Hasselblad film backs - C12 vs. A12

[mikebarger]

I have both A and C 12's. I always use the C's first just out of habit.

Mike

 

[Q.G.]

You will have noticed how on the back of the 1000 F, above the wind gear, a little pin shoots out briefly when you wind the camera.
Film magazines, including Polaroid magazines, must have a hole to allow that to happen.

The early, 1000-series magazines had a catch that needed to be tripped by that pin to allow winding (reason why you shouldn't use those behind a 500-series or later camera: it will wind, but also force the catch mechanism, breaking it).
Later magazines, though no longer needed when used with 500-series or later cameras, still had that hole.
But after a while, it disappeared.

The Polaroid magazines do not have that hole, so cannot be used on a 1000 F.

 

[Philippe-Georges]

BTW - Zeiss of all people did a study on the matching insert issue and found there to be ZERO difference between matching and non-matching inserts vis-a-vis sharpness - most concluded it was hasselblad hype to get people to buy new backs rather than 2nd hand ones.

It is not the sharpness that is the issue, but the transport and, particularly, the spacing between the neg’s. This was not tested by Zeiss, film transport mechanics is not their core business...

Philippe

 

[Q.G.]

The matching was done to have the rollers on the insert paired to the rollers on the shell such that the film runs under an exact angle between them and over the pressure plate, keeping it tau as best as possible.
It had nothing to do with frame spacing. Sorry!

As i mentioned elsewhere: the idea is sound. But not quite necessary, since the backs are made well enough that the film runs through it the best it can anyway.
A matter of people 'being anal' about quality 'being anal' about quality.


I have never seen or heard about a Zeiss study on this subject. Would be great to see it.
It may be a marketing thing. But since you can get plenty matched backs used as well as new, probably not for that reason.

 

[Venchka]

ok so i've got a 1000f. it has two backs, all is well. but i'm looking to get a polaroid back for it.

can someone educated on the subject please give me a rundown on the whole thing?

what backs (if any) will fit the 1000f? what polaroid film type should i use? is polaroid film still available enough that it would be worth it to get a back? where is a good place to buy from? et cetera....

please let me know! i'm looking to make a purchase soon.

thanks,
b.a.g.

Seems like it would only make sense if the Fuji instant print products fit the Polaroid back. There is no Polaroid material. Hasn't been made in 2+ years now.

 

[Q.G.]

Fuji doesn't make instant film backs, so yes, their films fit.

But Polaroid backs don't. Not on a 1000 F.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I leave the A24 and C12 backs for the collectors.

Steve

 

[mikebarger]

Thanks, I like getting the C12's for under $15 and sending them to David Odess ($80 bucks) for a CLA. Then just use them without worry.

I don't like spending a $100 on an unknown A12 back, then maybe have to have it serviced ($80) anyway.

But, that's the good thing about APUG... we each get to have an opinion and respect the other guys position.

Mike

 

[Q.G.]

There is nothing wrong with non-automatic backs.
The load sequence is a bit different, but so what?

 

[danieljenkins]

Unsure if I should start a new thread or continue with this one. Thought I had an a12 back but learned here it's a C12. This is my first Hasselblad (501cm). When loading the film and lining up the 1 in the center of the peep hole and setting the counter to 1, after shooting a few shots it seems like the numbers don't line up the same each time. Is this a problem? When I got to 12 I peeped through the window again and the film paper said 11 so I reset the counter to 1 and fired off one more shot in hopes to fill the frame. Of course I stopped there and wound the film to remove and reload the next roll.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[aoresteen]

AFAIR the NPC Polaroid back had the needed hole for use with the 1000F.

The Polaroid 80 back (30120) should NEVER even be mounted on a 1000F as the prodruding glass plate will strike the shutter curtian.

The Polaroid 100 back (30198) will work with the 1000F BUT you have to remove it BEFORE you cock the shutter due to the lack of the pin hole as Q.G. stated.


(edit: Thinking about it I might be wrong. Without the hole the shutter might not trip. Last time I used a Polaroid back with a 1000F was back in 1977)

Also, early C magazines with serial numbers below 20,000 will NOT work with the 500C & later cameras. I had one with my 1000F and was surprised to find out it didn't advance properly when I got a 500 C/M and tried to use it with it.

 

[mgb74]

Unsure if I should start a new thread or continue with this one. Thought I had an a12 back but learned here it's a C12. This is my first Hasselblad (501cm). When loading the film and lining up the 1 in the center of the peep hole and setting the counter to 1, after shooting a few shots it seems like the numbers don't line up the same each time. Is this a problem? When I got to 12 I peeped through the window again and the film paper said 11 so I reset the counter to 1 and fired off one more shot in hopes to fill the frame. Of course I stopped there and wound the film to remove and reload the next roll.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

I have a couple of C12 backs. I must admit I've never checked the window after first loading the film. The number markings are going to be based on the film manufacturers assumption of frame spacing. My H'blad backs seem to space closer than previous 120 cameras I've had. Keep in mind that the H'blad 645 back gets 16 frames per roll vs. 15 on most 645 cameras.

So the real question is whether your film back is spacing properly - look at an exposed roll to tell. I would say tha if, after a few shots, your way off then you're likely to have a problem. But the exposed roll tells all.