# sony and hasselblad



## Gothmoth (Sep 18, 2012)

canon goes down the drain with mediocre products while sony forges alliances....

fuji, olympus as it seems and now hasselblad:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/09/18/sony-and-hasselblad-announce-partnership-dslr

sorry to say it.... but i see canon losing a lot of ground in the long run, with their current "strategy".

unexciting cameras for the masses + expensive glas. 

i know a lot of my friend holding back in canon investment because they don´t know how commited canon is to the serious amateur. 

and to be honest i don´t know what to think either....


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 18, 2012)

Very expensive and peculiar camera this one, but all in all, what else can one say if not "Welcome to party, Hasselblad!"



> Hasselblad is keen to expand and develop its product portfolio to include a new range of advanced mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (a.k.a. compact system camera), which will be followed by new products for DSLR and compact camera segments.
> 
> Read more on PhotoRumors.com: http://photorumors.com/2012/09/18/hasselblad-and-sony-in-partnership-to-enrich-product-offerings/#ixzz26pxedkFf


----------



## Tayvin (Sep 18, 2012)

I'd give it a try.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 19, 2012)

Gothmoth said:


> canon goes down the drain with mediocre products while sony forges alliances....
> 
> fuji, olympus as it seems and now hasselblad:
> 
> ...




Unfortunately, due to Hasselblad being privately held, little is known about its financial health. It is well known, on the other hand that Sony is in a spot of bother. What is inferred is that the medium format niche has contracted at the lower end, due to (mainly) Canon and Nikon eating into the low end of the MF market with their professional DSLRs.

Regardless of Canon's ability or inability to address the market, an alliance between Sony and Hasselblad looks a bit like the alliance between Nokia and Microsoft to produce smartphones. It smells a little too much like both companies are desperate.

I welcome any kind of innovation in the market, but unfortunately, this kind of alliance usually only occurs between companies who are struggling to make it on their own. This kind of move is entirely different from the kind of acquisition of technology start-ups which the likes of Cisco and Vmware do in order to acquire and integrate new technologies.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 19, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Unfortunately, due to Hasselblad being privately held, little is known about its financial health.



Generally speaking, if you can afford to hold your company privately, it's a very good sign.


----------



## gmrza (Sep 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, due to Hasselblad being privately held, little is known about its financial health.
> ...



That is not necessarily the case, privately held companies (unlisted) are just as much at risk of failing as publicly held (listed) companies are.
Hasselblad was bought last year by Ventizz from the previous owners Shriro, who had held the company since 2003. The press statements around the acquisition talked about movement into the sub $10k segment.

I don't know however if anything is known about Hasselblad's financials.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 19, 2012)

In general it is not a good sign, if a company needs to forge alliances. It is only a sign that it is easier for them to acquire skills and information from other companies rather than developing this on their own. If they forge alliances within the scope of what is perceived as their own area of competency it is a sign of inability for strong organic growth, not of good business sense, because the company doing that is missing an important part of their learning curve.

I rather prefer companies able to try something on their own or to make strategic investments buying up smaller companies with key competencies.

If I point to Canon as developing both sensor technology and lenses on their own, many people on this forum may hate me for saying that, but this is a sign that the company is healthy and profitable.

Sony using Zeiss glass is not a good sign for Sony, irrespective of the quality of lenses. If they had sufficient money, they should buy Zeiss. Then it would be good for Sony.

Nikon using Sony sensors is also no good for long term business, because Sony is a competitor earning money whenever Nikon sells a camera. I can't tell, but this dependency may be cursed by Nikon already. Again if Nikon had the money to purchase Sony's sensor branch, that would be healthier for Nikon.

The question for Hasselblad may be: How do I get out of my niche market? The interest from Sony may simply be acquiring more know-how in their quest to rival Canon and Nikon.


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 19, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately, due to Hasselblad being privately held, little is known about its financial health.
> ...


99.9% of all companies are privately held.


----------



## Canon-F1 (Sep 19, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> If I point to Canon as developing both sensor technology and lenses on their own, many people on this forum may hate me for saying that, but this is a sign that the company is healthy and profitable.



i think nobody is denying that.. you only have to look at the numbers.

nokia did good.. until they did not.
kodak did good.. until they did not.
sonys TV´s did good... until they did not.
...

but does that mean i, as a photographer not a shareholder, have to be lucky with canons new products?

i think much of todays success is because of the past... the large userbase canon has, the brand name.

im curious to see if nikon and sony have increased market share over the last 12 month.


----------



## AmbientLight (Sep 19, 2012)

You've got a point there.

Performance of a company does not necessarily influence client's purchasing decisions, except in rather obvious, extreme cases, if clients become unwilling to buy, because a vendor is in a state of obvious crisis.

Nevertheless this thread is about Hasselblad's cooperation with Sony and what that might imply, isn't it?


----------



## gmrza (Sep 20, 2012)

AmbientLight said:


> You've got a point there.
> 
> Performance of a company does not necessarily influence client's purchasing decisions, except in rather obvious, extreme cases, if clients become unwilling to buy, because a vendor is in a state of obvious crisis.
> 
> Nevertheless this thread is about Hasselblad's cooperation with Sony and what that might imply, isn't it?



There is some relevance to the financial security of a company in a client's purchasing decisions: When you invest a lot of money in a product, you want to know that the manufacturer is strong enough to be around to provide after sales support, and the ability to provide a wide range of accessories.

As a buyer of photographic equipment, I always welcome more competition in the market. It doesn't matter if I am heavily invested in Canon gear - any competition to Canon keeps them on their toes.

The fact though that Hasselblad is cooperating with Sony is potentially concerning.

Generally, first preference is always if you can build technology in-house. Second preference is to acquire a company whose technology you need. That may be a purely commercial decision, as often it is cheaper to acquire a technology start-up than to develop the R&D from scratch. You need financial muscle (like Cisco has) to be able to do that. The only option available to less fortunate players is to forge alliances. Those alliances are only convenient while the interests of both parties are served. As soon as one party feels better served by doing things a different way, the honeymoon is over.


----------



## Albi86 (Sep 21, 2012)

I think the main reason is that Nikon invaded their market with the D800/E, and Canon and Sony itself will do the same sooner rather than later.

Their market is a niche, few users who buy very expensive gear. If tech colossus like the above mentioned start providing cheap alternatives, it's game over for them.

They are trying to pay them back with their own coin - enter the prosumer market.The main problem is that they have zero expertise in the smaller-sensor consumer and prosumer wolrd. Probably they think they can have a Leica-sort of following, but right now it's almost obvious that they're only rebranding Sony tech. And Sony itself is probably only interested in acquiring the aura of respect around the Hasselblad name, which is the only one thing they lack in the photography market after they acquired Zeiss.


----------



## Bennymiata (Sep 21, 2012)

Hassy have never used their own sensors, and as they used Kodak made sensors in the past and don't have the size or the budget to make their own, they have to use someone else's sensors, and I guess, right now, Sony was the best they could find.
Canon isn't interested in selling their sensors to anyone else, so Sony was it.

Although I do find it a bit strange that Hassy went to Sony, as they already have an alliance with Fuji, who make the Hassy lenses for their large format cameras (and they are very good too), and Fuji also make reasonable sensors too.

I think it is very brave of Hassy to go into new markets, as in their 70 odd year history, they have only ever made large format cameras, but I guess as this market is now being eaten into so savagely by FF DSLR's as well as the Leaf products and even the Pentax 645, they have to do something to stay bouyant.
They are obviously looking at how Leica can make digital cameras that are well behind the best current technology and still get high prices for them and Hassy are going to do something similar, as they believe they still have a very good name with pros and rich amateurs and offer leading edge tech with cameras made from luxurious materials to appeal those people with money, who want something good, different, luxurious and expensive - but still offering better value for money than Leica.

Personally, I hope they are successful as they are using a slightly different approach to other manufacturers.

Not everyone wants a plain black camera, and I'm sure there are many people who would like to say they have a Hasselblad as it does add some credibility to their photographic prowess, even if they are lousy photographers.


----------

