Default focusing screen of Hasselblad 501 CM "good enough"?

[sterioma]

Hi,

I am considering buying my first Hasselblad (body and lenses). I saw a good 501 CM from early 2000s, but I am a bit hesitant as it come with the "stock" screen [UPDATE: it looks like it's not not the stock screen but an older one, presumably replaced by the previous owner]

I have read in various places that an acute matte screen is (much?) brighter and most reviewers recommend getting one. I also understand that the old V series models had a relatively dim finder screen, but things had improved with later models.

So my question is, how much of an improvement is an acute matte screen versus a later 501CM stock finder? Is it worth the extra bucks/quids?

I am attaching a photo of the actual finder.

 

[film_man]

As far as I know the "stock" screen for the 501CM should be the Acute Matte D. That is the latest and greatest and it is one of the brightest screen I've ever used. Not sure how you recognise one over the older ones, I think the D has some notches on the metal frame or something, can't remember.

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes it’s good enough.

 

[sterioma]

Hi,

I am attaching a better photo of the finder.
Seller says he's not sure this was the stock one, previous owner may have changed it.

Anyone can help identify which version this would be? I don't see any notches on the frame.

Thanks

 

[Oldwino]

That’s an older stock screen. It is “okay” in bright light. My 500 c/m had that screen when I bought it, and I’ve since changed it out for an acute matte D screen. Much much better. Worth the money.
The older screens had the “+” in black. On the newer acute matte screen, the “+” is etched and not painted.

 

[Ted Baker]

The Acute Matte D have two little notches in the metal frame, that is not the original screen that came with the camera. I would expect to pay less for the camera.

 

[jim10219]

I've been using the stock ground glass on my 500c and don't have any issues using it. Yeah, I've seen brighter. But I've also seen darker. In any case, it works and is much cheaper than the Acute Matte. Personally, I'd try out the original ground glass before you consider replacing it. A lot of it will depend on how good your eyes are and your viewing habits. For me, I'm near sighted, so I have to get really close to the ground glass to focus anyway. That means my head will shadow the viewfinder well enough in bright light.

 

[ron917]

I recently inherited a 503CX with the stock Acute Matte D screen. It is VERY bright, but it is more difficult to focus than my Mamiya C220 (old, dim, very dirty screen).

The image on the Acute Matte D is almost an aerial image and it does not "pop" into focus. While very bright, there is less contrast than on dimmer screens.

I would recommend trying the old style screen, only update if you have problems in dim light. If you can borrow an Acute Matte or Acute Matted D screen, try it out and see which you prefer.

 

[Ted Baker]

I recently inherited a 503CX with the stock Acute Matte D screen.

The CX did not have the "D" screen as stock it had the earlier model which was AFAIK replaced for the exact reason you describe. If it doesn't have the two notches it is the earlier screen. I believe the D stands for diffused, or something like that.

 

[ron917]

The CX did not have the "D" screen as stock it had the earlier model which was AFAIK replaced for the exact reason you describe. If it doesn't have the two notches it is the earlier screen. I believe the D stands for diffused, or something like that.

My screen has the 2 notches, so it is the "D" screen. It is the plain screen with cross hairs (not sure of the model number).

It's possible that the original owner updated the screen, but I don't have any receipt or box for it. I do have the receipts and boxes for everything else in the kit.

 

[jim10219]

I recently inherited a 503CX with the stock Acute Matte D screen. It is VERY bright, but it is more difficult to focus than my Mamiya C220 (old, dim, very dirty screen).

The image on the Acute Matte D is almost an aerial image and it does not "pop" into focus. While very bright, there is less contrast than on dimmer screens.

I would recommend trying the old style screen, only update if you have problems in dim light. If you can borrow an Acute Matte or Acute Matted D screen, try it out and see which you prefer.

This is an excellent point. The thing with focusing screens or ground glass is there is always a compromise. The courser the grit used to grind the glass, the brighter the image will be. But the finer the grit used to grind the glass, the better detail that it will render. So a super bright ground glass or focusing screen won't show near as much detail as a darker one can. There's always a trade off.

 

[Ted Baker]

The acute matte screens are not traditional ground glass screens AFAIK, they use micro lens or something like that. The "D" version was an an attempt to reduce the aerial image for more accurate focusing, without destroying the brightness. I always used the "D" version so I was blissfully unaware of the difference.

 

[film_man]

Hi,

I am attaching a better photo of the finder.
Seller says he's not sure this was the stock one, previous owner may have changed it.

Anyone can help identify which version this would be? I don't see any notches on the frame.

Thanks

Considering that an Acute Matte D goes for 200-300 I'd adjust the price accordingly. Even if you are not fussed about it, should you decide to sell the camera you'll take a hit.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My CX came with an Accumat D screen which I eventually changed to an Accumat D screen with the +. I like lining up the horizontals and verticals with the lines. That keeps the horizons straight and verticals going up properly.

 

[Alan Gales]

I took a Hasselblad 500/cm in on trade. It came with a Beattie Intenscreen installed but also included the original screen (pre-Accumat). I tried the original screen to see what it looked like. It wasn't bad but after using the Beattie I didn't want to use it. The Beattie was much brighter and a joy to use. From what I have read on this forum the Accumat is even a little better than the Beattie Intenscreen. If I ever bought another Hasselblad I would definitely get a later model with the Accumat.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I took a Hasselblad 500/cm in on trade. It came with a Beattie Intenscreen installed but also included the original screen (pre-Accumat). I tried the original screen to see what it looked like. It wasn't bad but after using the Beattie I didn't want to use it. The Beattie was much brighter and a joy to use. From what I have read on this forum the Accumat is even a little better than the Beattie Intenscreen. If I ever bought another Hasselblad I would get definitely get a later model with the Accumat.

I have an F2 with an intenscreen, it is very nearly impossible to focus with.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have an F2 with an intenscreen, it is very nearly impossible to focus with.

That's interesting E.

I owned the Blad for a little over a year. I mostly shot people hand held. Some outdoors but a lot indoors with flash. I found it very easy to focus even indoors. Like I said, it was a joy to use.

Oh, I used the waist level finder outdoors and Hasselblad non-metered prism finder indoors with a flash bracket which located the flash high above the camera.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

That's interesting E.

I owned the Blad for a little over a year. I mostly shot people hand held. Some outdoors but a lot indoors with flash. I found it very easy to focus even indoors. Like I said, it was a joy to use.

Perhaps a difference in the screens between 35 and mf?
In for instance a convenience store, 50mm f:2, it appeared to be "in focus" from 15 or 20f to infinity. The standard Nikon screens allowed focussing on objects only a couple inches before or behind each other.
I NEVER have had this issue with any other GG, in any format from 35 to 8x10, I might misfocus once every couple years.

 

[Alan Gales]

Perhaps a difference in the screens between 35 and mf?
In for instance a convenience store, 50mm f:2, it appeared to be "in focus" from 15 or 20f to infinity. The standard Nikon screens allowed focussing on objects only a couple inches before or behind each other.
I NEVER have had this issue with any other GG, in any format from 35 to 8x10, I might misfocus once every couple years.

I heard that bright screens were initially designed for the large format shooter and later made smaller due to demand.

There also could be sample variations. I know nothing about Beattie's quality control.

Yeah, I rarely misfocus a manual lens. Autofocus? Well, that's another story.

 

[crumpet8]

I THink it depends on how you shoot. I’ve had both and the reason for getting the newer screen was for use in studio/low light settings with filters. Overall I liked the newer screen better with or without filters.

Keep in mind using a WLF vs prism makes a difference too

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I heard that bright screens were initially designed for the large format shooter and later made smaller due to demand.

There also could be sample variations. I know nothing about Beattie's quality control.

Yeah, I rarely misfocus a manual lens. Autofocus? Well, that's another story.

I have a Maxxum 7000 with an Acute Matte screen, it works very well for manual focus. I wish it fit the Nikons.

 

[Alan Gales]

I have a Maxxum 7000 with an Acute Matte screen, it works very well for manual focus. I wish it fit the Nikons.

I remember when the 7000 came out. I was working in the Cameras and Sporting Goods department at a Venture store. Before we got the camera, Minolta sent us this huge informational packet on the Maxxum. I talked my boss into letting me take it home for the night to read. I was such a camera geek!

Our customers thought it was the best camera ever made. They loved not having to focus the lens. Myself, I preferred manually focussing my Contax 139 and dreamed of owning a Hasselblad. Different strokes!

 

[Slixtiesix]

This is an older screen. You can distinguish it very easily from the Acute Matte (D) because the cross is painted, while it is etched in on the newer screens. If the camera is in good shape overall, I would ask for a 100-200 GBP price drop, depending on how reasonable the price already is.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm not sure when the Acute Matte was introduced, but I bought a new 501C in 1994 and it had the Acute Matte as the standard screen. So, the later 501CM should've had it - strange that your photo shows the older screen.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi,

I am considering buying my first Hasselblad (body and lenses). I saw a good 501 CM from early 2000s, but I am a bit hesitant as it come with the "stock" screen [UPDATE: it looks like it's not not the stock screen but an older one, presumably replaced by the previous owner]

I have read in various places that an acute matte screen is (much?) brighter and most reviewers recommend getting one. I also understand that the old V series models had a relatively dim finder screen, but things had improved with later models.

So my question is, how much of an improvement is an acute matte screen versus a later 501CM stock finder? Is it worth the extra bucks/quids?

I am attaching a photo of the actual finder.

trouble to accurately focus is one of the most frequent complaints with the Hasselblad System. I had the same issue and tried a few screens. The one that worked best for me was the split screen accurate. I don't think brightness is so much an issue but the split screen really helps.