This is a copy of a thread posted by me on the Phase One web site. Is anyone else having a similar experience?

"I am now rapidly coming to the conclusion that Phase One gives top priority to the sale of P+ series backs to new owners and very low priority to current owners seeking to upgrade to the P+ series. After all, isn't it better to sell a new back for over 30k rather then make an exchange for 8k? This seems like the only plausible explanation for over a six month delay in receiving the upgrade I ordered through Calumet. I know Phase One is a small company with limited production, but give me a break! When a large camera store like Calumet cannot provide their customers with answers because they cannot get the answers themselves, something is very wrong."

"If Phase One is not going to honor their commitment to current owners in a reasonable and timely fashion, they should not make any commitment at all."

"It has been recently said that the current digital backs on the market are now so close in quality and performance, that a major factor to consider before purchasing is the reliability and integrity of the company. It is my sincere hope that Phase One keeps this in mind."

I would suggest going through a smaller dealer who has a more personal connection with phase one, they seem to get clearer answers and are able to give a more personal service. I am not sure about this but it seems to be how it works. My guess is Calumet has a huge amount of orders and upgrades waiting, and they are just not allocated that many backs from phase one.
When I decided to purchase my back, the first person I talked to was Phase One, and they suggested a dealer.
However i did purchase a p45+ brand new expecting to receive a p45 loaner, and I received p45+ straight off, with no wait. My dealer was surprised and said he still had people waiting for their +backs

Not to mention that things sometimes fall thru the cracks at Calumet. I would call your local Phase Rep and inquire about your upgrade and then continue to pressure Calumet.

My story goes like this-

In April I contacted my small dealer to inquire about an update to the + series. He gave me the price, with no promise of delivery time. Hmm.

I call back in May, and he tells me there is still no promise of delivery time, and by the way, we no longer sell Phase units due to a minor dispute, we just service them and work closely with a dealer on the East Coast for sales. Here is the phone number to call for the East Coast dealer.

I call the East Coast dealer and leave a message. No return phone call. So, I buy a Hassy H3D.

Never been happier.

I use an independent London dealer and my P to P+ upgrade was progressed quickly and efficiently. We also have Calumet here in the UK, and I've never found them particularly appealing, their prices are good but not great and they seem to struggle with lots of unfriendly policies and restrictions.

When the Academy Awards for Interpersonal Communication are given out, Phase One will never be amongst the nominations. So just assume that. Avoid the corporation entirely, and use the energy to find a retail dealer.

My advice is to call Dave Gallagher, in Atlanta, at http://www.captureintegration.com, and press him for a straight answer. If he knows it, he will give it to you. I agree with another person here -- avoid the bigger box pushers, and find a smaller, more personal, dealer.

Capture Integration is not perfect, but they're about as good as they come. If you want Hasselblad or Leaf, then I advise dealing with Steve Hendrix in Atlanta, at PPR. He's a fine person too.

Trying to buy a MF back is about one notch above a Manhattan sidewalk shell game. Just know that going into it. Assume there will be surprises. Assume there will be delays. Assume that they'll tell you about half of what you need to know. Assume that the software will be quirky; even CaptureOne. Many times, it's not the dealer's fault either; they can get jerked around as much as the end consumer.

It has no bearing on the size of the check. Almost the inverse. Compared to buying a Canon, it's about the inverse. The more zeroes, the greater the hassle factor. Why it's that way, I will never understand. But if you lower your expectations going in, greater chance you won't be so disappointed. Great theory, huh?

customer service is as important to me as to everybody else...but i would never let it be my first and only purchasing desicion....not sure where you are, but you should not have any problems getting a phase back (even if it "only the p loaner" within a day..anywhere in the US....

buying a DMF back has been likened to buying a car, but i would never just get the one that's available.....because it's there....glad you are happy with you purchase...

You are right, it should not be the only factor but let's say that is the straw that broke the camels back. When I'm attempting to spend $15 to $20K, I would expect some sort of action. Any action would suffice. It was more than just one unanswered phone call. It is perfectly acceptable to have no return call for a week. It is perfectly acceptable to wait for a period of time for a product, but no prediction whatsoever for a delivery date? No returned calls from a dealer? Ever? No answered emails? Coupled with all other quirks and nuances of my transactions with them, that was it.

Thanks, I love my new camera.

My Experience.
I contacted a Phase Rep when deciding to purchase a camera. He called me the next day and suggested a dealer in my region. I called this guy and got straight through to him. We talked for a couple of days and then I decided to make a purchase. He told me I would receive a loaner within a week or two and gave me the date of early Nov. to receive my plus back. Within 2 weeks I received my plus back instead of a loaner and was very happy. My dealer expedited the shipping as well so I could get a job shot on time.
I have no problems with Phase One. And It is compatible to many systems and lenses unlike the H3D.

The H3D is also compatible with many systems and lenses afaik:

H3-body
Most modern LF cameras with flash sync and adapter for H-back
Fuji GX680 (kapturegroup adapter)
Mamiya RZ (using flash sync and adapter.)
Alpa
Cambo
Silvestri
etc.

Its not as smooth an integration as a number of other backs, but still a possibility.

On some cameras you have to remove the security latch on top of the H3D back, a dealer can do this for free or a couple of $$$... I have only used it on my Linhof, but still, the adapters are available...

-axel

Oh yeah, Sorry. I was thinking of the fact that the new Hasselblad Lenses only work with H3D because of ways they process information.

I think you meant to say one new Hasselblad lens works only with the H3D. The 28mm HCD.

The first time in the history of camera lens optical design that the ability to use automatic digital correction of some specific aberrations has been incorporated into the design of a lens. The concept opens up some interesting possibilities in future lens designs.

Yes, Sorry again, Edited.

I guess it is my turn now. The first time I directly complained to Phase One about the delay I got an email from a guy named Robert McCarthy, "Inside Sales." He said he would look into the matter. That was three months ago. I complained again in August and he assured me my upgrade would ship in September.

The response from Phase One to my post on their own forum is 0. So much for custumer satisfaction.

Quite honestly, if someone would offer me a decent price for my P45/H2, I would sell both and go with the Hasselblad integrated system. Besides, I'm starting to believe that the future of MFDB's may lie with them.

With regards to Calumet, I tend to agree. But they sure walk the walk and talk the talk when it came to selling me the back.

...and is a frighteningly closed system.

Had the thought occurred to you that this situation only exists because of 'some specific aberrations [that have] been incorporated into the design of the lens'?

To me this is the hardware equivalent of taking an OK photo on the basis that we can photoshop it into a great one! Would it not be better to spend a little more on R&D and get the lens right per se. Fuji have plenty of money don't they?

Have you actually seen it working?

Fuji might have plenty of money but that doesn't mean the users have to spend €20,000 on the 'perfect' lens.

There is also nothing frightening about it being closed. It has made a better camera.

Jo S.x

I find the concept of leaving known errors in the lens and correcting them in software a really great idea. It makes for much better and cheaper lenses.

Now, indeed, how many would be whining when the 'perfect' 28 would cost you 20K USD (or Euros) ??

What in my personal opinion is a bad decision is to keep the corrections algorithm secret instead of providing third parties with the correction details. That way parties like Adobe, Iridient would be able to develop for the 28 as well. Stuff like that as well as DAC should be integrated in a developers package so that we as users have more options in software choice.

This would also mean the 28 could be used with H2 and H1 if the correction takes place later in the RAW development stage.

The fact that the 28 needs software correction is no reason perse to keep the system closed.

Why would a well developed lens cost $20K...that's nonsense. Mamiya can get pretty close for what, $6K?

I agree completely with reservations about the secrecy surrounding the correction algorithm. This is why the closed system is frightening. If you want to use my lens, then you've got to buy my camera, and use my software. I much prefer a more open competitive approach.

I'm just plain amused and bemused why anyone would want any item which has design flaws, but you can fix it later in software. It's like buying a tripod which comes with the legs bent...but, oh, you're also supplied with a hammer to fix it!

Lastly, making a better camera and 'closing up' your system are completely unrelated. I personally think that deliberately introducing incompatibility is just a matter of keeping margins up, both in the short and long term. Users have a much bigger decision to make if they want to change anything in their system.

I want to see the price of MFDB's drop, not go up!

I think you are over-simplifying here just as I am exaggerating about the 20K. Software has become a vital part of the whole process of generating an image nowadays.

Fact is; by transferring part of the system towards another place (software), which is already necessary and used, you create advantages. The lens can be lighter and cheaper in production thus costs less while retaining a high level of quality. I believe it is very clever, making use of all possible and available means.

Let me turn that around. Not using computer power to draw more quality out of a system would be a serious design flaw nowadays.

The comparison with the tripod and the hammer is IMO in that case not correct.

I totally agree that closing a system doesn't have to do anything with quality. It is like Microsoft vs the Open Source Community. I see the same kind of arguments being used.

Yes, Dustbak, I was going to mention Microsoft.

There's a fine line to be drawn in the compromise between the quality of the hardware, and whether it can be improved in software. The example we're using here isn't unique, but I believe it is the most extreme example I have yet seen.

I think that what really concerns me is the combination of deliberate and known compromise in quality, and the effect of closing down the system by not releasing information to the wider community.

If Hasselblad were to release the pertinent information, then I, for one, would not be tarring them with the brush I have.

I agree with you about using software to the greatest extent possible... we've always done that, with profiling etc, but to do it to make up for a deliberate flaw in the lens design takes me in a direction which makes me feel rather uncomfortable!

So all other lenses have zero flaws? Try putting a lens through PT Lens, for example, and see what happens. I'm more amused that someone voicing an opinion so loudly in a pro MFDB forum doesn't seem to know that, or at least seems to ignore it.

This may very well be a Calumet issue, although they say can't get any information as to delivery time. I bought the P45 from them because they offered a good deal and took some items in trade. I probably should have gone with someone who deals exclusively with professional photographers.

I think you misunderstand, and I never implied any lens was perfect. I assumed, that like me, anybody reading the posts would know that as fact. The issue I'm raising is why Hasselblad, as a lens and camera manufacturer, would settle with a deliberate compromise, which others have described as flaws, BECAUSE you can fix them in software. Look at it another way: Hasselblad have produced their first lens which REQUIRES THEIR software to get a satisfactory image. While I agree with Dustbak that using software is important in the quality of the final image, I look at this and still think that this isn't very much of an advance in lens design - IMO, seems they've given up on trying to improve the optic design and materials technology, thrown up their hands in resignation, and given the problem to the software engineers!

Hasselblad were always known for excellence in the quality of their equipment, and it seems to me that this may not true in the case of this lens.

I still suspect that this decision is based on marketing strategy rather than the economics of doing the extra R&D. Nobody has supplied any evidence that the lens is actually cheaper than it would have been otherwise.

Anyway, these are just my opinions: I don't think Hasselblad are any better or worse than any other of the manufacturers in the respects we have discussed, and perhaps next, Mamiya will come out with a cheaper 28 with software correction!

Have you seen any examples of images taken with this lens?

If not, then perhaps you should reserve your judgement?

If the 'deliberate' compromise results in a lens that is smaller, lighter and cheaper then why complain???

Anyway, this is straying away from the OP original topic so I guess if some folk want to discus further they should start a new topic!

Jo S.x

The quality of the image that the lens is capable of is entirely irrelevant, it's the methods used to achieve this is what I have been expressing some concern about. I think you missed that point.

Your opinion is that the compromises don't matter, my opinion is that, that is a bit of a shift in Hassleblad philosophy that bothers me. Fine, we can agree to disagree.

Now, what about Phase Upgrade policy?

(Mind you, a well known international courier have just 'lost' a P45 being sent to me, so I'm not so much concerned with upgrading, as getting one in the first place!)

If you compare Mamiya 645 lenses to Hasselblad H lenses, you'll see that the average Hasselblad HC lens is typically twice the price. In fact, as a system it's roughly twice the price.

The new Mamiya 28mm lens sells for $5,294 at B&H. The Hasselblad HCD 28mm sells for $3,875. This is backwards. Based on the cost precedence of the systems, one would expect the Hasselblad 28mm to be $7,000 - $9,000. Instead of costing twice the Mamiya, it costs 2/3. This points directly to the cost savings of the lens.

Reducing optics also saves size and weight. The HCD28mm actually is smaller than the HC35mm.

Bottom line - if the results are equal, and the lens costs significantly less, where is the rub? Other than you can only use it with H3D. That's a given - so if that's a show stopper, you don't have a choice anyway. That's a valid criticism, but other than that, I don't see any flaw in what they're doing. I know one thing - I've sold a whole lot more HCD28mm lenses at $3,875 than I would have if they were $7K - $9K.

Steve Hendrix
www.ppratlanta.co/digital.php

I think there is nothign wrong with a software approach to lens design

look at the nikkor 10.5 fisheye - well wide - very small - super light - super cheap and specific defishing software is available

The 14mm corrected nikon is 3X the price (admittedly covering a larer image circle)

The design of that lens, the 10.5 just cuts out a whole war with phisics and replaces it with a simple digital/mathematical transform - 'remapping' the pixels

And yes IMO the map should be open source

S

So, basically what your saying is that, even if it is for marketing reasons, there's no reason to be concerned if the final output quality is fine.

Fair enough. ...and thanks for those who engaged in helping me evaluate my opinion here... and sorry to have hijacked the thread!

(Anybody seen my missing P45? )

I think Steve just said the opposite?

He made a good case for the economics based on the past pricing of Hasselblad vs Mamiya.

I dont see the lens 'flaws' as engineered IN for marketing reasons they just werent engeneered OUT for price/size reasons

The fact that the code is kept proprietry IS for marketing reasons

there would be a good market for 'chipped' lenses !



S

You guys need to start a new forum. The recent posts have nothing to do with "Phase One Upgrade Policy"

Think you need to reread his post.

Based on precedence the Hassy 28 should be a lot dearer than the Mamiya... but it isn't. Speculatively for marketing reasons.. ie to actually sell them. It will be interesting to see if Hasselblad can reduce the price of their lenses across the range while maintaining quality.

I do believe good glass is expensive to R&D and make, but I think the backs should be a lot cheaper, and I guess they are getting there with that one.

Done