"User" 501CM or newly serviced 500CM? $1200-1500 budget

[patashnik]

Ok, the budget kid is back

I've had a couple of Hasselblad kits over the last couple of years, but they all ended up needing serious service, and I sold them on. These were 500C/M and 500C. I loved them while I had them, so this time around I'm aiming for a keeper. I also have a 500C/M that I inherited, but that completely broke down, and sits on my shelf for sentimental reasons.

Question is, apart for the gliding mirror - is there anything wrong going for a recently serviced 500C/M from mid-eighties (I'm talking about a proper kind of service here, Hasselblad or David Odess) instead of a, say, ten year old 501C/M? The lens will probably be a 80mm CF, and I will make sure Acute Matte D is installed at some point.

Price isn't the big issue really, but I'm hoping to keep it within $1200-1500. Is this realistic?

Any input is appreciated

 

[Kevin Caulfield]

I would think that is realistic. My 500 C/M dates back to 1977, and I suspect it had never been serviced. I paid about $300 a couple of years ago for a service and it is better than ever. The best service you can give Hasselblads is to use them regularly. Good luck.

 

[Sparky]

Fully agree with Kevin. Outside of that - a few specialty (and very expensive) hassy lenses (incl. using a bellows) won't show you 100% of the field of view with the 500C/M where the 501C/W with the gliding mirror is designed with a workaround for this (that's the raison d'etre of the gliding mirror I think).

 

[patashnik]

Thank you both for those replies!

 

[Q.G.]

Outside of that - a few specialty (and very expensive) hassy lenses (incl. using a bellows) won't show you 100% of the field of view with the 500C/M where the 501C/W with the gliding mirror is designed with a workaround for this (that's the raison d'etre of the gliding mirror I think).

I think you meant to write "CM" where you wrote "C/W", but for the benefit of others, for whom the thing might not be fully clear:
There are two 501s, the 501 C - which does not have the better mirror - and the 501 CM - which does.
(The "W" belongs to the 503 CW, which also has the better mirror.)

The mirror in the old Hasselblads is too short, because else it would hit the rear of some lenses (80 mm), that protrude too far into the camera. So with this too-short mirror, when the exit pupil of a lens is too far away from the mirror (longer lenses, and/or lenses on tubes or bellows), the cone of light partly goes underneath the mirror, and as a consequence you miss a bit on the focussing screen.
The 'gliding mirror' is long enough, and manages to miss the rear of those lenses by moving back before/while it moves up.
It's quite nice to call it a workaround. Others would gladly say that it took Hasselblad far, far too long to correct their shortcomings and do it properly.

 

[Jeremy]

A 500 c/m setup sold locally (Denton, TX) for $550 not too long ago and even when you add $500 for an overhaul you're still under your $1200/1500 budget so I'd say it's an easy goal to meet.

 

[Sparky]

I think you meant to write "CM" where you wrote "C/W", but for the benefit of others, for whom the thing might not be fully clear:
There are two 501s, the 501 C - which does not have the better mirror - and the 501 CM - which does.
(The "W" belongs to the 503 CW, which also has the better mirror.)

Yeah - that's it. I was thinking of the 503 C/W. Sorry for the confusion. I thought that the 501C had the smaller CM mirror... no?

 

[Q.G.]

Yeah - that's it. I was thinking of the 503 C/W. Sorry for the confusion. I thought that the 501C had the smaller CM mirror... no?

They picked a confusing nomenclature.

The 503 CW is CW without "/". The 500 C/M has the "/", the 501 CM does not.

The mirror in the 501 C (without "M") is the same (too small) as in the 500 C/M.

The mirror in the 501 CM (with "M" but without "/") is larger, the same as in the 503 CW (and other models).

So yes... uhm... no: the 501 C has the smaller C/M mirror, not the larger CM mirror.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Ok, the budget kid is back

I've had a couple of Hasselblad kits over the last couple of years, but they all ended up needing serious service, and I sold them on. These were 500C/M and 500C. I loved them while I had them, so this time around I'm aiming for a keeper. I also have a 500C/M that I inherited, but that completely broke down, and sits on my shelf for sentimental reasons.

Question is, apart for the gliding mirror - is there anything wrong going for a recently serviced 500C/M from mid-eighties (I'm talking about a proper kind of service here, Hasselblad or David Odess) instead of a, say, ten year old 501C/M? The lens will probably be a 80mm CF, and I will make sure Acute Matte D is installed at some point.

Price isn't the big issue really, but I'm hoping to keep it within $1200-1500. Is this realistic?

Any input is appreciated

Personally, I'd opt for the 500c/m simply because of the gliding mirror mechanism in the 501. The more stuff moving around is all that much more to get out of kilter or break leaving you with an expensive paperweight until it's repaired.

With my 500, it's habit to not crop too tight while shooting and crop later - I do this because of the square format and not really knowing what exactly I want to see until processed and scanned or proofed.

I never felt the small bit gained was worth having the extra machinery inside.

 

[Q.G.]

Personally, I'd opt for the 500c/m simply because of the gliding mirror mechanism in the 501. The more stuff moving around is all that much more to get out of kilter or break leaving you with an expensive paperweight until it's repaired. [...] I never felt the small bit gained was worth having the extra machinery inside.

Which 501?

I'd opt for the 501 CM.
It's rather a case of something moving differently, than of more things moving. Well... not quite 100% true, but still close enough. Absolutely no need to worry about reliability.

 

[Fintan]

Price isn't the big issue really, but I'm hoping to keep it within $1200-1500. Is this realistic?

Any input is appreciated

Within your budget, this was posted on the Hasselblad mailing list today by one of the regulars;

http://www.rob168.com/camera/Hass3.htm

 

[Mark Fisher]

I had the same decision. I decided to go with an overhauled 500cm kit from David Odess. I figured that it would be basically a new camera at that point and wouldn't fail me at a bad time. One of my fears with Hasselblad was that even a few year old camera could have an awful lot of film put through it when I got it. I did get a 50mm and a 150mm used, but I figured I can always get by with only two of three lenses if I needed to.

Mark

 

[André E.C.]

Are you planing to go longer than 150mm?

If not, the mirror isn't an issue, get one good condition 500 CM and invest in good glass.


Cheers



André

 

[Q.G.]

Are you planing to go longer than 150mm?

If not, the mirror isn't an issue, [...]

... unless you are planing to do some close up work and are going to put your lenses on tubes or even bellows.

 

[André E.C.]

Where is the bloody dilemma with the mirror, mr. QG?:confused:

Is it really serious? It's on your negative, or only on screen?

I think it's only on screen and I have used tubes and teleconverters with a Sonnar CF 150mm for close up work, and my negatives came out perfect, maybe I was just lucky then.

Don't be so darn perfect, let the guy buy his Swedish cube!



André

 

[Andrew Moxom]

Remember one thing, the worst thing you can do to a hasselblad is not run film through it. They like to be exercised as do the lenses. Used is fine, as they are weill built cameras and I have never had a problem with mine. I've used a 21mm tube on my 150 sonnar, and I do no thave the gliding mirror.... Images are fine, composition on the screen is also not that bad.

 

[Q.G.]

Where is the bloody dilemma with the mirror, mr. QG?:confused:

Is it really serious? It's on your negative, or only on screen?

I think it's only on screen and I have used tubes and teleconverters with a Sonnar CF 150mm for close up work, and my negatives came out perfect, maybe I was just lucky then.

Don't be so darn perfect, let the guy buy his Swedish cube!


André

It's on the screen only, yes.
I have done lots of close-up work, and can tell you it sucks not to know where the frame ends. Not to know what's in the frame, and what's not.
Reason why i bought me the Hasselblad with better mirror then: an 2000-series focal plane body.

I also use the 120 mm and 250 mm lenses al lot. Same thing: a nuissance.
The 120 mm, though being shorter, is worse than the 150 mm when viewfinder vignetting is concerned (it's the exit pupil position, not the focal length that counts. Which is why the thing appears when you move the exit pupil away from the film by inserting tubes between other lenses and camera too. Or even when using the extension in the lens mount itself).
Use this lens close-up and the guessing-nuissance begins again.

Same with the 250 mm lens (which already shows the maximum amount of viewfinder vignetting you get. Now it's the mirror size, not the exit pupil position, that is setting the amount of vignetting. Longer lenses produce the same amount of viewfinder vignetting.)

So it's also on film: you do not know quite what's in frame, so you allow for that, and cannot frame as precise as you would have liked.
And it can fool you easily too, making you compose inside the bit you see, forgetting about the missing bit on top. Strange pictures, with lots of room above the subject ar the result.

But many, many Hasselblad photographers have made do with the too small mirror, and it hasn't stopped them producing beautiful image.
So you get used to it.

So do not let it deter you from buying a 500 C/M or 501 C (without M). Despite having a bunch of cameras with larger mirror, i still use a 500 C/M myself too, now and again.

But given a choice, do yourself a favour, and get the camera with the larger mirror; the 503 CW or 501 CM.