Hassy vs. RZ: Another one of THOSE threads....

[agfarapid]

I have been reading threads here for years, and I am going to stir up a firestorm with this.

I see more threads about problems with older Hasselblads than I do with any other MF camera. This stuck, that jammed, can't do this anymore and etc. And the repairs cost an arm and a leg.

Think what you will but please hear me out and see if I am not right. I may just be comparing cost with problem and saying to myself "those are lots of problems for such a high end camera". But then, if true, why so many for such a high end camera anyhow.

PE

Have to agree with PE. Bought an old but clean RB with 90mm, 50 and 180mm for not a whole lot a few years
ago for under $500 total. All three lenses produce great images. Bought a 500c 2 years ago with the 80mm for around $700. Worked fine for a while, then the shutter and lens jammed. Had the lens fixed for around $325 and I need to fix or replace the body as well. The Hassy delivered nice results bu it's a high maintenance machine. The RB still keeps plugging away.

 

[frank]

I wonder why NASA would choose a camera make to take into space and to the moon that has not proven itself to be the most robust camera available.

 

[Photo Engineer]

NASA makes mistakes too!

PE

 

[Roger Cole]

I wonder why NASA would choose a camera make to take into space and to the moon that has not proven itself to be the most robust camera available.

Possibly because they work fine for a while when brand new and they took new ones? And weight and...any number of other reasons that might apply to a brand new, tuned-for-the-job camera that don't apply to the old ones we might buy from KEH or wherever.

 

[Photo Engineer]

These cameras were specially tuned and lubed (a CLA for a new body, back and lens) in the NASA camera department. In addition, some parts were altered (at least in the ones I saw) to reduce weight or volume. To give an example, one 35mm advance lever I saw had small holes drilled in it to reduce weight and another appeared to be Aluminum or Magnesium. (I doubt the latter). They had a complete camera section under Red Williams, who is still around and lunching with old friends in Melbourne FL.

PE

 

[frank]

These cameras were specially tuned and lubed (a CLA for a new body, back and lens) in the NASA camera department. In addition, some parts were altered (at least in the ones I saw) to reduce weight or volume. To give an example, one 35mm advance lever I saw had small holes drilled in it to reduce weight and another appeared to be Aluminum or Magnesium. (I doubt the latter). They had a complete camera section under Red Williams, who is still around and lunching with old friends in Melbourne FL.

PE

Sure, and any camera company that NASA chooses to supply cameras would have done the same. But NASA would not have, in the first place, chosen a camera company which makes unreliable cameras, or cameras less reliable than another company.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Frank, you would be surprised at what NASA would do! And I was there to see some of it in person!

PE

 

[frank]

And I wasn't, so my hat's off to you!

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Does anyone remember NASA management ignoring the warnings of engineers before space shuttle Challenger blew to bits taking the lives of seven people? So why would a camera be more important than some dumb old liquid fuel seals?

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I remember 30 years ago when I had to decide which system to buy to start my career has a commercial studio photographer. I choose an RZ system and was never sorry. Now I'm just an amateur hobbiest and I shoot more landscapes, I wish I had a Hassy. It's a beautiful camera that's compact, feels good in the hand and lighter. The Hasselblad also has the advantage of being able to work without batteries. I'm not going to buy a Hassy because already have toooo much photo gear.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Does anyone remember NASA management ignoring the warnings of engineers before space shuttle Challenger blew to bits taking the lives of seven people? So why would a camera be more important than some dumb old liquid fuel seals?

Yep. They had a major investigation over that with some pretty prominent names on the panel. I was not there then. I had left long ago.

PE

 

[lxdude]

Does anyone remember NASA management ignoring the warnings of engineers before space shuttle Challenger blew to bits taking the lives of seven people? So why would a camera be more important than some dumb old liquid fuel seals?

They weren't fuel seals. They were joint seals between sections of the solid rocket boosters. They were already expecting too much out of the seals IMO (joint flex caused the O-rings to move out of their grooves, but they would jam further down in the joint and still seal. They were supposed to be protected from flame but charring was considered acceptable. When the ambient temperature range in which the seals had before survived was exceeded (by a lot), the O-rings were too inflexible to seal.

Friggin' bureaucrats putting political concerns over engineering reality. To this day I loathe those bastards. Their malfeasance killed people. They and NASA's management structure failed the country. Those who forced the launch to go ahead should have been prosecuted, IMO.

 

[lxdude]

And having worked at the Cape, I can say that NASA can turn on a dime!

PE

Or could at that time. They seem to have developed some serious structural flaws later- bureaucrats take over wherever they can, and decision making becomes much less clear.
It takes time to test equipment. And they had flight-qualified, proven equipment in Hasselblad, so why change when the only clear advantage was a little extra film area?

 

[frank]

Just wondering, were there any reports of Hasselblad camera failure/malfunction while in space, over the years?

 

[frank]

Found something on that:

http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-013114a-apollo-moon-camera-auction.html

But on the second of three moonwalks during the Apollo 15 mission, Irwin reported that his camera — mounted to the chest of his spacesuit — had locked up.

"Camera's stopped working," Irwin said in a conversation with Apollo 15 commander David Scott on Aug. 1, 1971.

Back inside the lunar module, Irwin and Scott were able to get the camera to start advancing film and so Irwin took it outside with him for the mission's third moonwalk. But it locked up again, which led to the decision to bring it back to Earth for a more thorough inspection.

 

[MattKing]

Hasselblads were designed for heavy, professional use. It was expected that they would be serviced regularly by professional owners.

The same considerations were in place for Mamiya RB/R 67s.

The fact that one or the other might be more reliable when service recommendations were not followed is more a question of happenstance than design.

Probably the best cars are race cars. They have to be serviced all the time!

 

[Alan Gales]

If you are a pro then you get your camera serviced when recommended. If you are not a pro then you probably don't need service near as often.

I have heard good and bad about both Hassies and RZ's reliability. I have heard better about RB's.

If you really want little maintenance then buy a camera with a focal plane shutter so you don't have to worry about CLA'ing leaf shutter lenses.

 

[zeta3]

Just one thing about reliability. The 500C is anywhere between 45-57 years old. If it or the lens has never been serviced, of course there will be issues.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

Many years ago I used an RB67 for weddings, parties, baby showers, Christenings, Little League, kid's soccer and everything else anyone would pay me to shoot plus for my personal use. I used that thing very heavily for many years. I always carried a spare body and never needed to use it. That spare was later sold in like-new condition. I never needed to service the RB because it was like the Energizer Rabbit... it just ran and ran and ran. The same was true of all seven lenses I had for it.

 

[snay1345]

It is easy to use, produces excellent photos with ease. 6x7 is perfect for printing for me, the larger groundglass is great and the rotating back is also excellent.

I know a lot of people complain that it is too heavy to carry around but I have never felt that way, nor have I ever had any issues with using it handheld.

It is a camera that I have been looking for, for years without knowing it until I got one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I wonder why NASA would choose a camera make to take into space and to the moon that has not proven itself to be the most robust camera available.

Because one of the astronauts, I do not remember which one, saw one and bought it. He took it to NASA and said this is what I want to take to the Moon. NASA contacted Hasselblad and Hasselblad wanted to work with NASA to meed NASA's needs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Sirius, I am almost positive I have heard this story before.

PE

 

[M Carter]

It wasn't a Hassy, but the Hycon camera (a modified KA-7A Aerial Reconnaissance Camera) failed on Apollo 14 when a sliver of aluminum shorted a contact (probably a manufacturing leftover that floated free once in orbit - things like loose and floating solder drops were a big worry with NASA). Interestingly enough, a hose that was part of the Hycon system was used to fabricate the air filter adapter on Apollo 13.

So Hassy's may be more dependable, but the Hycon helped save three lives.

(There's a photographer in my town who was legendary for clocking a mugger with his Leica M though... camera was unharmed, not so the mugger.)

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

For our non-USA members... "clocking" in post #173 means "hit"... and probably very hard on his head.

 

[Photo Engineer]

In early space shots they had a problem with solder evaporating in the vacuum of space. It often redeposited, making a shorter circuit than the original thus destroying the electronics. We lost several probes due to this.

PE