Hasselblad versions

[Arthurwg]

You're missing the point. If you know the seal is fine, don't tape it. Pretty simple, right? But if there's any question (and with a potentially 65-year-old back, there is always a question), put a strip of tape.

But maybe you prefer light leaks on your photos.

Tells it like it is.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Regarding the light seals, please do NOT leave the dark slide in the slot especially when not using magazines for longer periods. Light seals will live much longer if not compressed permanently. Of course, this advise only accounts when there is no film left in the magazine.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Regarding the light seals, please do NOT leave the dark slide in the slot especially when not using magazines for longer periods. Light seals will live much longer if not compressed permanently. Of course, this advise only accounts when there is no film left in the magazine.

I added dark slide holders to the Hasselblad film backs so that I do not lose or misplace dark slides.

 

[Ai Print]

No. Not at all. If you know when the light seal will fail, you must be psychic.

Let's put it this way: is it possible to regret putting tape over the opening? It sure is possible to regret not doing it.

I can not for the life of me understand why you are getting so much flak for what is a really smart move...

I have 14x A12 version III film magazines, I have replaced the light seals on several of them and do inspect those seals on a semi regular basis.

However, I also spend a ton of time and often significant money in making images in the great outdoors, often in very bright conditions like full sunlight on snow. If I deem the light blaring into the dark slide area of the camera to be a potential risk to an otherwise great image, you had better believe I am putting on a strip of gaffer's tape or at least using my ball cap or other hat over that area to prevent that light from sneaking in when the dark slide is out.

Just like in using large format, you use common sense and experience to prevent otherwise preventable issues with your photographs. It's just the right way to do things if you are serious about coming home with successful photographs.

 

[RezaLoghme]

The 500 c/m is a great camera. I bought it when my Mamiya 7 was taking forever to be repaired and I figured after I got it back I'd sell the Blad, and it would be kind of a rental. But 2 years on, and I'm selling the Mamiya. The 500 c/m is a masterpiece.

I recently bought a SWC 903 and I haven't picked up the 500 c/m or any of my other cameras since. Sure it's ultra wide, but it is so very sharp that cropping in post is available. And it is the essence of photography. No meter, no focusing screen. Everything has to be done mentally. I can't put it down. The greatest camera I've ever owned, without doubt.

MOST IMPORTANT: whatever you choose, it'll need maintenance sooner or later. Buying any film MF camera requires you to know whom you will be sending your camera to for, at a minimum, a CLA (cleaning, lubrication, adjustment). Based on my earlier experiences, I did things with the Blad in reverse order. I found a repairman I trusted and bought a Blad off him when one was available (https://barnowlcameras.net/). Never regretted that for a moment. Find a repair person and then buy a camera you know he can repair accurately, quickly, and reasonably.

Such an inspiring post! I never clicked with the WLF Hasselblads and found the prisms unwieldy. The SWC sounds like a salvation!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Such an inspiring post! I never clicked with the WLF Hasselblads and found the prisms unwieldy. The SWC sounds like a salvation!

You just might have to try one. If you can swing the price of a 903SWC I would go for that.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Yeah this time I would go for the real thing and buy the best camera available. In many photo forums you find people who are trying to achieve results by using repair-grade gear, tinkering with it, instead of working on their projects.

I had lost a lot of time and energy (and some money, too) by mending worn gear. As tempting as Hasselblads are, their modular architecture adds a lot of variables.

The SWCs sound like a MF version of Leica RFs. In late August I am travelling again to a special location, and it might be a great idea to find a SWC to accompany me.

Just trying to understand the different versions. Silver barrel lens models are too vintage for my taste, CF barrel ones a bit too modern.

 

[RezaLoghme]

When I posted earlier about the SWC as the "only" Hass to buy, I did forget about the motorised bodies which others did not skip on. After acquiring the (hugely disappointing) 503CW, I did go for the 553. For reasons likely related to overall added heft over non motorised 500s, it feels different, it sounds different, and handles different.

I'm on the bus carrying those who have hard time adjusting to how standard 500 box lands in the hand and operates, all of this is pretty much out the window with a motorised body. Add the still rather low price on these, competitive with any other MF brand, and so long as that extra height and weight is not a problem, you have a great controller of Hass lenses.

The best first tale of how badly a Hass was used is the condition of the back plate as it shows wear from switching film magazines. Motorised bodies were in their day just studio cameras and many went through significant repetitions. But even these days, there are many in near unused condition, as many were back ups, hardly saw any use.

To summarise my "Which Hass", SWC has its lens and does not require further investment in lenses, if that is all one needs. Once one goes with any other body, I want to point out the Flexbody, which to me after SWC and EL bodies is the one to remember about and "flexibility & fun" it adds to Hass kit.

All 500 standard bodies feel to me hollow, odd handling, and as such not what I thought I was getting into.

I fully agree. I had a lot of love for my 553ELX. It felt "right" and, for a motorized body, was quite compact. Hasselblads are rather delicate, compared to the Japanese MFs. But in the end, I did not use it as much as I would have like to.

The fixed lens of the SWC is tempting. But when craving simplicity, is adding another camera really the solution?

 

[RezaLoghme]

The handbook explains: "The camera requires regular maintenance with 'normal' use." Later, normal use is defined as several hundred rolls of film per month! Mine has never seen any use close to that. All I ever had done was replace light seals on a film back and fix the aforementioned jam.

Tempting to get drawn into yet another CLA-or-not discussion. I have all my "things" in life CLA'd and checked on a regular basis, including my own body. A 35-60 year old Hasselblad surely deserved and/or needs some checkup, and the financial outlay for that is really to be neglected, compared to the cost of films and their development and printing. Unless one is a bargain hunter, not a photographer, or a tinkerer, not a user.

 

[Don_ih]

The SWCs sound like a MF version of Leica RFs.

They're not even close.
The SWC, unless you have the ground glass back, is essentially zone focus. You need to be able to think in terms of hyperfocal distance. So, you need to be paying attention to the aperture and have a good understanding of exposure. There's no meter. The viewfinder is not adjustable for distance. The lens is not removable. The wide angle is not universally useful.

 

[John Wiegerink]

They're not even close.
The SWC, unless you have the ground glass back, is essentially zone focus. You need to be able to think in terms of hyperfocal distance. So, you need to be paying attention to the aperture and have a good understanding of exposure. There's no meter. The viewfinder is not adjustable for distance. The lens is not removable. The wide angle is not universally useful.

I have the ground glass adapter for mine and the Hassy magnified chimney finder fits it fine. It's a great combo for critical work, but I find I almost never use it with my SWC. As far as zone focusing goes I have no problem at all, but I used cameras like the Rollei 35 for years so I'm used to it. I have no other camera equal to the SWC and that's probably more the reason I won't sell it when it's time to thin the herd down a bit.