Choosing a 6x6 system for renewed film shooting... opinions wanted.

[Sirius Glass]

The open area on the 500CM mirror is ~56mm long, it's almost 62mm on the GMS - but it is true that the compound movement that places the GMS mirror lower into the light path is the main reason for the performance improvement.

20 years ago, the mirror foam on the original mirrors were not a problem, but I've seen a lot more focus issues in the last few years related to this foam, it appears that 30+ years is beyond the life expectancy, My 500cx is less than 30 years old, and is exhibiting this,

I have been using the 503 CX with the so called mirror problem since 2007 from day one with the 250mm lens and it has never been a problem. The camera was checked by the store's own Hasselblad service man who checked out the camera. Never a foam problem dealing with the mirror. You are looking for a tempest in a tea pot.

 

[itsdoable]

,snip> ...Even though I use all of these bodies, I'm not picking a body to use based on whether it has GMS or not. Properly aligned and calibrated body makes much more difference in real world use than GMS equipped body.

As noted earlier, mirror foam will go bad at the same time approximately as mirror dampening foam on focusing screen frame. Mirror will clunk directly against metal focusing screen frame and probably cause more vibration and additional wear.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the earlier mirror designs, as long as it has been maintained. I have no issues using either, but I have a preference for the GMS - probably because I've had to service a lot of mirrors, but not the GMS. (Yet!)

~15 years ago I replaced a lot of damping foam on the focus screen, but the mirror pads were fine. Recently I've seen a lot of mirror pad deterioration that affects focus. The camera starts to back focus before the mirror come loose and rattles, it's pretty subtle at the start.

...used to have a Mamiya 6MF body and the three lenses and I LOVED it. It is the camera that I most regret selling these days.

So, this is a quite easy decision, no? Unless you want to closer, but that requires a much more voluminous and heavy system

I also shoot the Mamiya 6MF, and it is a good machine with excellent lenses, probably better that than the Hasselbald V lenses (!!) but a limited range. It comes down to whether you like the Rangefinder or the ground glass view - I prefer the latter, so I use the Hasselblad and other SLRs more.

And as with all these aging beast, the camera is as good as it's service record. Much like planes...

 

[Light Capture]

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with the earlier mirror designs, as long as it has been maintained. I have no issues using either, but I have a preference for the GMS - probably because I've had to service a lot of mirrors, but not the GMS. (Yet!)

~15 years ago I replaced a lot of damping foam on the focus screen, but the mirror pads were fine. Recently I've seen a lot of mirror pad deterioration that affects focus. The camera starts to back focus before the mirror come loose and rattles, it's pretty subtle at the start.



I also shoot the Mamiya 6MF, and it is a good machine with excellent lenses, probably better that than the Hasselbald V lenses (!!) but a limited range. It comes down to whether you like the Rangefinder or the ground glass view - I prefer the latter, so I use the Hasselblad and other SLRs more.

And as with all these aging beast, the camera is as good as it's service record. Much like planes...

Agreed. It would be easy to predict if they used the same type of foam. At some point they changed mirror dampening foam to neoprene looking foam but bit softer. That one lasts long.
I'm replacing foam on focusing screen frame on every single camera now.
It looks fine when you look at it but if it's touched with something or pinched with tweezers, it disintegrates.
This wasn't the case even 5-10 years ago. It wasn't that bad. I guess they have shelf life and after that foam disintegrates. Most of these weren't serviced in a long time.

I have been using the 503 CX with the so called mirror problem since 2007 from day one with the 250mm lens and it has never been a problem. The camera was checked by the store's own Hasselblad service man who checked out the camera. Never a foam problem dealing with the mirror. You are looking for a tempest in a tea pot.

View attachment 298784

Agree on this as well. Sometimes, for some reason it doesn't affect things much. Guessing on some cameras it depends on how squeezed the mirror was in the frame and probably couldn't move too far out of position. 0.10-0.15mm isn't very visible in most situations even if it does introduce focusing error to some extent.
From what I can see factory specifications are very tight and at available viewfinder magnifications, it can't be really noticed for most real world shooting.

Biggest issue with the foam on focusing screen frame is that it starts throwing fine dust around at some point.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Agreed. It would be easy to predict if they used the same type of foam. At some point they changed mirror dampening foam to neoprene looking foam but bit softer. That one lasts long.
I'm replacing foam on focusing screen frame on every single camera now.
It looks fine when you look at it but if it's touched with something or pinched with tweezers, it disintegrates.
This wasn't the case even 5-10 years ago. It wasn't that bad. I guess they have shelf life and after that foam disintegrates. Most of these weren't serviced in a long time.



Agree on this as well. Sometimes, for some reason it doesn't affect things much. Guessing on some cameras it depends on how squeezed the mirror was in the frame and probably couldn't move too far out of position. 0.10-0.15mm isn't very visible in most situations even if it does introduce focusing error to some extent.
From what I can see factory specifications are very tight and at available viewfinder magnifications, it can't be really noticed for most real world shooting.

Biggest issue with the foam on focusing screen frame is that it starts throwing fine dust around at some point.

In my situation I have the PME [prism] which I bought with the 503 CX and only gets removed when I need to clean for dust. Therefore there is no contact with the foam and nothing to disturb it.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When I think of medium format system, I envision a camera that takes interchangeable backs. Since you want to shoot 6x6, I'd go for a Hasselblad.

 

[Sirius Glass]

When I think of medium format system, I envision a camera that takes interchangeable backs. Since you want to shoot 6x6, I'd go for a Hasselblad.

Words of a truly was man.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Words of a truly was man.

Hey. I'm still a man!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Hey. I'm still a man!

Still THE man.

 

[Light Capture]

In my situation I have the PME [prism] which I bought with the 503 CX and only gets removed when I need to clean for dust. Therefore there is no contact with the foam and nothing to disturb it.

Every time mirror goes up, it hits the foam under focusing screen frame. If you don't see the dust, it should be fine.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I'm learning a lot here everyone, so I appreciate the conversations... I was originally thinking I wanted a 501CM because of the mirror and general age aspects, but now it's clear to me that this isn't necessarily a real difference on the bodies I am looking at anyway, so that allows me to broaden my search a bit.

I'm also thinking seriously about maybe pulling back all the way to a 500CM and then immediately send it in for a CLA and refit where needed. That would maybe be a less expensive way to go and if ibuy the body and then upgrade the WL finder and get newer backs, I could be into a good kit without the total spend being too high.

Along these lines, is there a practical, performance, or quality difference between the older WL finder and the newer (plastic release button) version? The older one has a square magnifier and the newer one has a round one. Is either one berrer in some way?

Second, if I were to buy the body without backs, is there a sweet spot for quality on the A12 backs? Obviously, the newest could/should be in a bit better shape, but did the quality of manufacture decrease after the company was partially acquired? For example, they did make cost-cutting measures on the 501C and 501CM, and maybe on the others from that time as well (the camer cocked status window disappearing)... is there any evidence that the Mk III backs are better and more reliable than the Mk IV backs? The Mk IV have a pretty serious price premium. I'm OK with that if they mean the should be the most reliable... but if not, then I don't think I'd go there. I do like the DS holder though, so I'd probalby get those for whatever back I buy if they don't come pre-installed.

Possibly one additional consideration for the mirror discussion is macro shooting... I will do some of that at times and I will also likely get the 250mm lens, so it is a factor, although maybe not a primary decision. When shooting with the 120 makro or the 130 makro, does this mirror vignetting get substantialy worse when shooting 1:1? Those elements are getting pretty far out there at that point. I'm going to look into whether either of these lenses would beat my current solution for macro shooting on my Fuji GFX bodies for doing film digitization as well. I bet it might be a contender for the best results compared to the lenses I currently have here (Mamiya 645 120mm mcro and a bunch of the Olympus Auto Bellows kit with the range of lenses for that). It would be great to dispense with the Mamiya and just use the Hasselblad for field macro and also for film reproduction if it equals or beats the Mamiya.

 

[Light Capture]

I'm learning a lot here everyone, so I appreciate the conversations... I was originally thinking I wanted a 501CM because of the mirror and general age aspects, but now it's clear to me that this isn't necessarily a real difference on the bodies I am looking at anyway, so that allows me to broaden my search a bit.

I'm also thinking seriously about maybe pulling back all the way to a 500CM and then immediately send it in for a CLA and refit where needed. That would maybe be a less expensive way to go and if ibuy the body and then upgrade the WL finder and get newer backs, I could be into a good kit without the total spend being too high.

Along these lines, is there a practical, performance, or quality difference between the older WL finder and the newer (plastic release button) version? The older one has a square magnifier and the newer one has a round one. Is either one berrer in some way?

Second, if I were to buy the body without backs, is there a sweet spot for quality on the A12 backs? Obviously, the newest could/should be in a bit better shape, but did the quality of manufacture decrease after the company was partially acquired? For example, they did make cost-cutting measures on the 501C and 501CM, and maybe on the others from that time as well (the camer cocked status window disappearing)... is there any evidence that the Mk III backs are better and more reliable than the Mk IV backs? The Mk IV have a pretty serious price premium. I'm OK with that if they mean the should be the most reliable... but if not, then I don't think I'd go there. I do like the DS holder though, so I'd probalby get those for whatever back I buy if they don't come pre-installed.

Possibly one additional consideration for the mirror discussion is macro shooting... I will do some of that at times and I will also likely get the 250mm lens, so it is a factor, although maybe not a primary decision. When shooting with the 120 makro or the 130 makro, does this mirror vignetting get substantialy worse when shooting 1:1? Those elements are getting pretty far out there at that point. I'm going to look into whether either of these lenses would beat my current solution for macro shooting on my Fuji GFX bodies for doing film digitization as well. I bet it might be a contender for the best results compared to the lenses I currently have here (Mamiya 645 120mm mcro and a bunch of the Olympus Auto Bellows kit with the range of lenses for that). It would be great to dispense with the Mamiya and just use the Hasselblad for field macro and also for film reproduction if it equals or beats the Mamiya.

500C/M should work well for anything you need. If you plan doing lots of studio shooting adding 500ELX, or newer motorized body would be good addition and backup body.

2nd gen WLF with square magnifier and round button has 2.5x magnification and quirky manual folding. Latest one has 4.5x magnification and easy folding. This is highest magnification of all finders but, for some reason, I personally find chimney or prism viewfinders easier to focus precisely. First generation with rounded edges isn't as good optically as newer ones.

I didn't see much difference in real use between backs going from C12 manual backs through all 4 generations. Back is even more critical to be serviced than body. Older type of light seal is a weak spot. Also if grease solidified, it will overlap frames randomly on the roll.

I used 135mm bellows lens, 120mm C chrome, 120mm CB and 120mm CFE for negative scanning with digital back and with Nikon. The best practical results are actually obtained with Nikon and 55mm macro lens. Digital back produces better files but needs 120 or 135mm lens for coverage. At these magnifications and with considerable bellows extension, camera shake becomes real issue and Nikon with 55mm macro lens produces equal or better results more easily. With medium format setup and digital back, camera support has to be impeccable. This can be resolved to some extent by using strobe for backlighting negative.
When in live view motion can be observed with Nikon and 55mm lens easily but it works reasonably. With medium format setup shake is too objectionable unless strobe is used or extremely stable tripod / copy stand. That requires serious setup to beat Nikon and 55mm lens results.

Auto macro Hasselblad bellows are recommended solution. 120mm and 135mm lenses I used were equally good at 1:1 but again bellows extension is significant. I don't exactly remember the mirror cut-off with long extension on bellows but don't remember it being objectionable

 

[mshchem]

I like the newest A12 backs because of the darkslide storage. These type IV backs have gone up in price faster than Bitcoin. I bought a older A12 for $10, put in a new light seal and put a few drops of Kodak movie film cleaner (read solvent) and it works great. Worst thing for a mechanical camera and backs is sitting for years without use.

 

[Jeremy Mudd]

I don't think you can go wrong with a 1st or 2nd Generation Type A back. I'd give a slight nod to the 2nd Gen in terms of being less likely to jam - its only happened to me twice with the 1st gen but when it happens its bad. They are not tolerant if you get some janky film (CATLABS, ahem) that doesn't have the film taped to the paper.

There are aftermarket dark slide holders available on eBay that attached to the earlier backs. I have 2 with them on them and I like it as a convenience. Never have to worry about where to put the darkslide.

Jeremy

 

[itsdoable]

... I was originally thinking I wanted a 501CM because of the mirror and general age aspects, but now it's clear to me that this isn't necessarily a real difference on the bodies I am looking at anyway, so that allows me to broaden my search a bit.

I'm also thinking seriously about maybe pulling back all the way to a 500CM and then immediately send it in for a CLA and refit where needed... <snip>

I'll mostly repeat what others have said...

The 500c/m is an excellent body, it has been in production the longest, with the best service support. It was favored by our ex-Hasselbald repair man, who always called the cx a "different beast". Just pay some attention to ensuring it's properly calibrated and working. <Sirius Glass> is lucky in that he lives in an area with a reliable local Hasselblad dealer so he never gets "mint" equipment with internal issues

The old and new WLF are the same optically (4.5x magnification - not 2.5x or 5x and LC said, unless I'm missing something - please correct me otherwise), both work well, I use them interchangeably. The old WLF just takes longer to close. The chimney finder is 2.5x, but has a continuously adjustable diopter, which for some people allow better focus. And the rubber eye-cup keeps extraneous light out. I prefer the WLF as it has the highest magnification, which I find important for precise focus.

Backs that have been maintained work the best, regardless of age. I use the C12 back the most, as I don't like the rapid-wind crank hanging out there, I prefer the key that can be folded flat so it does not catch on anything when going in and out of the backpack/bag. My friend abhors the C12 on my 203fe as he does not like the Franken-camera look - YMMV. I got use to putting the dark slide in my pocket in the '80s, so it's habit. Besides, I have dozens of them, a few in every bag and desk.

Macro - I rarely do macro with the Hasselblad, just some close-up that may involve an extension tube. Vignetting in the finder increases with the back focus, and macro increases this - but I never found it an issue. It just darkens the top of the screen, you get use to it. But I don't think it will beat your GFX for film digitization - except maybe the leaf shutter - pay attention to LC's warning about good technique.

 

[Light Capture]

I'll mostly repeat what others have said...

The 500c/m is an excellent body, it has been in production the longest, with the best service support. It was favored by our ex-Hasselbald repair man, who always called the cx a "different beast". Just pay some attention to ensuring it's properly calibrated and working. <Sirius Glass> is lucky in that he lives in an area with a reliable local Hasselblad dealer so he never gets "mint" equipment with internal issues

The old and new WLF are the same optically (4.5x magnification - not 2.5x or 5x and LC said, unless I'm missing something - please correct me otherwise), both work well, I use them interchangeably. The old WLF just takes longer to close. The chimney finder is 2.5x, but has a continuously adjustable diopter, which for some people allow better focus. And the rubber eye-cup keeps extraneous light out. I prefer the WLF as it has the highest magnification, which I find important for precise focus.

Backs that have been maintained work the best, regardless of age. I use the C12 back the most, as I don't like the rapid-wind crank hanging out there, I prefer the key that can be folded flat so it does not catch on anything when going in and out of the backpack/bag. My friend abhors the C12 on my 203fe as he does not like the Franken-camera look - YMMV. I got use to putting the dark slide in my pocket in the '80s, so it's habit. Besides, I have dozens of them, a few in every bag and desk.

Macro - I rarely do macro with the Hasselblad, just some close-up that may involve an extension tube. Vignetting in the finder increases with the back focus, and macro increases this - but I never found it an issue. It just darkens the top of the screen, you get use to it. But I don't think it will beat your GFX for film digitization - except maybe the leaf shutter - pay attention to LC's warning about good technique.

I got 2.5x and 4.5x magnification numbers out of Richard Nordin's Hasselblad Compendium. Didn't check it to compare with other reference books. I can't see too much difference in magnification but view of the whole screen looks wider and more clear with the latest one. I found the same with later prism finders. It's easier to see clearly to the edges of the focusing screen with newer ones. If focusing screen position is calibrated properly it will focus correctly anywhere on the screen.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I have mostly older backs because I bought them used over ten years ago and I tended to buy older backs and had them serviced. I have not had any problems with the backs once serviced. I occasional, usually before a big trip have the light seals checked and replaced as necessary.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Thanks all...

Just for clarity, I meant that I would use the 120mm makro with an adapter on the GFX to do the film digitizing, so it would be very similar to the Mamiya 120mm macro that I had intended to use in a similar manner (I've not tried it for this purpose, but I have to get some good quality files from some 4x5 film that I shot about a decade ago and I'll test it compared to the Olympus macro gear I have (also adapted to the GFX) and the Microtek scanner, which makes quite respectable scans). I have a series of documentary images that need to be digitized so I have to resolve what path is the best for my needs and then do the process of scanning about 500 sheets of 4x5 film.

After that, the scanning will be used to get the film shot from this 6x6 and the 617 cameras into the digital realm. I'll stitch the 617 frame with three shots probably.

I think I've settled on a 501c that is in great shape and had a CLA about a month ago... It should be good for my needs and I can focus on choosing lenses now. I have a 50mm CF FLE on the way. I am leaning towards the 100mm and then the 180 or the 250 for a third.

 

[Light Capture]

Thanks all...

Just for clarity, I meant that I would use the 120mm makro with an adapter on the GFX to do the film digitizing, so it would be very similar to the Mamiya 120mm macro that I had intended to use in a similar manner (I've not tried it for this purpose, but I have to get some good quality files from some 4x5 film that I shot about a decade ago and I'll test it compared to the Olympus macro gear I have (also adapted to the GFX) and the Microtek scanner, which makes quite respectable scans). I have a series of documentary images that need to be digitized so I have to resolve what path is the best for my needs and then do the process of scanning about 500 sheets of 4x5 film.

After that, the scanning will be used to get the film shot from this 6x6 and the 617 cameras into the digital realm. I'll stitch the 617 frame with three shots probably.

I think I've settled on a 501c that is in great shape and had a CLA about a month ago... It should be good for my needs and I can focus on choosing lenses now. I have a 50mm CF FLE on the way. I am leaning towards the 100mm and then the 180 or the 250 for a third.

120mm CF makro will focus without extension tubes or bellows down to 1:4.5 magnification. CFE and CFi should be the same. Extension tubes or bellows are needed to cover 4x5 film.

Here's the link to Extension tube user manual on Hasselblad Historical: http://hasselbladhistorical.eu/PDF/HasManuals/Extubes.pdf
You can see what will work for you and how much extension is needed for required magnifications on GFX. Auto bellows have advantages since they have tripod mount and extension is variable. Extension tubes also have advantage. They are easier to use and more compact if higher magnifications isn't needed. There is also variable extension tube but it's relatively rare and costs quite a bit more than regular extension tubes.

 

[Arthurwg]

I use a strip of black masking tape over the dark slide slot when shooting, just to be safe. I note that one of Ansel's most famous images, Moon and Half Dome, was shot on a Hasselblad and the negative shows major light leaks on the left side. He could not have printed it square if he had wanted to.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

OK, so can someone explain the difference among the C (not the old c, but the new C), CB and CF lenses?

I think I have this straight... (old) C ---> CF ---> CFI/CFE for thenormal lenses, and later in the CF series, they did the (new) C (for 100, I think), which are basically identical to the CF lenses but were branded for the 501C I think, and then somewhere in there after the introduction of the CFI/CFE lenses, they added the CB lenses which took away the F capability (no matter for the V cameras) and also in at least one case simplified the optics to produce a budget line, but it has the CFI/CFE design. Does that sound about right?

So if I'm looking for an 80mm CF, an 80mm (new)C is the same, but the 80mm CB is (in theory, but probably not in practice) inferior, but it has the newer knurling.

I'm still trying to decide between an 80mm and a 100mm, but the 80's are seemingly nearly the same price as the 100's these days, so dropping back to an 80 isn't really a cost discount that I was thinking it would be. I was somewhat expecting from what I'd read that I would be able to buy an 80 and 150 for about the cost of a 100... but that doesn't really seem to be true at all.

 

[Sirius Glass]

From Hasselblad Compendium Ricard Nordin 2011

• C lenses, 1957 to about 1972-73, were the first of the V series lenses using the Compur shutter, are silver colored, I find them less ergonomic and a bit harder to handle. Most of them use B50 filters. Non T* with only one coating. I only have two of these the 30mm Fisheye and the 500mm lenses, because I got them at a price that I could not walk away from. Some of the parts, springs, are getting hard to find and service can be harder to get.
• Black C,1973 to 1982, lenses also use B50 filters and may come with the T* multicoatings.
• CF, 1982 to 1998, lenses use the Prontor shutter, have the T* multicoatings. Parts and service are readily available. These and later lenses use B60 filters for most of the lenses. These lenses can be used with focal plane shutters. There rest of my lenses are CF lenses due to the time I bought them.
• "New" C,1994 to 1997, supplied with the 501C camera bodies, the lenses have the F function removed. This can cause confusion. The f/stop ring and shutter speed ring cannot be linked together [For me that is a big PITA].
• CB. Fall 1997 to 2000, 60mm, 80mm, 120mm, 160mm "The design of the CB lenses incorporated several new features: a more legible scale letting and postive gripof the shutter -speed setting ring. All grip controls were designed to be used with gloves. A new low-friction focusing mechanism allows a more "loose" focus feel."
• CFi, 1998, "The CFi improvements include: new internal design and new anti-reflective materials, improve design and new main spring made of a specially durable materidal called Nivarox, a new PC-socket with a postive lock, which secures the flash contact more securely, a redesigned focusing mechanism, which turns more smoothly, ..."
• CFE 1998 has the CFi improvements with electronic contacts.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

Thanks... looking at the MTFs for the CB vs. the CF, there are some interesting differences between the 80mm and the 160-150mm lenses. Not huge, but there are differences. The CB both appear to have a bit more distortion than the CF versions, and there are differences in performance that are clearly visible in both falloff and S&T MTF

 

[Light Capture]

In general from what I read about C and CB lenses, some have even better center performance but edges are slightly worse. CF, CFE and CFi have more even performance across whole image. Some of them seem to be identical. 80mm and 160mm are definitely different.
New CF looking model 80mm C (derived from CF) also has some differences in barrel design apart from F setting removal. I don't have data sheet handy for this lens but believe it's also different than regular CF.

 

[Arthurwg]

Note that the 60mm CB and CF lenses are optically identical.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Note that the 60mm CB and CF lenses are optically identical.

No, not quite. Some CB lenses has fewer elements than the CB lenses. One has to compare each focal length separately.