Zeiss + Hassy --- no longer?

Sorry, if I sounded like I just crawled out of my cave but I just

found out that all of the new lenses for the Hassy H system are made

by Fuji instead of Zeiss.

 

Is that true or am I reading it wrongly? Gee, no wonder Zeiss is

getting the M-mount and F-mount markets. They have essentially lost

the Hassy account & the Contax account within a relatively short time.

 

Any ideas why Hassy decided to go with Fuji instead of Zeiss after so

many years?

I do believe Hasselblad first looked into the idea of partnering up with Fuji when they conceived the Xpan series of cameras & lenses. It's been a slow shift towards Fuji and away from Zeiss since then. I'm guessing they're finally embracing technology with arms wide open, and Fuji has the necessary expertise in that area.

 

As for Zeiss, the ZF/ZS/ZM system of lenses mark their (somewhat desperate) intention to remain in photography, after Kyocera/Contax dropped them. It's only a matter of time before Hasselblad completely phase out Zeiss lenses and the V-series of cameras. Also, it's doubtful that Sony will ever make another camera using CZ optics, with the DSC-R1 possibly being the last.

 

I might get some flack for the 'desperate' comment above, but how else would you explain Carl Zeiss branded optics inside of a camera phone?

 

As for me, I'm a big fan of Zeiss optics. :)

Why did you imply that Fuji has more technologies than Zeiss in terms of optics?

The Fuji lenses are of excellent build and high quality and may even be better than the Zeiss equivalent if not the same. Provided they stand up to Hasselblad and Hasselblad customer requirements, who cares where they are made.

 

There are a lot of complainers out there who will tell you that the Fuji lens are not as good as Zeiss and I'd bet that they made those statements without ever testing a Hasselblad lens made by Fuji. If there are lens test reports to prove it then let's see them, otherwise it's probably just bad grapes because they are now made in Japan and not in Europe.

 

Hasselblad probably switched to Fuji to control costs. Who knows.

 

dG

Wasn't Hasselblad sold to an Asian company? If this is true, it explains why they would choose lenses from closer to home.

 

Digital is taking many venerable companies down.

In any case, a lot of people do care where things that they buy are made. If they buy it close to home, some of the money gets returned to them through taxes. If they buy it from another part of the planet, more of the money will go to places where they do not wish them to go.

 

In any case, with Kodak, Zeiss etc. going downhill, soon the entire photography industry resides in Japan and they can up the prices dramatically because of no competition.

> Why did you imply that Fuji has more technologies than Zeiss in terms of optics?

 

I didn't mean in terms of optics, but rather other technologies like autofocus.

Ilkka,

 

I can understand your point, yes, keeping the money here at home or near where you live is preferable for the local economy. But Hasselblad was always centered in Sweden, so money went there and didn't stay local (assuming most live elsewhere).

 

It's not like JAPAN is making all the cameras, different companies in Japan make cameras. Those companies compete for customers on a number of factors, one important one being price.

 

You are right, if there are only one or two camera manufacturers, it won't only be price we'll have to worry about, quality will crash too. But hopefully, if prices are too high, competition will eventually arise to take care of that.

 

dG

Concerning a potential Japanese monopoly in camera/lens manufacture, I think that China

is likely to provide a competitive offset to most Japanese hopes in that direction. China is

likely to be price-competitive for a long time. I think that Japan has a long lead in quality

control and China will need a long time to bring its reputation in that category up to snuff.

>Arifuddin Rahimi , mar 28, 2006; 11:24 a.m.

 

>I might get some flack for the 'desperate' comment above, but how else would you

explain Carl Zeiss branded optics inside of a camera phone?

 

You aren't very knowledgeable about Zeiss, are you? Photo and Cine lenses are nowhere

near the money makers that optics in telescopes and PCB manufacturing equipment are

for them.

 

I can explain the optics in a camera phone easily: low investment currency stream.

 

It's always better to know at least a little about what you are talking about before

posting--then you won't get 'flack' for a lack of knowledge.

Arthur

 

This issue has been examined extensively on Hasselblad lists, including some input from Hasselblad. This might be taken with a bit of salt, as makers are often cagey, but the story was that Fuji could provide more than Zeiss could provide in input. This is what came from them:

 

"About H system design/manufacture (a bit rough but anyway):

 

Viewfinder.

Conceptual design (including the optics): VHAB. Production design/manufacturing: Fuji.

 

Film back.

Conceptual design: VHAB. Production design/manufacturing: Fuji.

 

Lenses:

Conceptual design: VHAB/Fuji (optical design mostly by Fuji). Production design/manufacturing: Fuji.

 

Cameras.

Conceptual design: VHAB. Production design/manufacturing: VHAB.

 

Basically all electronics and software are developed by VHAB.

 

Digital backs are designed/manufactured by VHAB."

 

In other words, Fuji is integral (if not dominant) in delivering the concept to finish product, something Zeiss couldn't do. It makes sense that Fuji integrate the optical design of the lenses. Although not the same in characteristics as Zeiss, they make superb lenses.

 

Presumably, the same was the case for the Xpan. The old, simple, but elegant concept of a modular, mechanical camera has gone in design terms, so a lens maker as a partner can't cut it. This is a shame for lovers of the old mechanical cameras (like me), but presumably Zeiss will supply Hasselblad as long as the V series or SWC is available.

 

There are those who seem to bemoan the 'loss' of the glass to Fuji, as a Hasselblad should have Zeiss. This is fair enough, but it is now intertwined with one's idea of the choice of camera design. The old mechanical, versus the new bells and whistles.

 

Bemoaning the loss of the lens manufacture to Japan, as opposed to Fuji, seems a bit strange and may even be borderline, unconscious racism.

Nick,

 

>Bemoaning the loss of the lens manufacture to Japan, as opposed to Fuji, seems a bit strange and may even be borderline, unconscious racism.

 

No, I cannot speak for the others, but my intention was nowhere close to that. I lament missing that special "something" in German optics. Just as much as no manufacturer in the world makes lenses that can have the same characteristics as Leica, I do not think anyone can make lenses that can take images with the same feel as Zeiss lenses.

Each manufacturer has their on style and optimization.

 

But, thanks, for the informational posting you made.

Well, Sweden is part of the EU so a large chunk of their tax money goes to EU and to be redistributed within the community. Also, Zeiss lenses are made in Germany (or so I think for the Hassie lenses) so that also contributes to the EU budget, leading to aid in various areas. Right now development of the less developed countries of the continent.

 

The situation in Japan is that of a virtual monopoly. Much of the infrastructure of optics and camera manufacturing are shared between the companies. The subcontractors are shared etc. Why do you think they are so competitive vs. European and North American companies? Because of the tight industrial infrastructure, among other things.

Suppose you are selling one million lenses a year--including all focal lengths--for a

camera system, say Hasselblad. And if you buy those lenses from Zeiss in Europe you'll

net $500 per lens, for a total of $500-million net profit (btid). But if you buy those lenses

in Asia and ship them to Europe you'll make $362 more per lens, or $862. Which is

roughly what you'd make at a 30% margin on a $2,775 priced lens.

 

Which would you rather have--$500 million or $862 million? Suppose you make four 40-

inch by 40-inch print color prints from transparencies. Two are shot with the European

lens and two with the Asian lens, both of the exact same subject matter.

 

One is a landscape scene and the other is a portrait. You know which lens tests better on

the optical bench but in a blind test, the prints are so similar that 20 of your own experts

divide 11 to 9 voting landscape print made with lens A is better than landscape print made

with lens E. But when rating the portrait prints, they divide 12 to 8 that Portrait made with

lens E is better than portrait made with lens A.

 

You know that by picking Lens A for your camera line you will make $362 million per year

more than by picking Lens E.

 

Some little bean counter comes out of the back cubicle in your office and says, "Hey, you

guys on the Board of Directors, in five years picking Lens A will earn the company $1.8

Billion dollars more than picking Lens E ! (And, you'll have $100 million extra to divvy up

for bonus checks to they guys who made the "smart" decision!)

 

Guess how much influence the optical bench tests have on the Board of Directors when

they take their vote?

Ilkka,

 

Are you talking about companies like Sony, Fuji, Canon and Nikon sharing optics and camera subcontractors?

 

Are you saying this because the EU funds helps less developed countries?

 

I'm not sure where the monopoly is. Can you be more specific, which company is a monopoly? Fuji?

 

dG

From Zeiss 2004-2005 Results press release

 

 

"Profits almost doubled

 

Profits increased even stronger than revenues. The Carl Zeiss Group recorded an EBIT of

EUR 199 million, equating to 72 percent over the previous year (EUR 116 million). Pre-tax earnings increased from EUR 129 million the previous year to EUR 226 million. Net annual income totaled EUR 151 million - a new record almost doubling the previous year (EUR 77 million)."

 

Here is the link:

 

http://www.zeiss.com/C1256A770030BCE0/WebViewAllE/DB6FD4EE17970D6FC12571140053F4C4

 

or you can do a Google search on "Zeiss profits".

 

So, apperently Zeiss people are making good business decisions.

 

Someone made a statement that bemoaning the fact that Zeiss is not making Hasselblad lenses smacks of some sort of racisim. I do not agree with that. Designers from different countries have different focus and it shows in the their products. You may or may not be attuned to those differences but they are there. Personally I like the way German cars are designed mucompared to Japanese (and American)cars. I just sold my second VW Golf and will buy a third one soon. If VW stops selling cars in United States, I will bemoan that too. Will that make me a racist?

 

I am not good enough photographer to really appriciate the difference between optics from different countries. However, I can say that the Rolleiflex T TLR I just bought is a joy to use mechanically.

I think he's talking about the concept of Keiretzu --- the "coral reef" of an industry in Japan. It, indeed, like a coral reef. It has its own eco-system that supplies, clean and life develops from within. The coral reef, itself, consists of many entities but as a whole it is a large eco-system which is self-sustaining.

Arthur especially,

 

My final comment was a bit blunt and I wasn't meaning any one individual. But I stand by the idea because these types of -isms are so insidious. But I can understand the concept of Europeans bemoaning the EU losing money. It might go to Albania or so on, but then again it might go to bureaucrats in Brussels or the Russian mafia. Who knows!

 

But for me, there isn't really a difference where the money goes. There isn't any race issue with me, but I do live in the other hemisphere that is usually ignored!

 

I am not sure what relevance Leitz with their exceptional lenses being German has to whether a Japanese company (Fuji) can't also make excellent lenses. I have an Xpan, plus a GSW690III and the Fuji optics are great. Fuji have proven themselves the greater 'package' in terms of all things photographic, something that film enthusiasts could be thankful for.

 

Carl Zeiss was such a pioneer and Zeiss lenses are also impeccable and I personally regret the tide of going to Fuji if it means the end of Zeiss/Hasselblad. But then, I think that Fuji could NOW design a Biogon or similar if it wanted to.

 

I have a definite preference for mechanical cameras. I have no real interest in an H series Hasselblad, as I am a V series person. I don't really like the battery in the Xpan (or at least paying for them)!

Haris,<br><br>Try to find how much the Camera Lens Division contributed to Zeiss' business results.<br>It's so insignificant that it isn't even mentioned separately in their business reports. So beware of judging the success of Zeiss lenses by looking at the company's results as a whole.

Haris

 

The answer is no! The question with Hasselblad is that it is a multinational partnership or at least contractual arrangement with a supplier, so a national design paradigm may not be applicable.

 

Or maybe it is, as it raises the interesting (to me) question about what directions Hasselblad gave Fuji on optical design, or did they just accept what was given. Not on focal length etc, but on the more subtle colour characteristics. The same may apply to Zeiss, of course.

 

Olympus OM lenses are distinctive from Nikon etc. optically, so maybe there is no Japaneseness in optic anyway, more the production facility is the distinctive thing.

 

Some trivia on Japanese industrial methods: The Taguchi method of optimising processes is used in population genetics labs to develop the correct multi-factorial protocol for the critical PCR step. A good idea applied away from its origin...we can all learn from Japan!

 

Nick

 

PS I will stick with Toyota. Like a V series Hasselblad, they just keep working.

 

PPS QG, perhaps there is advantage in Zeiss producing premium lenses for the prestige value...the Zeiss, Schneider, Leica etc names are heavily used to publicise the compact digitals they are on, needing this mystique. One can only hope!

In the end, I believe its just pure busisness concernt aht give rise to the situation. Asian monopoly of the camera trade, only becaus others are nto making as good a product at the same price level. NO Zeiss lens for Hassy, that's because Zeiss want a heavy premium from the lens and of course Fuji prove just capable and more flexible. Is it Zeiss's fault. NO, of course not. Its called oppurtunity cost. There is that much capacity Zeiss have. If Hassy want that capacity dedicated to making lens for Hassy, then by god Hassy got to pay for it. Otherwise Zeiss might as well use the resource for more profitable contribution ( say in dustrail or medical optics )

 

As a collector, I might be interested in all the move and the Zeiss mystique. As a photographer I can care less. The verdict is in the final image taken, and I can see no wrong from the Fuji lens. I would lament the day Hassy discointinue the V series and phase out the Zeiss optica, but its not eh end of the world and certainly not something to lost sleep over with !!

I do agree that Zeiss still camera lens division is pretty small. They have huge optical glass and industrial optics divisions. My point was that if a company has been around for over a hundered years and is financially healthy is indicative of haveing a leadership that has a good grasp of its business area and in general will make prudent decisions. Just look at Leica. They are struggling to survive.

 

Could it be that because they could not design the Hasselblad H system lenses they focused their energies and resources to design the new ZF (and ZM) series lenses;-). As a Nikon user, who is saving for a new 85mm f1.4 AIS I am pretty happy.

>> It's always better to know at least a little about what you are talking about before posting--then you won't get 'flack' for a lack of knowledge.

 

I'm terribly sorry, Jon, but you've completely misinterpreted my post. I was distinctly refering to CZ optics in photography. As in, user photography. I made no claim about their finances or anything of that sort.

 

With Contax/Sony and possibly Hasselblad dropping CZ branded/designed lenses, they're going to have very little to represent them in field of user photography. With the ZF/ZS/ZM lenses & the CZ designed lenses in camera phones, they're hoping to ensure that the CZ name will continue to be recognizable as a premium optic in photography.

 

I'm of the opinion that they really don't care about or need the $3 they get from each camera phone sold. They just want to be seen.

A lot of the guys using digital backs reckon that the fuji lenses are sharper but witha different 'look' to zeiss.

If you look into Hasselblad;s past you will see that they moved from Kodak Ektar lenses to

the cheaper Zeiss Tessar lenses in the 50's and therefore it should not surprise anyone that

they are pulling the same trick again, this time moving to Fuji. As long as the basic quality

concerns are met it is then all about the money. Fuji are perfectly capable of producing

excellent optics. To think otherwise is just latent racism.