Today I received an email from Hasselblad extolling the virtues of its new H3Dii camera and imporning me to buy it. However, the email neglected to tell me how much it costs. For that I had to do a search beyond Hasselblad’s web sites. That explains Hassy’s new marketing strategy: “If you ask how much it costs, you can’t afford it.” 
The new camera takes 50 megabyte photos. You read that correctly: 50 MB per photo. Which means that the human eye will be able to distinguish between a photo made by a Hasselblad and a Nikon or a Canon camera, assuming you blow up the print to about 400 by 400 — feet. A 16×20 inch photograph? Forget it. No human eye could tell the slightest difference.
But, still; it is a Hasselblad. I have a Hasselblad. It is my only remaining film camera and I love it. I have two lenses for it, the standard 80mm lens which came with it and a moderate telephoto lens (150mm) which I use for portraits and many nudes. It is a fine camera and I am proud to own it. (It is also why I am on Hasselblad’s mailing list.)
My question is: What is Hasselblad thinking? What is their marketing strategy? To whom to do they expect to sell their digital cameras which are expensive and for which there are few lenses and the lenses that do exist are almost as expensive as the cameras?
Clearly they are not expecting to sell many to professional photographers. Professional photographers, at least the ones I know, can’t afford a camera that costs this much – or that takes a full 1.5 seconds to capture a single image. Or that does not have a single moderate zoom telephoto lens such as the 18-200mm Nikon lens I use. Moreover, the professional photographers I know are not rich. As I have noted here before, photography is a tough way to make a living. So tough, in fact, that I’ve never even tried.
But what do I know about marketing? I still use WordPerfect and believe that Microsoft represents the triumph of marketing over quality. Maybe Hasselblad has not signed its death warrant by refusing to produce a digital SLR that ordinary mortals can afford. Maybe there are enough hedge-fund managers who are amateur photographers to keep the company afloat. But I am not betting on it.
Did I mention how much this fine camera costs? $43,500.00, unless you have to pay gross receipts tax on it. In my state I would and that would add about another $3000.00. And all I would have is a standard lens.
They’re nuts.
Nakedlandscapes 