Hasselblad versions

[warden]

I'm with you Ralph! These cameras are built with some of the absolute best materials any camera could be built with.

You mean… metal?

Look I think they’re great (I own and use one regularly) but some of this talk about their durability is ridiculous. They need maintenance and lubrication just like other complicated mechanical cameras. (And they are worth maintaining.)

 

[MattKing]

Hasselblads are well made.
Hasselblads are designed to expect regular maintenance.
Those two statements are not inconsistent.
The problem for someone intending to acquire a used piece of Hasselblad equipment is that it isn't always easy to tell whether that equipment has received the care it is due in years past.
In addition, if one hopes to obtain a low maintenance camera that just keeps running without future maintenance, a camera that is designed for regular maintenance might disappoint them.

 

[Frigge]

Hasselblads are well made.
Hasselblads are designed to expect regular maintenance.

Buy a Hasselblad that doesn't look too abused. Give it a service first thing. Enjoy!

 

[John Wiegerink]

You mean… metal?

Look I think they’re great (I own and use one regularly) but some of this talk about their durability is ridiculous. They need maintenance and lubrication just like other complicated mechanical cameras. (And they are worth maintaining.)

I never said they didn't need maintaining. Pretty much all my cameras do, but Hasselblad is certainly no more prone to failure than a Leica and maybe less so with later cameras. It makes my hair stand up when I hear a person on these forums say certain cameras are terrible, in one way or the other, just because they have had trouble with theirs. I don't mind them telling of their cameras problems, I have myself, but don't assume they are all not worth owning. It's like telling me I have a piece of junk camera just because they did. How many people are buying brand new Hasselblad film bodies? Exactly! Everything out there is used and some of these Hasselblads have really, really been used. Also, if the camera you're buying has been serviced by a someone's uncle Fred, the car mechanic, I wish you luck. It's exactly like buying used cars with some models and makes being better buys than others. Of course the price was usually a little higher on the cars that had a better used reputation. Same for cameras.
I have had an EL/M lock up on me and it now is on the shelf. They were so cheap at the time I just bought another and will fix this one later or sell it for parts. So see, I have had problems too, but I didn't sell the rest of the flock off or even said you should stay away from buying a Hasselblad. My 500C has not been serviced since I bought it years ago. it doesn't see a ton of use anymore and will probably get serviced someday when it acts up, but only when it acts up. Oh, and 'warden" these comments are not directed at you.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ehhhhh, that's not very likely. I don't know what kind of miracle would need to occur to keep the grease from getting muddy over even ten years, let alone decades.

A Hasselblad is a camera that is worth servicing. It's not a Canon SureShot.

no miracle just keep using it. Sitting in a drawer or on a shelf without being used for years is the worst thing you can do to them. Take 'em out every quarter and exercise them religiously to keep them from freezing up.

 

[warden]

I never said they didn't need maintaining.

Sorry for the confusion there which is my fault, I was replying to your post but not meaning to imply that you’re making that case about maintenance and reliability. As you know first hand, they’re great cameras that will jam and have problems over the years of service, and need occasional CLAs. They’re worth the effort.

Oh, and 'warden" these comments are not directed at you.

No worries, and I should probably put a capital W on Warden as it’s my given name rather than my job.

 

[Don_ih]

no miracle just keep using it

It doesn't actually work that way, but do whatever works for you. It's not a good idea to advise people to use a camera through the evaporation of its lubrication - that leads to actual wear on the parts (some of what good lubrication is supposed to prevent).

And I was specifically referring to

Thousands of V-series cameras have worked for decades without ever receiving service

which is probably not even close to true. You can find exceptions, but they don't number in the thousands.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Back to the original questions as to the choice of models, I prefer the SWC models with the viewfinder that has the balance bubble visible in the viewfinders such as the 905 SWC.

 

[Saganich]

I bought an early 500 about 15 years or more ago for a modest price. It was in pristine condition. The first roll indicated a focus problem. I sent it to NJ and they completely overhauled it for $700 and sent me a list of all the things they fixed, the foam, main spring, matched the back, clean and lube, etc. I'm glad I did because who does that now? Would I buy one today without such a repair provenance? Hell no.

 

[warden]

Back to the original questions as to the choice of models, I prefer the SWC models with the viewfinder that has the balance bubble visible in the viewfinders such as the 905 SWC.

I would love to try one of those one day. No mirror!

 

[John Wiegerink]

Sorry for the confusion there which is my fault, I was replying to your post but not meaning to imply that you’re making that case about maintenance and reliability. As you know first hand, they’re great cameras that will jam and have problems over the years of service, and need occasional CLAs. They’re worth the effort.


No worries, and I should probably put a capital W on Warden as it’s my given name rather than my job.

Warden......

 

[Eff64]

As a general reply to your question, and this is an extreme generalization, but being mechanical the later cameras are likely to have less issues which require service because they are younger.

I spoke to David Odess about this before he passed, and he generally had really good things to say about all of these cameras regardless of age. He did say that the mirror system (called “Gliding”) on the later bodies was a bit more robust and less prone to go out of adjustment, but having said that he did not mean to impune the non-gliding system.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hasselblads are well made.
Hasselblads are designed to expect regular maintenance.
Those two statements are not inconsistent.
The problem for someone intending to acquire a used piece of Hasselblad equipment is that it isn't always easy to tell whether that equipment has received the care it is due in years past.
In addition, if one hopes to obtain a low maintenance camera that just keeps running without future maintenance, a camera that is designed for regular maintenance might disappoint them.

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

As a general reply to your question, and this is an extreme generalization, but being mechanical the later cameras are likely to have less issues which require service because they are younger.

I spoke to David Odess about this before he passed, and he generally had really good things to say about all of these cameras regardless of age. He did say that the mirror system (called “Gliding”) on the later bodies was a bit more robust and less prone to go out of adjustment, but having said that he did not mean to impune the non-gliding system.

I would always advice that if one has a choice, choose from the later models.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I would always advice that if one has a choice, choose from the later models.

Absolutely. In particular, the last models of cameras likely had far less commercial use than the earlier models (you can imagine a 500CM from the 1980's getting 1000 or more rolls a year put through it because it was the main camera for a wedding shooter, for example), so any body that was produced late in the film game will have two things going for it (probably); 1. it's younger, so even if the use rate was the same, it will have less, and 2. it's very likely that the body got far less use as the photographers transitioned to AF and digital, so they ought to have far more life in them as long as they have been taken care of.

IMO, it's worth 2x as much for a newer body in better condition because it will likely lead to much longer time/shooting without the need for expensive repairs... less trouble, less cost after the fact. This is especially true if the body has been serviced by a reputable person...

The choice between a 500CM and a later model like that 501C 501CM, or 503CX, 503CW or similar is, IMO, very, very easy to make. Between the later models, well, that gets harder depending on what you are shooting, etc., but for most people, you probable don't need the flash metering, so the 503 models won't be of particular value to you... But you'll likely find far more very late model 503CW's than any other body, so that's what you'd end up with if you wanted a very late (post-2000) one.

 

[Michael Mutmansky]

I wanted to mention that there is a gold mine of information on late Hasselblad cameras and accessories available here:

https://static.bhphotovideo.com/FrameWork/Product_Resources/SourceBookProPhoto/Pro-Photo-SourceBook.pdf

1998 sourcebook... go in and look at the prices for the gear and then adjust to today's dollars and be shocked at how high they were. Certainly primarily for professional use because who could afford that otherwise?

Anyway, the catalogue has all the Hasselblad products and the Hasselblad item code from that time, so it's handy. Want to figure out the focus screens? You can with the descriptions in there. Hoods and prisms? Yup, at least for those that were available at that time. All the accessories you can no longer find? Yup... and weep at your inability to find them even with constant searching on the web...

 

[Don_ih]

go in and look at the prices for the gear and then adjust to today's dollars and be shocked

You mean like this?

Recent working sold one, no back, viewfinder, or lens, went for $378.

 

[John Wiegerink]

You mean like this?

View attachment 393030

Recent working sold one, no back, viewfinder, or lens, went for $378.

Exactly! That's why I bought a 553ELX whether I needed it or not. One of the greatest bargains I have run into. Mine was about $100 less than $378.00 when I bought it more than a few years back. It also didn't show hardly any wear in the area of where the back is coupled to the body. That is usually a very good sign of light use.

 

[Don_ih]

It also didn't show hardly any wear in the area of where the back is coupled to the body. That is usually a very good sign of light use.

Or it only ever had one back that was never removed. But that in itself is a good indicator of fairly light use.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Or it only ever had one back that was never removed. But that in itself is a good indicator of fairly light use.

Yes, it would be the very first thing I would check after seeing if the body worked at all. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to use your eyes and see if the paint is wore or the raised light seal rib is dented to pieces.

 

[Hassasin]

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.

 

[Slixtiesix]

The 500C is really old. I would rather recommend a later body. At least a 500CM, if you can find one in nice condition, or even better a 501C or 501CM. The price difference between Hasselblad generations is not huge. I can also highly recommend the motorized versions like the 553ELX.

 

[bags27]

I have a 500 c/m that I bought from the guy who repairs Blads (Barn Owl Cameras), and I watched him overhaul it before he sold it to me. It's never given me a problem.

I can't imagine why I'd want a different, much less a heavier Blad that only has very minor upgrades that I don't need.

 

[Slixtiesix]

I just meant because more recent bodies are less likely to give troubles, not because of fancy features that barely show in the pictures, if they do at all. If you buy a camera with a complete CLA, things look different of course. Anyway, I would still recommend the 500CM over the 500C simply because of the interchangeable screen. The viewing screen on the 500C can be changed too, but it needs a calibration and cannot easily be done by the user.

 

[bags27]

I just meant because more recent bodies are less likely to give troubles, not because of fancy features that barely show in the pictures, if they do at all. If you buy a camera with a complete CLA, things look different of course. Anyway, I would still recommend the 500CM over the 500C simply because of the interchangeable screen. The viewing screen on the 500C can be changed too, but it needs a calibration and cannot easily be done by the user.

Thanks. Makes sense entirely.
I was just trying to clarify for the OP that, from my very limited knowledge at least, the marginal differences between the 500 c/m and later models weren't necessarily significant. The important thing is the condition of the camera, and I urged him to at least familiarize himself with qualified repairmen at the same time.