BJP "Hasselblad defends Lunar's concept and pricing"

Derrel · Sep 19, 2012

Responding to stinging criticism of its new "Lunar" camera, Hasselblad defended its just-announced camera's concept,pricing, and Sony NEX underpinnings in an interview with the British Journal of Photography. Hasselblad sent not one but two employees, Luca Alessandrini and Peter Stig-Nielsen, to defend their new product.

Hasselblad defends Lunar's concept and pricing - British Journal of Photography

Garbz · Sep 20, 2012

That camera looks like something a retired set designer from a B-grade SciFi movie would come up with.

Solarflare · Sep 20, 2012

Or in other words, its the most ugliest camera I've ever seen anywhere, so far.

The new Leica M-E is very beautiful, though. Sadly no autofocus.

2WheelPhoto · Sep 20, 2012

Garbz said:
That camera looks like something a retired set designer from a B-grade SciFi movie would come up with.

Not the carbon fiber copy!!!!!!!! If you have a Ferrari and can't drive, now you can have a matching camera and of course no need to know how to shoot.

BUT THE CHIX WILL DIG BOTH

Lunar Design | Hasselblad Lunar

tirediron · Sep 20, 2012

Someone at Hasselblad has gone off their meds!

Ysarex · Sep 20, 2012

The lid has been placed on the coffin and nails are being hammered down. Poor Victor is rolling over in his grave. I'm so sad.

Joe

sovietdoc · Sep 20, 2012

Hassy don't need to "defend" their creation. Most people are just outright wrong in their expectations of what it should be.

Lunar is not a tool. It's a toy.

Derrel · Sep 20, 2012

Aw, come on, nobody's speaking up to defend poor Frankenstein? Errr....I mean, "Nobody's speaking up to defend this beautiful creation?" I thought it was amusing that an actual Hasselblad representative stated that milling the body costs 300 Euro...and if the same body were made of plastic, that it would cost 35 cents...riiiiiiiight.....'cause we all know that 41 seconds of C&C milling machine time and a block of aluminum costs like, over 300 Euro....lol...

sovietdoc · Sep 20, 2012

It's arguable that Canon's 5D III is actually "worth" $3500 asking price. The general consensus that it doesn't. It's obvious that Phase ones, Hassy's and Leica's aren't worth even close to the camera's asking prices.

Derrel · Sep 20, 2012

sovietdoc said:
It's arguable that Canon's 5D III is actually "worth" $3500 asking price. The general consensus that it doesn't. It's obvious that Phase ones, Hassy's and Leica's aren't worth even close to the camera's asking prices.

Interestingly, last week Adorama, yes, THE Adorama, had a promotion on the Canon 5D III, and sold 818 of them at $2,745 I believe it was...a full $750 BELWO current,normal retail price for the 5D III...somebody told me that was two million, two hundred forty-five thousand dollars in total sales!!! The camera was available ONLY from the eBay site of Adorama, and not available elsewhere. I have doubts that the sales figures for the 5D III are anywhere even remotely close to 818 units in less than 24 hours' time at its full price. SO, yeah, the price of the 5D III is probably too high for maximum sales volume...but the PROFIT per sale for Canon is pretty good, I would imagine. Many people feel that the $3,499 price of the 5D III, which is $500 above that of the Nikon D800, is a so-called "money-grabbing strategy" on Canon's part.

sovietdoc · Sep 20, 2012

Many people feel that the $3,499 price of the 5D III, which is $500 above that of the Nikon D800, is a so-called "money-grabbing strategy" on Canon's part.

Hell yeah it was. Just like All of their higher prices now. But still, I had to pay to play

I bet eventually 5d3 will settle at 2700-2500ish..

Designer · Sep 20, 2012

Machining the frame out of a solid block rather than someother manufacturing method is a design decision based on (usually) cost vs. benefit assuming some strength differential between machined and cast, for instance.

It might be the difference between being crushable by a car vs. a truck, as if they expect the camera to withstand some mechanical forces which would destroy an ORDINARY camera, but not the Hassy.

Or it could be simply that since the frame needs a certain amount of machining anyway, so why not just throw in a solid block and whittle it out, thereby saving one step?

unpopular · Sep 20, 2012

Derrel said:
Aw, come on, nobody's speaking up to defend poor Frankenstein?

You know, what Hasselblad did here pretty much IS a Frankencamera.

Derrel · Sep 20, 2012

rexbobcat · Sep 20, 2012

Designer said:
Machining the frame out of a solid block rather than someother manufacturing method is a design decision based on (usually) cost vs. benefit assuming some strength differential between machined and cast, for instance.

It might be the difference between being crushable by a car vs. a truck, as if they expect the camera to withstand some mechanical forces which would destroy an ORDINARY camera, but not the Hassy.

Or it could be simply that since the frame needs a certain amount of machining anyway, so why not just throw in a solid block and whittle it out, thereby saving one step?

Anyone who buys that Hasselblad probably won't take it out of it's crystal display case

No need to worry about crushing it with a car

Lol

I honestly LIKE the way it looks.

Also; those reps' answers were total saving grace BS. It made me laugh.

Basically it's: "Consumers just don't understand the genius of this camera"