Talk:Hasselblad

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhotographyWikipedia:WikiProject PhotographyTemplate:WikiProject PhotographyPhotography articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject History of photography.

Spaceflight Low‑importance

	Spaceflight portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sweden Mid‑importance

	Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wrong dates in history

There are some dates in the History in the 1900's that almost certainly should be in the 1800's, since George Eastman died a long time ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.79.236.10 (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After checking the edit history and several external sources, this appears to be vandalism, which I've now fixed. User:Axisixa [talk] [contribs] 00:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12 Hasselblads left on the Moon?

The article says that 12 Hasselblads were left on the Moon. But Apollo 11 only had one Hasselblad on the Moon. Also, I'm not sure if they were left on the moon because I think that the magazines show some photos taken after leaving the moon, but I'm not sure of that. Bubba73 (talk), 19:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They were indeed left on the Moon. To make room for rock samples. They also forgot a magazine with exposed film once, left it on the Moon too. Photos taken after leaving the Moon were taken using cameras aboard the CM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.96.160 (talk) 00:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Ernst Wildi

This page is missing reference to what is probably the most widely accepted reference on the history and use of Hasselblad cameras - The Hasselblad manual. http://www.amazon.com/Hasselblad-Manual-Fifth-Ernst-Wildi/dp/024080385X

Going through sale

this statement is not quite correct, since not only Mamiya was sold, but also Hasselblad, namely to Shiro. The prospect is also POV, as it is pretty unuclear whether Hasselblad will survive in the long run. They do face the same challenges as their MF competitors, i.e. pressure from Canon (and maybe from Leeica S2 as well?) Thyl Engelhardt 213.70.217.172 (talk) 08:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine Canon applying much pressure to the H3 consumer, given that the two consumer bases are completely and totally different. While it is true that Shiro Sweden is the holding company for Hasse, I'm not sure we have any current market data to point at. If you can source it, that would be very relevant information. thescimitar (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)thescimitar[reply]

corvus 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prices out of date?

The prices listed on the H-System seem out of date; does this section even need prices? Info seems superfluous. Exsfo (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the prices don't seem to add value to the article Erbureth (talk) 16:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Paul_A has proposed that 500cm be merged into Hasselblad.

Support - clearly part of the larger articles scope. Heds (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did DJI buy the company?

I revised that content with more specifics and a new source that covers the reports very well. Not yet confirmed however.

Still, we do know that DJI acquired minority interest in late 2015. See http://www.hasselblad.com/our-world/hasselblad-and-dji-form-strategic-partnership and https://www.engadget.com/2015/11/05/dji-buys-stake-in-high-end-camera-firm-hasselblad/ Peter K Burian (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hasselblad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:52, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Hasselblad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Armstrong's bag

In the section on the Apollo program, the following appears:

"Neil Armstrong's Hasselblad camera was thought to be lost or left on the Moon surface.[18] In 2015, after Armstrong died in 2012, his widow contacted the National Air and Space Museum to inform them she had found a white cloth bag in one of Armstrong's closets. The bag contained a forgotten camera that had been used to capture images of the first Moon landing.[19][20] The camera is currently on display at the National Air and Space Museum.[21]"

I propose to delete this entire paragraph, as, if you click through the links, the camera in question was a 16mm movie camera, not a Hasselblad, and is thus entirely irrelevant and even actively misleading, as in the context of the article and as written, it leads the reader to think that the camera found in the bag was a Hasselblad previously thought to be left on the moon, but that's not the case at all. I wanted to put this up for comment before making such an extensive edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.177.148 (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No adverse comments so edit made with appropriate justification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.114.177.148 (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section on the modular nature of the Hasselblad V series

The information that highlights the components of the modular V system of cameras, the list of available accessories including types of focusing screens, film backs, and their respective timelines are missing. HasselbladWhisperer (talk) 17:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hasselblad Universal

The article says: "Hasselblad Universal camera, which was made by Szilárd Szabad. ... It is perhaps the most important Hasselblad camera made, as it was what got Scandinavian professionals to move away from Kodak and Agfa, which had more or less 90% of the professional market at the time." Firstly, who is Szilárd Szabad? If the camera was made by him, that would mean Hasselblad was doing badge engineering. Possible, but I doubt it (at that time, of course they did a lot of it recently). And it could hardly be called a Hasselblad camera, and would that really mean it convinced professionals of Hasselblad? Possible, but I haven't read that anywhere (the German wikipeida doesn't know about the Universal at all, for example). Secondly, it can't be true that Agfa and Kodak were used by 80% of professionals, in Scandinavia or somewhere else. Agfa never was a professional brand (it was popular and big, but not with professionals) and also Kodak wasn't that big in the professional business. The camera for reporters for a long time was a Rolleiflex, and other big names for professionals (the photographic market was dominated by German companies, Japan being an emerging country in the industry at this point) were Zeiss Ikon or Leica. A source for that 80% Agfa and Kodak figure would be good, it must almost certainly be wrong.--2001:BB8:2002:2400:19EB:5E5E:32D5:9587 (talk) 18:08, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]