lot of money to business insider for exposure
@@BD-bditw ....says the guy who most likely drives a honda civic
@@BD-bditw cannot be disputed! If you say so bud
I disagree. Never seen colors like the ones you get from an Hassy. Microcontrast from their lenses is also in a league of its own. I'm underwhelmed by the Fuji MF offerings. Yes, they have tons of features for a very good price but I don't see that MF look that I see with Hassy. I would challenge you in return to pick out which ad campaign was shot with a Fuji GFX100 vs a Sony FF...
We would like to see one about phase one cameras with their IR input filter
yeah phase one is a danish brand even more expensive than Hasselblad. i am not sure if they still make CCD digital backs
FYI sensor/film size is not only for image quality, it also effects field of view and scene compression. In other words, ultra wide angle lenses can look less fish eye. I want a medium to large+ format camera for that reason alone.
When you print medium to large format images large, shot with normal or semi wide lenses. It doesn't look like a photograph, it looks like you're looking out a window. It's beautiful.
Adding on to that, a larger sensor size also means more light is hitting the sensor.
Any examples?
@@methujeraya I have one really good example in mind but I forget the photographers name. Watch this space and I'll get my parents to look for the book of his I have at their place. It's worth it because this guy photographed on film sheets that were almost 2 feet wide and tall. My Google search skills are failing me. In the meantime I quite like the series by Richard Renaldi, "Touching Strangers". The portraits where there is more environment than just a wall behind them display the spacial rendering I was talking about. It's not just the shallow focus that many talk about.
I’m intrigued so forgive me dropping a comment just to receive notifications
@@StephenAR Forgiven and appreciated! The thing about my claim is that there aren't that many examples because wide angle lenses are relatively new to photography and only became popular after the phase out of larger film formats and the industry conversion to 35mm film and sensors. So many famous and prolific photographers that shot with medium or large format tended to shoot at normal or tele focal lengths, both past and present, for personal and commercial work. The famous photographers that would shoot wide landscapes would do so from a large distance with what appears to be normal or only very semi wide lenses. And their focus point is nearly always off in the distance. So not a lot of foreground tangibility.
This photographer I'm trying to remember would do these juxtaposed environmental semi glamour portraits of young Chinese women in traditional dress standing in hazy landscapes completely decimated by the Chinese industrial revolution. The images are incredible. But the technical point of interest is that the subject in focus is often in spitting distance, but the field of view for the environment is between 120° to 170° without noticable distortion. It's like a GoPro field of view but 50mm lens lack of distortion. Which is how our eyes see, hence it's like looking at real life, not a photograph. Does that make sense?
I have three Hasselblad bodies, a bunch of film backs, and six lenses, all dating to the late ‘70s through early ‘90s. I haven’t shot with one since my professional lab stopped processing film back around 2009-2010. I just couldn’t justify the cost of a digital Hasselblad. I heard from other professionals that they abandoned the digital ‘blad when they realized how much data storage was required for those huge images. People were having to carry dozens and dozens of memory cards just to photograph a wedding, that has, of course, changed as storage capacity has increased, but shooting 500+ images at an event still takes up way too much data storage.
I’ve retired from the business, but I’m very happy with my Nikon digital equipment. Since I don’t ever have to shoot images that will be enlarged to 40"x60" anymore, I just don’t need my images to be that detailed.
When I was a professional photographer, I used my Hasselblad (500 c/m) most of the time. It had an excellent build quality and never ever let me down (not a single time). I could even manage to ruin my Nikon F2 and F3 once in a while (both are super duper reliable in general) but Hasselblad always worked. In the beginning, Hasselblad had some problems when they went digital, I don't know how good they are these days. But the camera body is just half the camera, the other important part Is the lens and IMO Hasselblad and Leica are still producing the best lenses by far. There are other manufacturers who occasionally design an extremely good lens too, but with Hasselblad and Leica every single lens is awesome across the board. That's why you buy it. In 35mm (compact cameras) it works a little differently because the rigidity of the body plays a higher role due to the kind of jobs where you use compacts. Is Hasselblad the best camera on the planet? That's a almost religious question, but using a Hasselblad will make sure that if your photo sucks it is your fault and not because you used an insufficient camera. That's good enough for me.
Never heard about this company until today. Looking for more data, I found the following: “Medium format” is used to refer to sensor sizes that are larger than 35mm "full frame" (24×36 mm) but smaller than large format (4×5in). So, the 43.8×32.9 mm sensor in Fuji’s 50S is medium format, but so is the larger 53.7×40.4 mm sensor found in Phase One’s 100MP XF camera.
I work at McDonalds.
I am a Softserve Dispensation Technician.
It takes months, maybe years to learn to serve ice-cream in a cone right.
Many factors come into play.
The sound, the smell, the weight of the ice-cream.
This is why we charge 30 cents for an ice-cream.
Remember this comment you left 3 years ago ? ^_^
That’s why I’m still rocking my fully mechanical 500cm been around since the 60’s never had an issue with it EVER!
no one talked about the Hasselblad's Lunar.
a rebranded sony camera with a wooden grip bumping up the price by 4x?
That's standard practice in the camera world. Sensor is not the end all be all outcome of the image. There's the image processing pipeline, which processes colors, akin tones, etc. there's the camera specific color science for good color reproduction (other cameras sometimes struggle with this)
@@bryan.w.t Then, there's pure rebranding for extra fat profits.
@@magno5157 fuji, some nikon, and a bunch of other big name camera companies all use Sony made sensors. They own about a third of the camera sensor market and nearly all of mobile camera sensors
@@magno5157 this isn’t unique to anything tho. In almost every industry, Brand’s just buy components from other companies and tailor it to fit their description
@@hfvvffvhh9719 you guys should just read up a bit on the Lunar, before commenting
buying components is fine...
buying a fully functional camera and pimp it up is not. and definately not for 4x the price
When selling cameras in the 80’s I remember a chap in his late 50’s coming in & buying a new 500CM kit with 80 mm lens , he paid in $10 bills, he had saved $10 a week for almost 5 years t buy his dream camera.
But things are changing nowadays and Fujifilm has entered the medium format segment in recent years. Mamiya and Hasselblad have enjoyed the monopoly for many years in high end commercial photographers. Good competition between companies is always great so that the customers have the freedom to choose and more better product innovations.
Isn't Fujifilms sensor much smaller though?
@@0741921 They're bigger than the entry level hasselblad sensors but still not bigger than the top end model. Fujifilm GFX lineup is affordable when compared to the entry level hasselblad.
Indeed it is so - as a pro I went from Hasselblad H6D100c - £60K + with lenses to Fuji GFX100 and so far I have noticed it is that is quicker to use all round, the AF actually works, my back isn't broken and I have a new car on my drive - yep seriously.
@@0741921 Not that much smaller. But overall much better than Hasselblad or Leica. Especially the GFX 100s is a beast.
@@keshav1358 They are the same sensor in the x1d and fuji lineup. The entry level hasselblad is 5750usd and no leaf shutter on the fuji lineup. The good fuji is 10k
I was a camera repair technician for over 40 years ( started in 1975 ) . I loved working on the early 500 series cameras and lenses
Because you made so much money having to constantly repair them? 😂
These be those security cameras that the CIA always "enhance" in films
I own a hassie 555 ELD and I can unequivocally say that these cameras ARE different. It's still a lot of work to get a good shot but when it does happen it's like a lightning strike. You get out what you put in. And in this case, a Hasselblad is definitely one of these things! They really are that good!
Isn't that the one thing that consumer photographers don't understand? A good image still requires a good photographer regardless of the camera.
I still own Casio QV4000 4meg camera that I took incredible shots of my growing family.Seriously breathtaking portraits.I think in proper knowledge even Casio is brilliant.
Owning Hassleblade is like owning a Rolls Royce.
Not really... Been there did this.
@@rupunzel6299 Cute answer but it does nothing to support your position.
@@geneobrien8907 Except it is factually true and correct.
except it's not just for show.
Except it's actually useful and worth the price
One time I was assisting a photoshoot at an airport and the photographer handed the camera to me while he went to adjust the model's outfit. That was the longest couple of minutes in my life.
This is one of the reasons photoshots/filmsets are so tiring even when there's not much to do, there's no room for error
AND YOU DROPED IT LOL 😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣😂😂🤣🤣
@@stormchaser300 Ofc not, I held on to that shit like it's my offspring, h2 body with p1 45+ back costed about 20 grands back then
After I bought my hasselblad. I sold my Leica, and never look back.
All I heard is this camera is good because it's big, with a big sensor... and that's from Sony.
Fun fact: before becoming the Apollo 11 astronaut everyone forgets because he didn't land on the moon, Mike Collins lost a Hasselblad in space during a Gemini-mission
He " lost " it huh
@@kakashisensei2716 Yeah, inantentive moment and it floated off out of the capsule
That man stole it stop the lies
When the hasselblad company heard it they joked that they launched the first Swedish satellite in space
@@staurosmenexes7295 that makes sense. Ha first swidish satelite...
I've owned/used H3D, H4D and H5D. The colour science and IQ are very unique. The high light recovery and the transition is also very special. It's very organic and film-like. By comparison, the images from PhaseOne(the camera my workmate uses)is very clean and clinical. Not saying which one is better, but they are just different.
However, it really is a camera that requires a lot of time to operate. Compared to other systems, if we don't look at the sensor, the Hasselblad cameras are terrible. The colour calibration for rear LCD is all over the place, everything is slow and noisy. The shutter shock is massive. Even the build feels very "plasticy" compared to PhaseOne and Pentax. Now, they may have changed it for H6D, but yeah, it's a love-hate relationship between myself and Hasselblad.
Yeah and the discontinuation of the film back makes the H4X,H5X and H6X pointless imo. Imagine if they brought it back as a newer version, how useful it would be to switch between 120 film and a DB
Considering most of the parts affecting the cameras performance are made by Japanese companies - it’s for people with tons of money who don’t mind overpaying just to show the label.
Back in the day of film using a Hasselblad made good sense. I’m a pro and I owned three, the first bought in 1974 and I used them until film died for pros around 2005, day in day out. They were well designed, reliable, efficient tools and over those 30 odd years I had, maybe , two or three times I needed something fixed - usually a lens issue. However, as film and repro technology improved I used 35mm more and more and, if I was going to do a high end product shot it’d be 5x4, 5x7 or 8x10. So, the ‘ Blads were used less and less. Anyhow, these big SLRs needed to be well built because they were so mechanical, with big moving parts etc. and the ‘Blad’s expense made sense because of the quality build. However, these days when everything’s going mirrorless it really doesn’t matter much and , also, technology changes so fast that there’s no camera you’ll keep beyond a few years. In reality 50Mp is about all that’s needed for most pro work and, especially if you use primes , you’ll get all the quality you’ll need so, if I was starting again , there’s no way I’d buy a camera like a ‘Blad - especially as the sensor size isn’t really that big that it makes a practical, real world , difference in most applications. I might also add that in the nineties a colleague sold his ‘ Blad gear and bought a Japanese medium format camera system because the Nikkors they used were better than the Ziess lenses- according to him.
I remember the days in the studio I whip out the mamiya or hassy with the phase one , and we'd shoot for your traditional ads.
Now 90% of my work can be done with a high end dslr , and when my output is mainly Instagram or web , I don't really see a point for hasselblads, unless if you're those 0.1 percent elite commercial photographers
Your are right. Only for highend users now.
That’s is exactly why hasselblad is a niche company meant only for the pros
Is there any reason to use a Phase One over a Hassy?
@@And-rc9yy sorry dude , the last time I touched a phase 1 was 10 years ago ...I guess it's not as expensive as a hassleblad back ?
@@letsgoletsgoletsgoletsgoletsgo No problem, actually last time I checked Phase make backs that are at least as expensive, if not more so than a Hasselblad.
"look at these 3 photos from before hasselblad became digital to try to show a reason why they're expensive" 30 seconds later: "they only became expensive when they became digital" ???
really interesting enjoyed this video 👍
Hasselblad respects Quality and for many other many others great reasons, Hasselblad is what it had been, it is and always be in future.
And Thank you Insider for this Great Knowledge and Keep It Up : )
This is mostly nonsense. The only reason these cameras are expensive is because the yield rate drops exponentially as the sensor size increases. You’re paying for all the CCDs that get thrown away due to a single dead pixel. It has nothing to do with the handmade quality (as if that’s even a thing in electronics).
Fair, but there are plenty of medium format cameras that cost a fraction of these.
Good post!
And the manual assembly
As far as I know, a bigger sensor does not necessarily mean a higher resolution. My Nikon might have the same resolution, although it has a much smaller sensor. The sensor size affects how much light can be captured per pixel, meaning the Hasselblad camera can output a better image quality at less light than the Nikon.Or the other way arround: the detail on that motorcycle might have been similar on a Nikon with a lot more light. That is obviously leaving out factors such as glass quality and building precision.
They are expensive because Hasselblad have know for a while now that there is a certain groupe of "photographers" with unlimited access to cash who just want to buy the most expensive camera just to impress others with the camera's brand name and design, but the camera itself does not take better photos than say a canon camera. These same people will also buy the most expensive phone, car, watch etc.
briefly worked for a Japanese camera brand as an engineer a year ago and I can attest how meticulous the calibration of these cameras. I was lucky enough to test super expensive DSLRs and lenses during my stay at the company.
As a professional photographer for the last 30 years, I don't think a single one of my peers has bought or probably used a Hasselblad or Phase One camera for the last 10 years. The advent and advance of mirrorless cameras - most recently the Canon R5 and Sony A1 make it very unlikely this will change - possibly ever.
I'm sure purists will wail and argue - no problem - you're entitled to your opinion - I'll make my living with cameras the way it best suits my business - I need 2 or 3 bodies on every shoot for multiple set ups and redundancy. These days I also increasingly need those camera bodies capable of shooting 4K 60 video, capable of shooting amazing footage at high ISO, having great auto focus and image stabilization. As such I anticipate upgrading cameras every 4-5 years.
enough
Depends on the customers. For people like me, I wouldn’t hire photographers who uses Sony or Canon, simply because I demand the highest image quality possible. They autofocus much faster, but I want my images to stand out from the rest. Canon and Sony makes the life of the photographer much easier but sacrifices image quality.
every company will have the die hards, blind thoughtless human beings who just think the product is perfect no matter how many flaws it ends up having, they think it's loyalty i guess, loyalty to the brand, i see brand loyalty as a kind of slavery, if you like a brand, thats fine, but i just dont see how anyone can look at what hasselblad is offering and then compare it to anything else, and be okay with it. it's just weird to me, maybe it's because i didnt shoot film, or medium format, but i just can read, i look at the specs on hasselblads, and the price, all the features it's missing, the extra things you need to buy (at great cost, such as a handle for 800$) i guess it's similar with supercars, "i got a hasselblad" *insert smug face here* thats the only reason you'd buy one, even if i had the money, i would buy something else, something that arrives whole and useable at the time i buy it.
@@seanc8054 Hasselblad has less features, true, it probably only has one thing that is better than Sony or Canon and that is image quality. Sony or Canon has dozens of features that are better, but there are people out there who only cares about one thing and that is image quality. It’s about what people are after, there’s a market for everything. There’s no need to insult people who like Hasselblad or Leica, these two brands simply offer results that others can’t deliver. I’ve been using Canon for the past 10 years, I know what I am sacrificing when using Hasselblad. And really it depends on shooting situations, you wouldn’t use Hasselblad for sports etc..
@@seanc8054 It is for snobs.
It’s on my bucket list to shoot with a Hasselblad!
Mine too!! :)
Sorry ur mistaken Hasselblad makes cameras not guns
@@sujathaganesuni1501 seriously?
Buy the next OnePlus phone which has Hasselblad cameras..
@@dwarrior7546 they dont have HB cameras, the color calibration is done by HB, all the hw is still oneplus'
As someone who owns a number of mirrorless MFT cameras, I am not ashamed to say that i now have sensor envy