3 ms·

It's strange you didn't mention Konica, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Hasselblad oh right that's because they are dead or a virtual brand only. And the rest are pal

by varjag 4y ago

It's strange you didn't mention Konica, Pentax, Minolta, Olympus, Hasselblad oh right that's because they are dead or a virtual brand only. And the rest are pale shadows of themselves 10 years ago. The market is dead, dedicated digital cameras are at these point feel more obsolete than film.

hef19898 4y ago
Come again? Hasselblad still is, and always has been, a photographers dream. A niche product, desired and out of reach for most. That didn't change. Olympus is one of the current mirrorless brands, an isn't doing to bad, at least their cameras seem to be good from what I hear. The entry level and point-and-shoot camera market is more or less dead so. That segment was completely taken over by smartphones, for valid reasons.
- antiterra 4y ago
  Hasselblad’s current digital offering is only really interesting in the commercial space where you only really need one if you’re getting paid enough to rent one on the first place. Plenty of alternatives exist as well when it comes to digital backs. The old film cameras are of niche interest, but Hassleblad isn’t making money off that.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    With medium format like Hasselblad, the back are anyway seperate from the body. Hasselblads are great cameras, Leicas as well. Objects of desire both. I did some middleformat work as a teenager, not with Hasselblad so. But this whole looking down into the view finder to see a mirrored picture makes you think a lot more about composition and so on. I liked it, but film is just to much work for me at the moment. And digital backs for medium format way too expensive. I loved medium format in black and white so. Damn, now I have to find time to go through my dad's archive with him!
    - antiterra 4y ago
      Leica is doing interesting things with prosumer digital too, though. The rangefinder ergonomics of the Leica Q allow for completely different use cases and feel even though it is hilariously overpriced compared to a competing Sony fixed-lens (RX1R or something like that.) Last I looked, it was at least a $1000 differential and the Sony beat the Leica handily on features and potential quality. I’d still never trade my Q for one.
      - hef19898 4y ago
        Leica makes great cameras, unfortunately as you said over priced... I never touched one of their digital ones, but I was furtunate enough to have a film one for a school project before going to university. The camera was loaned to my dad, who was generous enough to allow me to use it. It was great, really was. It kind of felt better than the Nikon F4 I usually got, but not that much better to justify the price. One thing I kind of dream about so is some Zeiss glass. Not that I'll ever be able to justify it so! Besides, I have developed a weakness for old Nikkor manual focus lenses. If I had a Leica so, I'd never trade it in for something else neither! Some things you just don't do!
- nradov 4y ago
  Olympus sold off their digital camera business to a private equity firm. It's now a shadow of it's former self with no expectation of growth. Sony makes the sensors for Hasselblad. The sensor is the heart of modern digital cameras so Hasselblad isn't adding much beyond a brand name. Eventually Sony will probably eat their lunch.
  - hef19898 4y ago
    Late day SLR makers, full-frame that is, was basically a duopoly between Nikon and Canon. As was early DSLRs, so you had some more brands then. If anything with mirrorless there seem to be more camera makers around than before, and being on par with each other. As opposed to SLRs or the early DSLR market were it was basically just Canon and Nikon.
    - antiterra 4y ago
      Sony had a pretty solid hold on a chunk of that DSLR prosumer/enthusiast market as well. Fuji and some others started making headway right before mirrorless started taking off.
zirgs 4y ago
Minolta didn't die - they sold their camera business to SONY. SONY still makes cameras.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  Minolta cameras almost changed names to Sony cameras, one can say.

by varjag 4y ago

hef19898 4y ago

Come again? Hasselblad still is, and always has been, a photographers dream. A niche product, desired and out of reach for most. That didn't change. Olympus is one of the current mirrorless brands, an isn't doing to bad, at least their cameras seem to be good from what I hear. The entry level and point-and-shoot camera market is more or less dead so. That segment was completely taken over by smartphones, for valid reasons.

antiterra 4y ago
Hasselblad’s current digital offering is only really interesting in the commercial space where you only really need one if you’re getting paid enough to rent one on the first place. Plenty of alternatives exist as well when it comes to digital backs. The old film cameras are of niche interest, but Hassleblad isn’t making money off that.
- hef19898 4y ago
  With medium format like Hasselblad, the back are anyway seperate from the body. Hasselblads are great cameras, Leicas as well. Objects of desire both. I did some middleformat work as a teenager, not with Hasselblad so. But this whole looking down into the view finder to see a mirrored picture makes you think a lot more about composition and so on. I liked it, but film is just to much work for me at the moment. And digital backs for medium format way too expensive. I loved medium format in black and white so. Damn, now I have to find time to go through my dad's archive with him!
  - antiterra 4y ago
    Leica is doing interesting things with prosumer digital too, though. The rangefinder ergonomics of the Leica Q allow for completely different use cases and feel even though it is hilariously overpriced compared to a competing Sony fixed-lens (RX1R or something like that.) Last I looked, it was at least a $1000 differential and the Sony beat the Leica handily on features and potential quality. I’d still never trade my Q for one.
    - hef19898 4y ago
      Leica makes great cameras, unfortunately as you said over priced... I never touched one of their digital ones, but I was furtunate enough to have a film one for a school project before going to university. The camera was loaned to my dad, who was generous enough to allow me to use it. It was great, really was. It kind of felt better than the Nikon F4 I usually got, but not that much better to justify the price. One thing I kind of dream about so is some Zeiss glass. Not that I'll ever be able to justify it so! Besides, I have developed a weakness for old Nikkor manual focus lenses. If I had a Leica so, I'd never trade it in for something else neither! Some things you just don't do!
nradov 4y ago
Olympus sold off their digital camera business to a private equity firm. It's now a shadow of it's former self with no expectation of growth. Sony makes the sensors for Hasselblad. The sensor is the heart of modern digital cameras so Hasselblad isn't adding much beyond a brand name. Eventually Sony will probably eat their lunch.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Late day SLR makers, full-frame that is, was basically a duopoly between Nikon and Canon. As was early DSLRs, so you had some more brands then. If anything with mirrorless there seem to be more camera makers around than before, and being on par with each other. As opposed to SLRs or the early DSLR market were it was basically just Canon and Nikon.
  - antiterra 4y ago
    Sony had a pretty solid hold on a chunk of that DSLR prosumer/enthusiast market as well. Fuji and some others started making headway right before mirrorless started taking off.

zirgs 4y ago

Minolta didn't die - they sold their camera business to SONY. SONY still makes cameras.

actionfromafar 4y ago
Minolta cameras almost changed names to Sony cameras, one can say.