Canon Interested in Hasselblad?

[Canon Rumors]

<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16483"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=16483">Tweet</a></div>
<p>The quick and direct answer? No.</p>
<p>A lot has come in over the weekend in regards to the <a href="http://photorumors.com/2014/05/11/is-hasselblad-in-financial-trouble/" target="_blank">reports that Ventizz Capital will be selling off its ownership of the Swedish camera maker Hasselblad</a>. It’s no secret that Hasselblad is in financial trouble, as the whole medium format segment seems to be under capitalized and lacking direction.</p>
<p>Does Canon have any interest in purchasing Hasselblad? I don’t think so. Canon did have Hasselblad’s books open a few years ago, but that was probably more of a tire kicking exercise than actual interest in purchasing the company.</p>
<p>If I had to wager on a purchaser for Hasselblad, I would go with Silverfleet Capital, who owns Danish medium format company PhaseOne. The second option could be Sony, although I think they’ll enter the segment on their own.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>

 

[adhocphotographer]

Come on Canon.... Get stuck in... though i see PhaseOne or Sony over Canon, as CR already suggested....

 

[TrabimanUK]

Canon or Sony could do it, and take a VAG approach. VW made not too interesting cars, merged with Audi, they now own Seat, Skoda, Lambourghini, Bentley, Porsche and Bugatti (and still own the rights to the mighty mighty Trabant). All loss-making brands turned around through economies of scale and sharing of parts and technologies.

Why not have Hasseblad as your "flagship" range, supported by profit, development and some parts from the lower range? Even the Bugatti Veyron shares a common VAG part with the lowly Skoda Fabia!

Saves Canon developing a medium format camera, whilst having access to the technlogy and the market through a back door and honing their own offering.

 

[hendrik-sg]

Canon doesnt need any innovation at all, just marketing. They can llsensors with technology from 200x and be market leader with them.

Their bosses will get nice boni, and share holders nice divident. Developpement and innovation are a waste of money

 

[unfocused]

Let the ill-informed, irrational whining begin.

Hasselblad is the narrowest of niche market players. They've diminished their most valuable asset – their brand name – by releasing the laughingstock of the digital camera market.

As a consumer, it would be bad enough for Canon to throw good money down the medium format rat hole developing their own product. To buy a failing company in a shrinking market would be ridiculous.

Canon and Nikon have had well over 50 years to research and consider the medium format market. During the film era, it would have been cheaper and easier to develop a medium format camera and the market segment was much larger. Yet, neither company did so. Today, the market has shrunk and the cost of entry has risen.

This isn't about whether or not Canon (or Nikon) are innovative. Innovation has nothing to do with this decision, it's just common sense.

 

[deleteme]

If they keep Hasselblad's marketing department we might get a re-badged M.

 

[Don Haines]

In the good old days, you designed a camera and it was good for years.... good for decades with higher quality cameras like MF....

In the digital world, things are changing fast so the lifespan of a body is just a few years until it is obsolete. Couple that with poor economies of scale and with high development costs, and it becomes very unlikely that a MF camera will recover it's costs during it's short lifespan. I find it amazing that there are players in MF at all...

 

[hendrik-sg]

Let the ill-informed, irrational whining begin.

Hasselblad is the narrowest of niche market players. They've diminished their most valuable asset – their brand name – by releasing the laughingstock of the digital camera market.

As a consumer, it would be bad enough for Canon to throw good money down the medium format rat hole developing their own product. To buy a failing company in a shrinking market would be ridiculous.

Canon and Nikon have had well over 50 years to research and consider the medium format market. During the film era, it would have been cheaper and easier to develop a medium format camera and the market segment was much larger. Yet, neither company did so. Today, the market has shrunk and the cost of entry has risen.

This isn't about whether or not Canon (or Nikon) are innovative. Innovation has nothing to do with this decision, it's just common sense.

Thanks for you unfocused reply. Some economic principles are to be discussed:

- The market leader delivers acceptable price and quality, but is never the best
- A Label and its reputation has a value and can be sold, either to sb else or it can be milked until its no longer there

Canon is the marked leader, thats unquestioned. For sure pictures and videos can be taken by ther equipment, but either has their equipment the best specs or performance nor is it the cheapest (50L vs 50 1.4 Sigma). Further its not the most innovative, Examples are the Sig 18-35 zoom, again the 50mm Sigma which is the first affordable non Gauss 50mm, or the much better exmor sensors in the Sony / Nikon bodies. In sensor performance Canon is the worst of the bigger players now, why? Just because the smaller players have to be innovative against the market leader and Canon does not.

As for the label value, in my opinion Canon is milking their label. People do change brand only under really high pressure, because of habit and for high changing costs. Newcomer buy what they see most frequent, and thats Canon of course. To compare with cars, end of nineties, mercedes sold their high quality image by building a new generation of E-Classes in much lower quality, sold "Opel" quality for Mercedes prices. They needed expensive warranty efforts to partly earn back their reputation, and are still not finished until now. Audi for comparision worked 20 years to earn their quality reputation and label value, to reach same prestige levelas BMW and Mercedes have.

The danger for Canon is, that by their non-innovation, high price politics they sell their label now. Whats later, when high end users do the swich in large numbers and newcomers buy whats said to be better it might be quite late. They may shrink as the complete medium format world has by not going digital in time. This may happen, when EF-mount is getting old and new trends are overslept.

 

[RGF]

not sure if Canon should buy Hassey, but perhaps they should buy a portion and allow Hassey access to their sensor and digital body technology.

If we look 5-10 years out, 35 mm format bodies will be maxed out with resolution and FPS. 25-100,000 ISO will become nearly noiseless. Where does Canon (or Nikon) go from there?

An increase in resolution will require a larger sensor. Challenge for Canon to get consumers (pros) to switch to MF is that the current lenses will not (most likely) work on MF bodies. So even if Canon came up with a $10,000 MF body, another $25,000 (or more) would be required for a new set of lenses.

 

[mackguyver]

Canon doesnt need any innovation at all, just marketing.

I would KILL for a Canon body with this feature, which by all accounts works as advertised:
Hasselblad TrueFocus

 

[jasonsim]

What? You need a larger sensor for higher resolution? The Nokia smartphone has 40MP...come on. What needs to happen is make the denser res sensors better and less leaking from pixel to pixel. Also better technology like Foveon sensor (I think Canon was looking into that possibility).

There also becomes a point where the resolution game gets to a stasis level...don't know if that is 45MP, 55PM, 100MP...

Just getting to the Nikon 800 MP level would be a win and they'd grow their market share for sure.

not sure if Canon should buy Hassey, but perhaps they should buy a portion and allow Hassey access to their sensor and digital body technology.

If we look 5-10 years out, 35 mm format bodies will be maxed out with resolution and FPS. 25-100,000 ISO will become nearly noiseless. Where does Canon (or Nikon) go from there?

An increase in resolution will require a larger sensor. Challenge for Canon to get consumers (pros) to switch to MF is that the current lenses will not (most likely) work on MF bodies. So even if Canon came up with a $10,000 MF body, another $25,000 (or more) would be required for a new set of lenses.

 

[unfocused]

- The market leader delivers acceptable price and quality, but is never the best
- A Label and its reputation has a value and can be sold, either to sb else or it can be milked until its no longer there

No disagreement there. The "best" is always a subjective assessment, but it is certainly true that the incremental costs go up significantly as product quality goes from "excellent" to "best." There are also a diminishing number of buyers who are willing or able to afford the "best." Which is why most companies that offer the "best" tend to be small, niche market firms.

Canon is the marked leader, thats unquestioned. For sure pictures and videos can be taken by ther equipment, but either has their equipment the best specs or performance nor is it the cheapest (50L vs 50 1.4 Sigma).

Specs are subjective. In your specific example, the 50mm f1.4 Sigma may have marginally better optical performance, but build quality, reliability, consistency and durability are at least up for debate. For many buyers, those qualities can take precedence over a marginal improvement in optical quality

Further its not the most innovative, Examples are the Sig 18-35 zoom, again the 50mm Sigma which is the first affordable non Gauss 50mm, or the much better exmor sensors in the Sony / Nikon bodies.

You are cherry-picking innovation. Canon's dual-pixel technology is just one example where they are at the leading edge. You should really state that Canon is not the most innovative in the areas you want.

In sensor performance Canon is the worst of the bigger players now...

That's just false. Canon has the best performing full frame sensor available in terms of high ISO noise performance. Again, you are cherry-picking narrow areas of sensor performance and claiming Canon is "the worst." The same could be done for any brand of sensor.

Whats later, when high end users do the switch in large numbers and newcomers buy whats said to be better it might be quite late...

What users are switching? Let's see some numbers. Because, all the numbers that have been published would indicate just the opposite.

Finally, let's have a dose of reality here. Cameras are a tool to produce a final product. The vast majority of final products being produced by cameras live on the internet. Even the lowest-priced APS-C camera available today is more than adequate for web-based final products.

The threat to Canon is not from being out-innovated by their peers. The threat is from a cultural change in how the mass of the public takes and uses pictures. The real need for innovation within the industry would be innovative ways to foster greater demand.

 

[2n10]

- The market leader delivers acceptable price and quality, but is never the best
- A Label and its reputation has a value and can be sold, either to sb else or it can be milked until its no longer there

No disagreement there. The "best" is always a subjective assessment, but it is certainly true that the incremental costs go up significantly as product quality goes from "excellent" to "best." There are also a diminishing number of buyers who are willing or able to afford the "best." Which is why most companies that offer the "best" tend to be small, niche market firms.

Canon is the marked leader, thats unquestioned. For sure pictures and videos can be taken by ther equipment, but either has their equipment the best specs or performance nor is it the cheapest (50L vs 50 1.4 Sigma).

Specs are subjective. In your specific example, the 50mm f1.4 Sigma may have marginally better optical performance, but build quality, reliability, consistency and durability are at least up for debate. For many buyers, those qualities can take precedence over a marginal improvement in optical quality

Further its not the most innovative, Examples are the Sig 18-35 zoom, again the 50mm Sigma which is the first affordable non Gauss 50mm, or the much better exmor sensors in the Sony / Nikon bodies.

You are cherry-picking innovation. Canon's dual-pixel technology is just one example where they are at the leading edge. You should really state that Canon is not the most innovative in the areas you want.

In sensor performance Canon is the worst of the bigger players now...

That's just false. Canon has the best performing full frame sensor available in terms of high ISO noise performance. Again, you are cherry-picking narrow areas of sensor performance and claiming Canon is "the worst." The same could be done for any brand of sensor.

Whats later, when high end users do the switch in large numbers and newcomers buy whats said to be better it might be quite late...

What users are switching? Let's see some numbers. Because, all the numbers that have been published would indicate just the opposite.

Finally, let's have a dose of reality here. Cameras are a tool to produce a final product. The vast majority of final products being produced by cameras live on the internet. Even the lowest-priced APS-C camera available today is more than adequate for web-based final products.

The threat to Canon is not from being out-innovated by their peers. The threat is from a cultural change in how the mass of the public takes and uses pictures. The real need for innovation within the industry would be innovative ways to foster greater demand.

Excellent deconstruction. Agree with you on the real need for innovation.

 

[RGF]

What? You need a larger sensor for higher resolution? The Nokia smartphone has 40MP...come on. What needs to happen is make the denser res sensors better and less leaking from pixel to pixel. Also better technology like Foveon sensor (I think Canon was looking into that possibility).

There also becomes a point where the resolution game gets to a stasis level...don't know if that is 45MP, 55PM, 100MP...

Just getting to the Nikon 800 MP level would be a win and they'd grow their market share for sure.

not sure if Canon should buy Hassey, but perhaps they should buy a portion and allow Hassey access to their sensor and digital body technology.

If we look 5-10 years out, 35 mm format bodies will be maxed out with resolution and FPS. 25-100,000 ISO will become nearly noiseless. Where does Canon (or Nikon) go from there?

An increase in resolution will require a larger sensor. Challenge for Canon to get consumers (pros) to switch to MF is that the current lenses will not (most likely) work on MF bodies. So even if Canon came up with a $10,000 MF body, another $25,000 (or more) would be required for a new set of lenses.

Do you think you can get the same detail from a Nokia 40 MP smart phone and a 40 MP Hassey?

With 35mm, beyond 35-50 MP (pick your number) lens and diffraction limit resolving power. What is next?

 

[cbphoto]

Does Canon have any interest in purchasing Hasselblad? I don’t think so. Canon did have Hasselblad’s books open a few years ago, but that was probably more of a tire kicking exercise than actual interest in purchasing the company.

My guess is Canon was looking for intellectual property that would add more value to the purchase.

 

[sagittariansrock]

Canon doesnt need any innovation at all, just marketing.

I would KILL for a Canon body with this feature, which by all accounts works as advertised:
Hasselblad TrueFocus

This is simply amazing.

 

[LeifHurst]

This has been an interesting read as I jumped into the Hasselblad H system last month with the purchase of an H4D, a 120mm Macro, and a 50-110 zoom.

It's a little kick in the gut that I may have jumped on a sinking ship but the image quality and sharpness is beyond anything I've seen from any DSLR from any brand and TrueFocus (APL) is absolutely revolutionary. From a tripod, I've missed critical focus maybe twice in the last 9 portrait sessions even while shooting at the narrowest of DOF. I hit the eye with TrueFocus, recompose, you hear the lens microadjust for a fraction of a second right before howitzer sounding mirror flips up.

I'm glad I made the jump. I just wish they'd get their finances together. Even if they tanked and went under, I'd buy two more bodies and backs for backups and use them until the wheels fell off. I've got a buddy with 700,000 actuations on an H3d without a trip back to the factory so they are built to last.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The camera market is really all about lenses, not so much bodies. I'm not sure that any lens assets come with the brand, Zeiss would be the one making the bucks, at least, they made lenses for the Hasselblad I owned. I'm not sure if Canon and Zeiss are on very good terms.

If a lens factory and MF designs came with the deal, Canon might be more interested. The list of valuable patents is another asset that would determine if a acquisition were worth considering. Finally, the Brand Name can be a very valuable asset. Hasselblad certainly qualifies there, the name is worth a lot, but the Canon brand is worth 1000 times more, so it would not be a step up for Canon.

On the other hand, Phase One will not be recognized as a camera maker by many who would know Hasselblad. Sony is a valuable Brand name as well, but their camera division could benefit getting away from Sony's reputation for poor service.

That said, I'd like to see Canon do it, even though it would not be a big profit maker, Canon could use the name and their huge marketing network to sell a lot of cameras.

 

[jeffa4444]

Much ill informed comment. The barrier to entry has fallen look to motion picture & TV once dominated by Panavision, Arri, Sony & Panasonic. Now Red, Black Magic, Canon and AJA have or are challenging the market.
Medium format barrier is lenses not cameras lenses are far more expensive to develop and Zeiss pulled back on medium format. Fuji make lenses for Hasselblad and Schnieder still make lenses. Also remember Leica launched the S2 and a whole bunch of lenses with it.
It's just time but this sector will make a comeback.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

Canon doesnt need any innovation at all, just marketing. They can llsensors with technology from 200x and be market leader with them.

Their bosses will get nice boni, and share holders nice divident. Developpement and innovation are a waste of money

A relatively well known designer from another field, Charles Eames, had a maxim that he followed, "Innovate as
a last resort".