Oh No, not another one of his questions (500 EL/M Question)

[Ira Rush]

I’m back…. And this question is once again about an oldie but goodie, the 500 EL/M

Two questions, (well perhaps 2¾ questions)

1)The earlier EL/M’s, had a chrome-locking lever on the battery/motor housing plate, as opposed to the newer ones which had a black slotted cover lock. About what year (what S/N series) did that switch over take place? I know that with those earlier ones (chrome locking cover) recharge was only after a complete cycle, but was there any other difference, in the motor itself, anything else to look for with those older ones, or could an older 500 EL/M be fitted with a newer cover (or vice-versa) or was it just a cosmetic change. The fact that you had to recharge only after a complete cycle leads me to believe it was more than cosmetic, but why the change?

2) The interior coating of the 500 EL/M, did any of them ever come with the Palpas interior coating (complete or partial) or was that a possible add-on done with a CLA?


Thanks in advance

 

[mikebarger]

Mine is a 83 (RP) and has black lock. I don't know if it is original to the body. I bought it a couple years ago off ebay. Seller didn't have a battery or charger and didn't know anything about the camera, didn't even know if it worked at all. He bought it at a sell and reselling.

I gave 50 for it and was the only bidder.

I ordered one of the 9 volt deals, and it works fine.

Not much help, but it's a start.

Mike

 

[Q.G.]

I'll have to look up when the change was made. So, later.
But it was before he "/M" generation.

It was indeed more than cosmetic.

The answer to "why" should be obvious.

There you are, with your EL, winding gets slower, and finally it stops, mid cycle.
No other charged battery available.
And you can't charge the thing that is in the camera until the camera has completed the cycle.
Which it of course will not since the battery is flat, right?
So what are you going to do?
You could get a D-cell type battery, put that in the camera, and use the cover (which will not fit over a D-cell) to short the battery and fuse. The camera will complete the cycle then, and you can charge the EL-battery.
But what if no D-cell?

Would it not be great if all you needed to do is connect the charger and fill the battery up again?
But you couldn't. So they changed that.

However, the cover, including the lever, will fit. The change is in what is behind that thingy.


Palpas was introduced in the 3rd generation. That means the 553 ELX was the first in the EL-line that has Palpas. No EL or EL/M, or even 500 ELX has Palpas.
It is not an add-on, not something that can be sprayed on quickly: the old interior covers without this coating would need to be changed for newer ones with coating. Possibly bits of the interior chassis too. The mirror pan as well. And the rear shutter doors.
And those new bits may not fit the older bodies, needing perhaps even more bits changed.
The 'upgrade' would not be worth the no doubt substantial amount such a rebuild would cost in parts and labour. And after all, the new coating is fine, but only a micro-improvement.

 

[Q.G.]

Back again.

I can't find when the lever changed. But it was at some time in the late 1960s.


And, reading what i wrote before, i need to clarify a thing: the modification of the lever itself was to make using it a bit more comfortable, and as such not very much more than cosmetic.

The change in the loading routine (that came in the EL to EL/M transition) was more than that.
With the EL stopped mid cycle, a switch would divert the charging current away from where it should go, and the cycle needed to be completed before it was possible to charge the batteries in-camera.
In the later EL/M model, it sufficed to put the LOT-lever to "L".

 

[Ira Rush]

Q.G.

Once again, thanks for responding, I knew I could count on you.

OK, here the reason behind this post… have a chance to pick up a second ELM, Serial # UTExxx which makes it a 1976…mid production run (yes I know its over 30 years old) at a very reasonable price. Really don’t need the bells and whistles of the ELX. Besides this dealer doesn’t have a reasonable priced ELX!

Anyway, feel like a CSI (crime scene investigator) because the pieces just don’t fit!

As I said, it’s a 76 model, no reason to have that chrome motor housing locking level, yet it does, could the motor housing have been replaced with an older one, or did this dealer mix up parts (or bought it from some user who mixed up parts?) Seems likely

Also, a major question re:the interior, ...well if the 553 ELX was the 1st to come with palpas, then I am wondering about this one (and actually my C/M and ELM bodies). The interior coating on this one, is as follows; one wall is just flat black paint, (seems a bit faded) one wall has a coating of some kind on it.

Something tells me I should avoid this, and run... not walk away, but then again I don't know for sure.

My 500 C/M which is a UC model (1975) a year older than this ELM, has similiar coating but on all the walls of the mirror box, my ELM which is also a UT (1976) like this one, has some type of coating too. If it is not palpas, did Hasselblad make interior coating changes; ie flat black paint to some type of anti-reflective coating, could the coating have come off?

Once again, thanks as always, so good to have you on this forum.

 

[Q.G.]

Mix ups happen.
I have a 553 ELX with the inner parts of a 500 ELX.
Apparently earlier in its life, the mechanics of the 553 ELX had gone wrong, and instead of repairing them the inner chassis of a 500 ELX was put in instead. A quick fix, instead of a more time consuming repair.

It is very possible that an old motor housing has been mated to a later body, to create one functional camera from two non-functioning cameras.
It is also possible that only an older cover has been put on the newer motor housing.
And a final possibility is that the lever alone has been put on the cover of a newer camera. But i think that is very unlikely.

Same with the interior walls.
In 1999, for instance, Hasselblad introduced new parts for the 501 and 503 CW to increase reflection protection, that were also to be used on any older models that would come in for service or repair.
Such things happened more often: parts for older cameras ran out, and were to be replaced with parts for newer models.

Before the Palpas coating, the inside parts were sprayed a matt black paint. I don't know of any other more substantial coating besides Palpas. And Palpas was introduced in the "3"-generation, so not originally present in a non-motorized 500-series SLR before the 503 CX.