REALLY!

After failing to assist Leica, now Hasselblad wants to sound like a buddy.

Lets see what they say when more Nikon 800E comparisons come out basically vanising both systems to the history books.

The there is Canon and all the 35 mm competitors that will leap ahead yr after yr.

Who really understands how companies vanish, but it's nice to sound good as it happens.

LUMINOUS LANDSCAPES SAYS:

"What also makes this so interesting is that Leica has created this adaptor without any cooperation from or approval from Hasselblad. "

if only...

As Leitz lenses are an additional expense when you are already a Hasselblad system user, this makes good sense. Now if only we can persuade, Nikon, and Canon to do the same.......

I have already had to return two 24-70mm Nikkors because they are no good at all
(nos 678478 and 678480) and await one that is as it should be.

Had I Hasselblad lenses and adaptors nobody could torture me by suggesting that an unsharp lens is sharp, because I would already know from experience that the Hasselblad lens in my cupboard would do just fine.

The more choice we have, the better for everyone, regardless of marque, surely.

'Where's the Hasselblad Tombstone???

They just reduced their prices 22% so if you just bought one I gather your buying into a dead product.

From Luminous Landscapoes is this:

"We have yet to hear from those that have recently bought Hasselblad systems, and their reactions to this devaluation of their new purchases.

Then there's the question of how Leica, Phase One and Leaf will respond. Is the sub 50MP segment of the medium format market threatened?"

I'd be very careful and do like is suggested above. Wait until Canon, Nikon, Pentax etc expand their concentrations of cameras into the 35 to 50 Med ranges.

They can do so much at such a cheaper price point and for the same quality in imaging. Technology is expanding the DSLR via a Log ratio that Medium Format may never be able to compete with again.

Oh please.....

Why all the Asselblad bashing? And this was about an adapter .. Not the D800... That said I feel I need to reply.....

I purchased my H4D-40 after the D800 was announced... And before the price drop... Neither of those affect my choice...
The files I get from my hassy are just amazing, in a way that no 35mm fie has amazed me yet... Plus I don't see 1/800 sync on the Nikon..
I have some of the best canon glass in my 35mm bag and still the hc lenses blow it away... I parted with my 200mm f2.0 L whilst adding hasselblad to my canon gear... You really need to shoot a hasselblad to get it. Sure the 800 is a good camera and quite the bargain, but giant killer it is not.

MF KILLER??

I have to say that I have a H4D-50 and S2,I also shoot 35mm and have a load of files from a D800(and 1dMK4) and the Nikon files are very good but should in no way cause buyers remorse for anyone that has just bought a Medium Format camera,the MF look is different and superior,the D800 may be good enough for most people most of the time but doesn't threaten the MF market,as for the price drop,this happens with most camera's,the H4D has been around for a while and Hasselblad probably need to clear stock and prepare for the next generation body and back.Nyquist limits will ensure that medium format always stays one to two steps ahead of 35mm.

I feel relieved

The last two comments really clear the air and provide the confidence a potential high end amateur needs in order to define their skill set with a Medium Format system.

Thank you!

Agree ... With the two comments above

Having shoot for two centuries with 35mm and switched to Hasselblad recently, there is a simple truth:

Most of the Hasselblad-bashers above have never seen nor shot with digital Madium Format. I guess they simply can not imagine what results medium format can give.

But they still belive it's a usual behavior to mail-order three lenses to select "the sharpest one" and return two of them ...

Stan

Whither Zeiss?

Not that long a go, Hasselblad were happy to state, in their brochures, that unlike other camera companies, the Carl Zeiss lenses used in the V system were far superior than anything else offered for digital capture and they would have no need to change them - except of course to cheaper, Fuji based designs. Leica too, a company once
revered for it's optical excellence, now pushes much cheaper Elmarit lenses for it's digital cameras. Why, I here you ask? Because even the best digital sensors can not respond to the subtle nuances of light through high quality glass. Ergo, through compromise comes crap.

no compromise necessary

I don't believe compromise enters into it at all at any level. Japanese lens manufacturers simply do not care. THey do not care about camera bodies either, as we have now a situation in which Nikon admits its equipment will fail after about 10 years because it has decided to leave the lead out of the solder, and tin whiskers sprout out of lead-free solder and care irrepairable damage. Your brand new VERY expensive optic wont work after some time. Your brand new very expensive camera body wont work any more either, and cannot be repaired.

They are businesses motivated by profit. Now digital machines have good enough image quality and resolution, "upgrading" will become a thing of the past- nobody will buy new equipment- as in the days of film, but the moral standards and honesty of makers- as with the banks, has declined in the interim.

Do you see anywhere at all lists published by Nikon, Canon, Leica or Hasselblad as to which bodies will shortly fail? No. Do dealers pushing your fix tell you your drug is not only expensive but fatally flawed? No.

Google "tin whiskers NASA" for example and find out why they do not trumpet about the very bad news.

Not only are new lenses for 35mm format cameras very poor optically on full-frame sensors, but Canon, for example, when it "improves" an optic like the 24-70mm f2.8, doubles the price of the new one which folks costs no more to make than did its predecessor, and thats when they are not making them out of plastic.

An old film EOS or Nikkor lens you pay £50 for secondhand is likely to be just as good- and have less distortion and fringing as in the days of film they actually corrected the fringing better. Now you can correct the fringing in a computer afterwards they cannot even be bothered to design a lens with no CA at all- there's computers to cure that inherent defect, so tough!

But they charge double anyway! One wonders how much worse cheaper Summarits are? Surely all lenses should be optically corrected to be legally saleable at all, but unlike fridges and TVs there are no minimum standards of manufacture for these luxury goods.

no compromise necessary

I don't believe compromise enters into it at all at any level. Japanese lens manufacturers simply do not care. THey do not care about camera bodies either, as we have now a situation in which Nikon admits its equipment will fail after about 10 years because it has decided to leave the lead out of the solder, and tin whiskers sprout out of lead-free solder and care irrepairable damage. Your brand new VERY expensive optic wont work after some time. Your brand new very expensive camera body wont work any more either, and cannot be repaired.

They are businesses motivated by profit. Now digital machines have good enough image quality and resolution, "upgrading" will become a thing of the past- nobody will buy new equipment- as in the days of film, but the moral standards and honesty of makers- as with the banks, has declined in the interim.

Do you see anywhere at all lists published by Nikon, Canon, Leica or Hasselblad as to which bodies will shortly fail? No. Do dealers pushing your fix tell you your drug is not only expensive but fatally flawed? No.

Google "tin whiskers NASA" for example and find out why they do not trumpet about the very bad news.

Not only are new lenses for 35mm format cameras very poor optically on full-frame sensors, but Canon, for example, when it "improves" an optic like the 24-70mm f2.8, doubles the price of the new one which folks costs no more to make than did its predecessor, and thats when they are not making them out of plastic.

An old film EOS or Nikkor lens you pay £50 for secondhand is likely to be just as good- and have less distortion and fringing as in the days of film they actually corrected the fringing better. Now you can correct the fringing in a computer afterwards they cannot even be bothered to design a lens with no CA at all- there's computers to cure that inherent defect, so tough!

But they charge double anyway! One wonders how much worse cheaper Summarits are? Surely all lenses should be optically corrected to be legally saleable at all, but unlike fridges and TVs there are no minimum standards of manufacture for these luxury goods.