Why Hasselblad cameras are so expensive
Aug 8, 2021
Udi Tirosh
Udi Tirosh is an entrepreneur, photography inventor, journalist, educator, and writer based in Israel. With over 25 years of experience in the photo-video industry, Udi has built and sold several photography-related brands. Udi has a double degree in mass media communications and computer science.
Share:
Some of the most Iconic shots were taken with a Hasselblad (or Hassy as its fans call it). The album cover for The Beatless’ Abbey Road and the iconic Apollo 11 photo of Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon (shot by Neil Armstrong) are a few photos that almost everyone knows. On the flip side of this, a current Hussy would cost upwards of $30,000. And this is for the body only. A Fujifilm GFX 100S, also about 100MP, will set you back ‘only’ $6,000. So why are people willing to invest so much in a Hasselblad-made camera?
The folks from Business Insider dived into the Hasselblad pricing structure.
Interestingly, Hussies were not always so expensive. They were pricey, but not to the point they are today. For reference, in 1948, Hasselblad’s first consumer camera cost around $500. If you account for inflation, you’d be looking at something equivalent to $5,900 in today’s market. And again, looking at adjusted prices for Hasselblad bodies from the ’70s, you’re looking at around $5300.
The big pricing shit came with the move to digital. The first digital Hasselblad, the H1D from 2004, cost about $24,000, and it was a 22.0 Megapixel camera. (The previous film model was less than half that price).
Hasselblad says that the main pricing factor for the camera is the large format sensor (Sony is making those). The large sensor allows for excellent low noise performance and impressive dynamic range. But the main reason that the camera is priced so high is that they had all made by hand.
With a low sales volume (The Verge reported under 10,000 units in 2018), you pay for the manual labor. And that is significantly more expensive than an automated assembly line. The video explains that some of the work is done by the same people for over 30 years and is somewhere between a job and a craft. In total, a camera takes about six to eight hours to assemble, with calibration taking a big chunk of that time. And each camera sensor is individually manually calibrated.
[via Image Insider]
Udi Tirosh
Udi Tirosh is an entrepreneur, photography inventor, journalist, educator, and writer based in Israel. With over 25 years of experience in the photo-video industry, Udi has built and sold several photography-related brands. Udi has a double degree in mass media communications and computer science.
Related Posts
This is why TV cameras are still huge and ridiculously expensive
Leica cameras aren’t expensive enough so they made a Limited Edition run of 100 red ones
Leica cameras and lenses will become even more expensive from May 1st
This is why black & white film is more expensive to have developed than colour
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
18 responses to “Why Hasselblad cameras are so expensive”
Really? The one with the red dot is more expensive. Compare to PhaseOne it is still cheap.
The price of a Hasselblad has so much more involved in it. Yes, they are expensive, but their price was well positioned all the way thru 100mp 54×40 CMOS chip. The newer 44×33 CMOS chip rocks the boat in a way that has never been seen – and is an unfair comparison.
The previous generation cameras with the 40/50/60mp Kodak & Dalsa CCD sensors cost a lot more. There was no full frame cameras that could come close to the output. Plus as a larger sensor, more things have to be perfect to work. The CCD based units were more expensive than the 33k that the H6D-100c came out as. Unfortunately there has been zero signs that Hasselblad is going to adopt either the 150mp 54×40 or the 100mp 44×33 sensor any time soon.
So to compare the 100mp GFX100 with the H6D-100c is very unfair, especially price.
Many years ago, I went on an expedition with about 20 photographers. We had many sorts of cameras in the group, from Leica, Minolta, Nikon, etc. and one Hasselblad. When we got home, we had a reunion where we all brought our 10 best slides. Quality all looked pretty much the same for the 35mm users. The Hasselblad slides were noticibly better. That’s why people bought them then and now.
A series of random events where someone who worked for NASA suggested they use Hasselblad cameras during the Apollo Program. The rest of the money is history ;)
“big pricing shit” xD
Also, I know you mentioned it was Hassy, but then you spelt it Hussy. I did have a good laugh when you mentioned a Hussy would cost upwards of $30k.
I also liked when he spelled it “Hussies”
that’s easy… you have to pay 1000$ for each letter of the name first and only after that you are paying for the camera itself…
?lunar photo graphics?
The Hasselblad X system is only a little bit more expensive than Fuji GFX. Hope they will soon come with a 100mp X1D.
Correction to the text above: “Some of the most iconic shots were taken by good photographers” – the rest is a bunch of shit.
Nobody need this expesive toys and nobody is buying them, that’s way they will disappear sooner or later.
George Al these are professional tools for the professional commercial or high end art photographer. Not for the amateur or novice, for them is money squandering purchasing a TOOL, they don’t understand the value of and they won’t need.
Hasselblad and Leica cameras are for snobs. Prices are just silly.
I owned them all starting with a polaroid and a half frame 35 mm Konica then migrated to a Nikon 35, Leica rangefinder M2, Kowa medium format, Mamiya RB67, Calumet 4×5, calumet 8×10, Advanced to the Sinar P2 system the best of large format 4×5 and 8×10, All film cameras, I used Kodachrome and Ektachrome for 35mm format, 2 1/4 format and various Kodak and Ilford films for B&W. Film and prints back in the day was scanned by an outside service, processing was done by a pro-lab.
When the printer got a hold of the scans for ‘print and billboard’ with billboard scans for reproduction you could not tell the difference between a 35mm format or 8×10 format billboard reproduction. Once the original film left the hands of the photographer it now became the property of the advertising agency. High quality film scans can still outproduce original digital camera reproduction. Digital opened up a door for every amateur [untrained photographer] to look like a pro using all sorts of post production software. Find the greats who used film and 35mm like Pete Turner.
visit this amazing 35mm ‘colorist photographer’
Digital came into existence and my first camera system was a Canon 10D, Then on to a Nikon system.
I ended up using a Sony for all my direct digital commercial photography – fooled all my customers, they never new how I could pull off those some great images with that D-camera. It’s not the equipment that’s always the important factor it’s the end result that counts.
Digital was never as good as film cameras because scans could made at any pixel size. Digital made ‘ease of use’ the photographers dream for capture, but post processing made it a nightmare. I never released my raw images to the client.
My software for digital was Photoshop and Capture 1. I was always able to fool the client with digital even to the point of shooting full size Jpegs and converting them to Tiff files. The absolute majority of my work was for brochures 8 1/2 x 11, 11 x 17 and magazine formats, the billboards were for Trade Shows the majority of the time and could be rendered up to any size by mere interpolation of pixels.
I am now retired 9 years and feel sorry for people who buy into the ‘if I only had a better camera’ ideology to produce better work. Go on the internet and google the best 35mm format photographers back in the 60′ 70’s 80’s 90’s you will see some amazing work. They actually had to know how to use a light meter and had had thorough working knowledge of lighting and composition. BTW this formula still applies today.
Give a digital photographer a ‘film camera’ and see how inept they are. Give a digital medium format photographer and have him try to use all the features of a 4×5 camera with swings,tilts, rise & fall to create a finished product in-camera without the use of software, ready to go to post production. Digital has it’s advantages, absolutely, I wouldn’t go back to film because I’m L-A-Z-Y.