Hasselblad standard v gliding mirror

[mesh]

I've been doing a bit of research but just wanted to confirm with some Hassy users please... assuming you don't care about the viewfinder vingetting, is there any other reason to go for a model with a gliding mirror?

I am not fussed with TTL flash metering either. I realise the 501cm's and 503CW's will generally be much newer etc, but a 500cm and a good CLA is still considerably cheaper. Just making sure I am not missing something obvious ;-) My only thought was whether the gliding mirror might be more accurate for focussing perhaps?

Out of interest, are there any inherent disadvantages to the gliding mirror?

Thanks very much.

 

[Q.G.]

No. If you don't care about the vignetting, there is no other advantage the bigger mirror would offer that would make the models with the gliding mirror more desirable.
Possible that the mirror mechanism in the 555 ELD is more robust (it's the only 'ordinary' Hasselblad having the NASA-specification version of the mirror mechanism).

And no, there are no disadvantages to the gliding mirror either.

So if you don't mind the vignetting, and you can find a well kept 500 C/M (both entirely feasible), no need to get a more expensive newer model.

 

[mesh]

Thanks for clearing that up QG - I was hoping you might respond ;-) Much appreciated.

 

[Alan9940]

I've been doing a bit of research but just wanted to confirm with some Hassy users please... assuming you don't care about the viewfinder vingetting, is there any other reason to go for a model with a gliding mirror?

I am not fussed with TTL flash metering either. I realise the 501cm's and 503CW's will generally be much newer etc, but a 500cm and a good CLA is still considerably cheaper. Just making sure I am not missing something obvious ;-) My only thought was whether the gliding mirror might be more accurate for focussing perhaps?

Out of interest, are there any inherent disadvantages to the gliding mirror?

Thanks very much.

And, the only vignetting that I've ever noticed is with the 250CF lens. All others are fine. This is on a 500C/M.

Regards,
AlanH

 

[BenZucker]

I have an old 500cm and a 553elx. on the CM with my 150mm/250mm the top of the frame in the viewfinder is obscured, on the elx(the elx has the gliding mirror) this does not happen. Hope this helps.

 

[rwboyer]

And, the only vignetting that I've ever noticed is with the 250CF lens. All others are fine. This is on a 500C/M.

Regards,
AlanH

It is obviously there with every non GLS mirror 500 that I have ever owned or still do at 150mm and worse as you go longer. It is barely detectable at 120mm and really does not limit composition at all in any way. With a 150mm it really does not limit composition much but.... the edge is really really really dark - as in you cannot see the top edge of the frame.

RB

 

[William Markey]

I have a 500CM and lenses up to 250mm - the vignetting is very slight and doesn't bother me in the least. I think people make way too much out of the vignetting - it's not a big deal at all.

 

[mesh]

Thanks very much for the info.

After I first purchased my first 500cm a year ago, I went to a good tech for a CLA and learned heaps about the camera. I may have misunderstood him, but I was told that the standard mirrors rely on foam bumpers to stay in position - and obviously if those bumpers are worn, then focussing would be off. Extrapolating this, I got it into my head that the gliding mirror must be more accurate over time, since the mirror would be held in position more securely and wouldn't need to be maintained as much... Probably a case of thinking 1 +1 = 3 ;-)

I was having a really good look at my 500cm body about a month ago and it seems the mirror rests on little metal hinges, and on the only foam is located on the top of the body for the mirror up position. I can only assume this foam can't affect focussing but must make a difference to noise?? So anyway, I think I might have had wrong information or I misunderstood what I was being told. The reason I was concerned about it is that my first two bodies seem to focus very poorly (admittedly they were old, beat up and very cheap!) I almost gave up on Hasselblad, but bought a third body (at a proper price) and it has been really wonderful. I guess the reasons for the older bodies being out could be a number of other things like misalignment of the body, focus screen not seated or twisting of the mirror perhaps... so can I assume that foam in the top of the body can't affect focussing?

Anyway, it's just enjoyable to learn more about the mechanics. I think (rather than say a 501cm) that my next body might be a 503cx if I want to try TTL flash or otherwise another 500cm with a good CLA. All fun!

Thanks for all your assistance.

 

[Q.G.]

I was having a really good look at my 500cm body about a month ago and it seems the mirror rests on little metal hinges, and on the only foam is located on the top of the body for the mirror up position.

The foam pads (no. 4 in the image below) are underneath the mirror (no. 5), in the pan the glass lies in (no. 3). You can't see them unless you take the mirror out of that pan.

If these thingies deteriorate, the mirror will eventually sag and may cause problems with focus.
But that doesn't happen much. The picture shows how these things work: they push the mirror up against the metal frame (no. 6). And that frame is what sets the correct mirror position.
So these foam pads only need to do two things. The first is absorb the shock when the mirror comes to a rest after flipping up (the foam you have located does the same). The second is be thick enough to keep the mirror pressed up against the frame.

The fact that a camera is old does not automatically mean these pads will have gone bad. And even if they go bad, that does not automatically mean that they do not still push the mirror against the frame.


Focussing error (the type not produced by the person doing the focussing) is mostly due to incorrect body length. Something a competent repair person should be able to check and fix without too much trouble.


(P.S.
The picture shows the mirror arrangement in non-GMS cameras. In GMS cameras, the thing is different. The 503 CW, for instance, has a blade spring underneath the mirror, instead of foam pads.)

 

[mesh]

Q.G. - thank you very much. That makes total sense now. So does that means a gliding mirror still has the foam pads or are they unnecessary for that type of mirror? The original tech I used said the mirror foam would only last 7 years at best... but then tech's are often over-cautious ;-) Anyway thanks a lot - I feel as though I have almost 'got it' now!

 

[Q.G.]

I see i was writing my "P.S." while you were writing your question about GMS cameras.
The arrangement in cameras with the new mirror geometry differs, is not the same in all different GMS cameras. As mentioned in my "P.S.", the 503 CW has a metal blade spring instead of foam pads. I must check to be sure, but i believe that indeed some other do not have a similar, analogous device.

 

[speculum]

500c/m miirror problem?

My 500c/m works fine, however after firing (uncocked position) the front of the mirror hangs down some 4mm or so into the front body opening. When I push it back up it stays in place but the tension is definitely less than that of my 501c's mirror. Exposures are not vignetted or otherwise affected. Is there a part that needs to be changed or serviced? Appreciate any help on this.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

No. If you don't care about the vignetting, there is no other advantage the bigger mirror would offer that would make the models with the gliding mirror more desirable.
Possible that the mirror mechanism in the 555 ELD is more robust (it's the only 'ordinary' Hasselblad having the NASA-specification version of the mirror mechanism).

And no, there are no disadvantages to the gliding mirror either.

So if you don't mind the vignetting, and you can find a well kept 500 C/M (both entirely feasible), no need to get a more expensive newer model.

same here for the 501c model.

 

[PKM-25]

I love the 500 C/M for super long night shots because I can use the T lock setting right on the shutter release and not need a cable release, a feature my 501 C/M does not have, FYI...

 

[Chris Lange]

The vignetting becomes dramatically worse once you introduce extension tubes into the mix. I wrestled with it fiercely when I was doing night-time portrait work with my ELM and 500C, it was annoying on the 150 with a 10mm extension tube, it was downright frustrating on the 250 with a 56mm extension tube...sometimes the 10mm and the 56mm. Easily 1/4 of my frame or more was obscured, meaning to I had to drastically adjust my tripod to focus on their eyes, and readjust it to frame each person the way I wanted. A veritable nightmare. My heart ached for a 501CM at that point.

 

[Tom Richard]

Possible that the mirror mechanism in the 555 ELD is more robust (it's the only 'ordinary' Hasselblad having the NASA-specification version of the mirror mechanism).

Q.G, do you know which upgrades have been done to the "NASA - specification" mirrorassembly?

 

[MattKing]

Q.G, do you know which upgrades have been done to the "NASA - specification" mirrorassembly?

Q.G. has left the building.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank God!

 

[Xmas]

My 500c/m works fine, however after firing (uncocked position) the front of the mirror hangs down some 4mm or so into the front body opening. When I push it back up it stays in place but the tension is definitely less than that of my 501c's mirror. Exposures are not vignetted or otherwise affected. Is there a part that needs to be changed or serviced? Appreciate any help on this.

you need a separate thread.
try firing on B without a lens is it the same with button held down? if it drops after exposure it won't affect photos otherwise long night shots may have internal reflections.
could be missing foam mirror bumper not got mine to hand to try think it closes completely but don't see how that would cause a problem as you describe
a 500c has a foam bumper or my old one had...

 

[Douglas Fairbank]

Q.G. - thank you very much. That makes total sense now. So does that means a gliding mirror still has the foam pads or are they unnecessary for that type of mirror? The original tech I used said the mirror foam would only last 7 years at best... but then tech's are often over-cautious ;-) Anyway thanks a lot - I feel as though I have almost 'got it' now!

You are right when you say the gliding mirror system does not have the supporting foam pads and will not have the problem with the foam pads perishing. The reasons for the foam perishing are hard to track down. For many years it was hardly ever a problem and then the foam supports of the mirror and other foam components of cameras started to fail after a few years and I know the factory didn't change the material. This is just a guess from me but it seemed to happen after catalytic converters were first made mandatory for cars (in the UK at least) and many of you will remember the familiar rotten egg smell that some cars gave off, I hardly ever smell that now. You may have your own conspiracy theory, lets hear them.
I am pleased to say that things appear to have improved and the new foam material now used seems to have a much longer life.

 

[Tom Richard]

Q.G. has left the building.

Sorry, didnt notice the thread start date.