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,
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!),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.
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.So, this is a quite easy decision, no? Unless you want to closer, but that requires a much more voluminous and heavy system...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.
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...
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'll mostly repeat what others have said...... 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.
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.
Note that the 60mm CB and CF lenses are optically identical.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?