Hasselblad: *sells camera without lens for 32,000* Apple: "Write that down, WRITE THAT DOWN"

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.

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".

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.

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.

Literally every expensive product rule: 1. Handmade

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.

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.

This is one of the so expensive ones that actually isn't entirely pointless, it's not just overpriced clothing or something.

So expensive in a nutshell: Made by hand, very rare, made by hand and rare.

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.

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.

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.

Answer: Very big sensor, accurate color, and high quality standards.

Hasselblad film camera owners were such snobs about their gear. Arrogant is the phrase I would use for some of the people that came into the lab in the old days. I still remember one guy's photos were ruined because his shutter wasn't in sync with his flash. I tried explaining it to him and he angrily replied, "that is impossible, it is a Hasselblad."

I was a camera repair technician for over 40 years ( started in 1975 ) . I loved working on the early 500 series cameras and lenses

Me watching this video on 240p: mmm yes the picture quality is amazing

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.

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.

Wow, the way he solder 4:22 makes my eye twitching.

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.

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.

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.

My doctor opted to use a Hasselblad camera for my colonoscopy. The pictures were amazing but it was quite uncomfortable.

Hasselblad is like the Rolls Royce of cameras

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. -

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 wonder OnePlus is paying Hasselblad $150 million to tune their phone camera.

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.

Wow this was an interesting find. I have not heard about Hasselblad cameras before, and it is an intriguing discovery for me!

I'm sure I've seen pretty crispy pictures coming out of cameras which cost 1/3 to 1/4 of this thing

Can you do “Why Sony, Canon, and Nikon are expensive” for the rest of us super peasants? Haha

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.

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.

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.

My bank account: “Don’t even think about it.”

This video sounds like a marketing advertisement for Hasselblad. I'm almost surprised they didn't say "we make each pixel by hand"....

My old photography school had about 6 of these, we even got to work with them once! I still have the photo's I took with them.

really interesting enjoyed this video 👍

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.

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.

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.

For many years Telefinken condenser microphones were extremely expensive limited to the industry and cherished by major recording studios. Since Nuemann has purchased the division it has made Telefunken microphones even more of a collector’s market

4:49 I'm no hair net expert, but I'm not guessing that's up to Swedish code 🤣🤣🤣

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).

ooof thats one cold solder joint @4:25 (ground plane of the power circuit it seems, but yeh)

With current level of tech - it is already not so important to have medium format. But calibration and tests makes it metric camera that is very essential for some tasks. But you always can buy PhaseOne.

It's pretty much why Leica's are so Expensive. Prestige, Quality/Craftsmanship with a unique shooting experience and unique rendering to their images.

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...

That’s why I’m still rocking my fully mechanical 500cm been around since the 60’s never had an issue with it EVER!

Still have my 500C/M and EL/M that served me very well in my portrait studio days. And my Mavic 2 Pro carries on that tradition from a company in which Hasselblad has controlling ownership.

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

Interesting they're owned by DJI, which explains why the drone has their cameras

5:17 30k camera experience

Really very nice >>>> Thank you

But don't forget the lenses. Hasselblad also makes extraordinary good ones.

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!

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.

Hassleblad is like a a luxury car or diamond ring. It's expensive because it's intended to be so. Limited production, manual tuning etc. were never been a necessity but only a reason to mark-up selling price. Machine automation is *always* more precise and reliable compared to manual human handling. btw, PENTAX also has a medium format camera with similar or even exceeding functionality and quality in some areas,, by a fraction of the price.

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!

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.

Just because something is handmade doesn't mean it's better than those not. That's ridiculous. Why would you want to pay more for less value if you just want a good camera for the sake of quality? The hand made bs or history of the company won't help you with that.

Thank you for video

I use that as a backup when vlogging.

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.

In summary, it's so expensive because the sensor is fat and production is slow.

Let's be clear about the pricing of these cameras. The price is about four times what it normally would be to make a reasonable profit. And, that's taking into account that, after the word salad remarks about the company putting some secret sauce into the image processor, Fuji makes the body and its accessories, Fuji makes the lens, and Sony makes the image sensor. Hasselblad may design and construct the electronics package which processes the output of the sensor, but that is hardly rocket science these days. Fuji has already introduced a newer generation of camera system which is not cheap, but it is a third the price. Hasselblad does now what it has always done. It identifies its market, certain types of working pros. It then evaluates how much it can charge without turning them away to other products. They also have to consider that regardless of whether they sell many or few of their cameras, they have a fixed profit which must be maintained to justify continuing the business. (You all do know that the Hasselblad family which started and built up this business from the 1940s sold the whole company after the old man died to some hedge-fund types who probably couldn't use one of these things to take a photo to save their lives, Right?) Someone considering paying $30,000+ for a digital Hasselblad is just living proof of PT Barnum's popular adage about suckers.

Here are some key takeaways from the video on why Hasselblad cameras are so expensive: 1. Hasselblad cameras produce incredibly detailed photos due to their large medium format sensors, which capture more light and detail. The sensor size is much larger than typical professional cameras. 2. The transition to digital exponentially increased prices. Their first digital camera in 2004 was over 200% more expensive than previous film models. 3. Hasselblads are handmade in small batches in Sweden, with meticulous calibration and quality control checks. This ensures quality but limits production volume. 4. They are specialized tools mainly used in studios for commercial photography that requires accurate color reproduction, like product, fashion, and fine art photography. 5. Hasselblad makes under 10,000 cameras per year while other manufacturers produce millions, contributing to high prices for their niche, high-end products. 6. Hasselblad has released some lower priced models around $6,000 to appeal to more photographers, but faces increasing competition from camera makers that offer more features.

I've never even heard of Hasselblad cameras until now.

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.

Good Camera that I love so much!!! Thank you

So awesome. You used to be able to sign them at from school. They also signed out the larger 4×. IF your instructor allowed. The government needs to pay way more attention to art including culinary , linguistics , choir, theater and wood/ metal shops at schools. Things that bring people together as well as providing trade experience that may be similar in regards to their future employment.

"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....

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.

added to Wishlist !

I love how the long haired assembler are wearing their cap only on the top part of their head.

Hasselblad shouldn't go low entry, quality will be sacrificed for price.

as a Photographer and also a photography student I've gotten the chance to use a hasselblad for one portrait assisgment and I loved it and I will probably never ger to use it again but at least I got to say I used a hasselblad camera

If you get only one shot at your subject to capture the details, yes that justify the camera. e.g. capturing a microbe movement in special lab scenarios, or space photos etc. If you have the option for producing the same image repeatedly, you can generate same level of image by stitching images which will be equivalent to a medium format which is widely done. You can adjust colors too and get to fairly close to precision with proper color calibration tools. Interms of IQ, modern top of the line full frame dslrs can produce amazing result if you can control the lights. And all these for a fraction the cost of one camera. Which tells me, the market for these cameras probably very niche and thats why the price. Its not always about labour and how expensive the tech is.

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.

No matter how good photos are, after they are shared on WhatsApp they all end up being the same kind 😂

I always felt like Contax did it better in the film world. I still own a Contax 645 and love it to bits.

I love the designs

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.

Very impressive, but I wonder if these cameras really are better in terms of image quality compared to something like the Canon EOS R5. I say this because Canon has more R&D in lens development. The new RF glass is no joke, and lenses are generally considered a huge component of achieving a stellar image. Also, this Hasselblad is still DSLR - meaning there is a mirror involved and longer flange distance. These new mirrorless cameras have proven removing the mirror from the equation results in better image quality b/c of the shorter flange distance from the sensor to the lens. I would love to see a side by side comparison of image quality.

Thank you

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.

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.

I'm here from GxAce! Thank you, GxAce!

2:10 "... and it's what makes these cameras so expensive." **roll credits**

Hassy: Fuji makes our lenses and Sony makes our sensors Also Hassy: and we are owned by DJI

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!

Capturing light is the key with cameras or scopes to get a clear picture . As humans with aging we find ourselves needing more light to see things clearly . Great cameras if you can afford them .

I shot wedding photography in the 1980s with a Hassleblad.Very dependable but lenses were too expensive even then.

We would like to see one about phase one cameras with their IR input filter

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.

I like beautiful objects but as an amateur photographer I’m pretty skeptical about the supposed "perfectness" of these. That sounds pretty much the same as watches market. Expensive ones can’t tell the time better than cheap ones, but it sounds fancy to have one. Swiss people doing swiss things I guess. The ugly truth manufacturers and advertisers don’t want you to know : the quality of the camera is not even remotely as important as they make it sound, the most crucial key to great photos being the talent of the photographer.

Best cameras on the planet or should i say the known universe, they withstood the freezing temperatures on the Moon without a single fault, nothing froze despite being an off the shelf camera with no special insulation, worked flawlessly in -175c and 127c temperatures, truly amazing. Not sure the new ones can handle such temperatures even though they have little to no moving parts. Can anyone who owns one do a video of your camera in the oven for a couple of hours to see how resilient they are now? Obviously a freezer is to warm even on its coolest settings, maybe show us one that you have left in liquid nitrogen for a similat amount of time, im fascinated to see if the build quality is the same today as it was back in the 60s.

Don't worry about the price. Anyone who truly needs one of these is making their money back and more.

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.