|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
A $36,000.00 Camera?
Hasselblad offers it's latest creation priced at $22,000.00 to $36,000.00 for the pro pack. Granted it shoots at 50 megapixels, but $36,000.00? Does anyone own one of these beasts, handled one or used one? Obviously it's an excellent camera, but $36,000.00??? Edit: Thanks everyone. I love when a post leads to civilized debate. I don't understand a damn thing that any of you said, but I enjoyed it.  Mar 31 09 05:33 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: That is the price for a professional piece of equipment. Mar 31 09 05:35 am Link You have to be making oodles of moolah to justify that purchase. The depreciation on that piece would be probably result in salvage value of 20 cents on the dollar within a few years. Technology is moving at such a fast pace. You can get 21 megapixels with cutting edge low noise for $2,700 a la the 5D ii, or spend 7K and get Nikon's top unit. Both will provide fantastic images in the hands of a talented photographer. However, if money is not an issue, and you need, and deserve, the best, then the Hassy would be useful. However, you don't need it to take award winning images. As someone who as spent literally hundreds of thousands of dollars on equipment, I would think hard as to how much I needed that $36,000 Hassy and exactly what the return would be. In other words, the bottom line. Clients don't care what piece you use to aquire the image... they only want a great image. Mar 31 09 05:42 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: H3 39mp kit $17,000 Mar 31 09 05:50 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: Have handled the RB version, and shot some tests, Up untill about a year ago, I used an digital 8x10 view, this has to be teathered to a high powered computer. I let the lease on this go just in time, as the furnature photography that it was used for went down hill fast..Never acutally knew the selling price, but was told that it was over a mill. The rig went to a commercial studio in NC. Mar 31 09 05:56 am Link Sungoddess Studios wrote: Mar 31 09 05:57 am Link I've used one and they work very nice. Depreciation in the digital age (as stated above) is a huge factor. It is a great camera though. Mar 31 09 05:58 am Link Jack Silver wrote: Aaaah, Jack. I looked at your port. Excellent work and way above average. Question is this: could you have shot the same images with my D700? Mar 31 09 06:00 am Link Well, all the pros seem to think that it's worth $36,000. Mar 31 09 06:02 am Link when i got into digital over 5 years ago my initial investment was about $30k for a medium format system. i look at the amount of money i made with that investment and believe me it paid off. the hassy is an amazing system and worth every penny. Mar 31 09 06:05 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: and comes with alot of bragging rights, for that price you also have someone to pick your nose and bite your toe-nails Mar 31 09 06:06 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: I could have shot my images on a one megapixel point and shoot ... if I had the time and resources... and didn't need a huge file on the back end. Mar 31 09 06:37 am Link rickspix wrote: Totally agree. Mar 31 09 06:39 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: I bet there still will be calls for a TFCD shoots! Mar 31 09 06:42 am Link i think the kodak dsc 200 was 1.5mp and cost about $25K in 1999...whats that in todays dollars? Mar 31 09 06:46 am Link It also has to do with the sensor size and the image created. Pixel size is much bigger. I can't describe the look except 3 dimensional Mar 31 09 06:48 am Link Then take a look at the prices of some motion picture equipment. The high-end prime lenses go for $30k. Higher-end HD cameras fully accessorized will run over $100k too. It is all relative. Mar 31 09 06:48 am Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Lol...with the economy going the way it has since 1999, probably not much different! Mar 31 09 06:49 am Link I've never been able to afford anything like that, but then I've always been in journalism and art. But a commercial shooter I know did buy a camera in excess of 30 grand. It paid off for him because he was able to acquire and keep business because none of his competitors had anything like it at the time. He admitted to me that he could have shot nearly everything on his DSLR that he shot with that camera, but he made clients soooo happy that he kept using it, even when that type of camera wasn't really required. Is the new Hassy worth the money? Sure, if you're in a market that will support it and making the kind of money so you can afford it. Another commercial shooter I knew several years ago spent $20,000 on a MF system, only to get a Fuji S2 a year later. He said he never made his money back on the MF, but the Fuji paid him back on the first job. Mar 31 09 06:50 am Link terrysphotocountry wrote: Yup, lots! Mar 31 09 06:51 am Link Jack Silver wrote: I've found This is VERY true. No, you don't need a 36K camera to shoot a job but I find clients DO pay some attention to what we're shooting with. Mar 31 09 07:01 am Link I shoot commercial a lot and I'll tell you costumers want you MANY times to not even walk into a photo session with nothing less than a Medium Format camera. I have to rent one. But I will tell you it ain't cheep. That's why professional shooters are paid more, not necessarily better photographers. Mar 31 09 07:05 am Link The cost also has a lot to do with the expense of manufacturing and handling a relatively large piece of silicon to be used for the sensor. Sensors can have no imperfections so there can be a lot of waste. Kinda like obtaining a 5 carat D- Flawless diamond cut to ideal proportions. Mar 31 09 07:13 am Link I find that it really depends on what you shoot and the market that you are in. I know several photographers that shoot with digital MF systems. I also know of a bunch of photographers that rent digital MF on a regular basis. They shoot commercial images for people that need the larger file sizes and that are impressed with the MF camera. The photographers that are using the digital MF are able to charge more for their work. I work as a photo assistant and have really been wanting to get trained to be a digital tech for the MF systems. Mar 31 09 07:14 am Link I have a small photo studio I share with my wife for her painting in Ottawa, Canada. From a commercial stand-point the Hasselblad is a great system, the lens quality produced Fuji is phenomenal, and the 16bit files size in form of 3FR Raw is unrivaled to work from by a 35mm sensor sized D-SLR. You have to try one to understand this, truly. If you want more information contact me, my day job consists of selling Hasselblad north of the border here in Canada... So is it worth it, only you can answer that. Off topic, but as a motorcycle rider it reminded me of add I once saw that said if you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet. I guess that can translate to your photography, if you think it is worth it and you want to niche the higher end clients, go for it! Cheers Andre Paquette Mar 31 09 07:15 am Link I used the original H3D-39 when it was only $34,000 for my commercial print ads. The designers in LA/OC expect the photographers to show up with MF gear and a certain amount of respect comes with walking in with Hasse in tow. I loved the images it created and didn't flinch at the price of the camera cause the clients were paying me a premium for the shoots. The Phase1 is awesome as well. Up in San Francisco I'm just using Canon 1Ds MarkII/IIIs but will occasionally rent the MF if a designer requests, they all watch ANTM and see them used. Hasseblad wouldn't make it if there wasn't a market for their cameras and I've heard very few comments that are less than positive from knowledgable photographers about their cameras and lenses. Mar 31 09 07:19 am Link terrysphotocountry wrote:
Mar 31 09 07:22 am Link Rick Edwards wrote: Quite true. Mar 31 09 09:06 am Link I have handled one of these packages - amazing quality images -- very low noise -- consistent imaging -- heavy (best use a stand/tripod) -- great for studio production work, catalogs, advertising and high end magazine and fashion images. Built strong for constant use with a long expected lifespan and with service contracts and leasing available. Canon and Nikon digital SLRs will get this sort pixel count eventually, maybe a decade or more out (but Hasselblad has a here and now product) and digital SLRs still need to double pixel counts to the 30 meg range to truly match film resolution. If you can cost justify a camera like this with the work your studio gets over the life of a lease I'd go for it. Progress marches on. Mar 31 09 09:36 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: It would cost me more because I would have to get a completely new computer rig to handle files that size. Mar 31 09 09:48 am Link Clique7 Studios wrote: Well, seeing that there many commercial photographers doing $30,000.00 to $100,000.00 commercial assignments, this price is completely acceptable. Mar 31 09 10:02 am Link If you are going to compare the costs of the new digital cameras with doing it with film, you should figure out what an automated film processor would cost. That plus the cost of film, chemicals, etc., might make that $36K look a little more affordable. Mar 31 09 10:05 am Link I don't use the Hassy rig but I do shoot MF Digital with a Leaf Aptus II - 10 back on a Contax 534 system. I have clients that require that size file. It is not something everyone wants but at least 50% of my work is done on MF. Just part of the cost of doing business. You also need a backup just like on a DSLR so your investment is much higher than the price of one camera / back. If the client wants it, then charge them for it. Mar 31 09 10:07 am Link The Main Man wrote:
Mar 31 09 10:07 am Link Stan Glass wrote: I agree, there's a certain depth or resolution(not talkin megapixels here) that medium format has over 35 mm. Its very subtle, but art directors will have a more critical eye and be able to see it. It won't even show if looking on a monitor really, but in print you can see the subtlety. Mar 31 09 10:11 am Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Pre or Post market nose dive dollar? Mar 31 09 10:13 am Link Jack Silver wrote: Also, they assumed, ( when you assume you make an a-s, out of you & me ), that because you owned the Hasselblad system, that you wouldn't be charging them rental, for the usage of the system. Mar 31 09 01:39 pm Link Kevin Connery wrote: I had a dsc 560, but that was 6MP I am depressed at what it cost, and was quickly replaced by a proback at the time. Now I have P65 and am thinking about the 60mp hassy back as a backup to the back up (yes, I am a gear geek at times, lucky they pay for themself in work) Mar 31 09 01:45 pm Link A relatively large capital expense is worth it if it increases your revenue per hour of labor. If you want megapixels, however, do a calculation of the effective megapixels of a large sheet of film (4x5 or 8x10 inch), which can be exposed with less than $4000 of capital cost (even at new prices for camera and lens). Mar 31 09 01:46 pm Link Traditional Curmudgeon wrote: That's if the client wants a sheet of film as the final product. On top of that you will need the polaroid back to make sure you everything is right before you expose the frame. Then you will either need to have the processors inhouse or outsource. So few people require these services that prolabs are charging a nice peice of change. Then you either need the drum scanner....or again, outsource it. The average cost per image scan is $220 to $240 at a lab. Mar 31 09 01:52 pm Link |
Or we will now have the Photographer complaining that his equipment costs over $36,000 now instead of like 5-10,000 
or the model complaining she has to drive...
