Why did Hasselblad no weatherize any of the general 500 V Series ...

[Huss]

The world is your studio!

Then they took it off world....

Seeing they drove around in lunar rovers, can you do street photography on the moon?

 

[itsdoable]

Seeing they drove around in lunar rovers, can you do street photography on the moon?

I believe that is what they did, shooting from the hip without the finder...

 

[eddie]

I believe that is what they did, shooting from the hip without the finder...

Astronauts are such hipsters...

 

[138S]

The world is your studio!

Then they took it off world....

For sure you are right... we can use anything in the field. Still IMO it is fair to say the hassie 500 (etc) is mainly an studio camera, personally I'd say: A well fieldable studio camera.

Today hasseblad has a clearly field camera and a fieldable studio camera...



Differences are evident... a field camera is ergonomic when handheld, studio cameras tend to be modular system cameras...

Still photo enthusiats make less a distinction... but one thing is shooting to enjoy the experience and another one was making a living from shooting, all day long, one day after the other... in that situation criterions were not the same.

 

[Sirius Glass]

For sure you are right... we can use anything in the field. Still IMO it is fair to say the hassie 500 (etc) is mainly an studio camera, personally I'd say: A well fieldable studio camera.

Today hasseblad has a clearly field camera and a fieldable studio camera...

View attachment 263197 View attachment 263198

Differences are evident... a field camera is ergonomic when handheld, studio cameras tend to be modular system cameras...

Old hassies don't need to be labeled studio or field... they can do all... but IMO they are clearly studio oriented, at least commercially they were.

I know several (retired) pros that made a living from both studio portraiture and events (weddings, etc). All those I know had a mamiya RB67 or a hassie in the studio, but they mostly shot 35mm film cameras for events. This was around 35 years ago. The hassie could be carried to a wedding to at least make a share of the shots, but it was not agile enough or all the shooting, still one of those photographers I know shot all the wedding with a pair of hassies, but not many were much capable of such a thing. The RB67 was more a brick than the hassie, still it was hauled to weddings but with well more limited usage.

At the end what resulted a nice compromise was 645 format... Today top notch wedding Pros still using film do rely a lot in 645, in special the Contax 645, which mounts the Zeiss 80mm f/2.0...

The Pentax 67II is clearly a field camera that it is very agile for events, but film it's slower to charge , while a system camera with roll film backs are very fast to mount, compared...

Still photo enthusiats make less a distinction... but one thing is shooting to enjoy the experience and another one was making a living from shooting, all day long, one day after the other... in that situation criterions are not the same.

You have one very wrong assumption. Victor Hasselblad designed the Hasselblad camera for field use taking photographs of birds. I have never used my Hasselblads as studio cameras and the only time my Hasselblad goes on a tripod is with the 500mm lens or 2XE with the 500mm lens because the lens is too heavy to easily use hand held.

 

[Luis-F-S]

And I bet your Hasselblads worked perfectly well even if they were not equipped with marine grade stainless steel screws.

Let's invent some new fatal flaw in a product that has been in use for six decades in all environments on earth, in space, and on the moon.

Worked like a charm even without the marine grade SS! Fed my family well for some 25 or so years! What happens when folks with no background try well designed equipment.

 

[Lachlan Young]

You have one very wrong assumption. Victor Hasselblad designed the Hasselblad camera for field use taking photographs of birds.

Exactly - it's also likely why so much of the remote operation/ camera protection kit was designed too. At the end of the day Hasselblad was a keen photographer with benefit of owning a company which could fulfill his own photographic needs. People tend to forget in the post fluorite/ ultra long lens on 35mm era how much wildlife/ bird photography was done using remotely operated setups. That the same equipment also had profitably exportable military/ security roles was probably also a factor. Sweden is very much a country 'armed for peace' with a significant export trade in military technology.

 

[138S]

You have one very wrong assumption. Victor Hasselblad designed the Hasselblad camera for field use taking photographs of birds. I have never used my Hasselblads as studio cameras and the only time my Hasselblad goes on a tripod is with the 500mm lens or 2XE with the 500mm lens because the lens is too heavy to easily use hand held.

Victor Hasselblad designed his cameras to perform well in aerial reconaissance duties, after a request from Swedish Air Force in 1940, so to shot "from a bird", later commercial models followed.

Of course it is true that new models were tried for birding, trying a camera in a challenging job is always good for product testing. But there is no doubt that the hassies were more studio cameras than field cameras, at least if you consider Pros which had to be the principal commercial target. For rich amateurs and artists it was not an studio camera because those simply didn't have an studio...

Well, it was a versatile design... Personally I've shot around 10 rolls with EL borrowed hassies, not much, I shot MF with a RB67 brick and P67II... Clearly the hassies were much more fieldable than the RB67, but a P67II is another level !!! It was also the opinion of the (top level Pro) friend who lended me the hassies after trying the 67II.

IMO the "testing with birding" was more a commercial feature, probably the new models were tested in many challenging situations, birding sounds nice.

What I know for sure is that the hassies of the pros I know stayed in the studio most of the time, they made 100% of the studio work with the hassies, but those hassies saw little usage outside the studio, with the exception of one of the Pros I know, he used it for all, all the time.

 

[logan2z]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but there's a good documentary online about British landscape photographer Fay Godwin that shows her using her Hasselblad in inclement weather. Have a look starting at about 20:38, but watch the whole documentary if you get a chance, it's quite interesting.

 

[eli griggs]

When I bought my first Hasselblad kit, back in the Early 1980s, I used it about 70:30, out of doors, including for Deer and Geese photography, sea dunes, and storms on the beaches, with some sort of over head structure or a Gortex rain coat, which I still have but my wife likes to wear, but it is a good water 'proofing cover for high wind and moderate rains.

You can include snow and ice storms, always an invitation to make the ordinary drive, over a known road, a trip through wonderland.

Studio or inside work was done mostly in public areas, and some setups at home, and the only hiccups I had was forgetting to pull or replace dark slides and once or twice, forgot to wind a lens before taking it off but I did no damage, so all was OK.

At that time, I did no think to ask the question, simply taking care no to abuse the kit, but today has been a different story.

Thanks for the feedback and opinions.

 

[eli griggs]

I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but there's a good documentary online about British landscape photographer Fay Godwin that shows her using her Hasselblad in inclement weather. Have a look starting at about 20:38, but watch the whole documentary if you get a chance, it's quite interesting.

Cheers!

 

[itsdoable]

Victor Hasselblad designed his cameras to perform well in aerial reconaissance duties, after a request from Swedish Air Force in 1940, so to shot "from a bird", later commercial models followed..

Victor was an avid birder, he designed the 1600f/1000f with birding in mind, and published some books with it. There are pictures of him birding with a 500c/m and the 500mm

....Clearly the hassies were much more fieldable than the RB67, but a P67II is another level !!! It was also the opinion of the (top level Pro) friend who lended me the hassies after trying the 67II....

Well, on a multi-day back country trip, the P67 failed (wet batteries/electronics) while the Hasselblad never stopped. The P67 might be nice to shoot in the field, but it is not more weather resistant then the 'blad.

I find the Hasselblad very nice in the field, as it was designed for.

 

[138S]

I find the Hasselblad very nice in the field, as it was designed for.

Debate about if the 500 is studio or field is about religion. A Pro that has used it in the studio will say that it is an studio camera. A rich amateur that had never used it in a studio will say the counter.

But objectively we'll find that the 500 design is totally focused for studio usage, like Raph pointed. If you want we can enumerate those fetures:

1) Completely modular, this is studio design, for the field you want integrated designs to save weight and to provide easier ruggedization. This point is for the studio.
Beyond lenses: viewfinder, winding crank, film magazine and focussing screen (500C/M) are exchangeable at any point, we all know that.

2) Shutter, for roll film, having the shutter in the lens is also an studio oriented feature, it allows to sync flash at max shutter speed but it ended in painful complications for the field!!
In the field you may want to exchange the lens for every shot, if you have hurries in that you get soon the thing jammed: a released shutter and a body already in a mirror-down position or a cocked shutter and the miror up. In either situation, re-inserting the lens can easily lead to irreversible damage.

3) Field ruggedization, at all you are to misstreat a hassie, one prefers a hit on his head than in the hassie, any harsh use leaves signs on it.

4) Real usage. The hassies were massively used by Pros in the studio, with comparatively more limited usage in the field. Motor (EL, 1971-84) made it more practical for events outside of the studio, advancing film and cocking with the crack was simply not suitable for events, even the RB67 brick was better in that as this was done with the thumb alone. Many Pros converted the C/M to EL, this was expensive but it allowed a better filedability for Pros when wanted.



Disclaimer:

Any camera is field or studio depeding on what we use it for. IMO the hassie is not barely studio oriented, it is a versatile design allowing an easy fieldability of an studio oriented design. Having been in the moon and having shot the most impressive underwater books of the era speaks on their own !!!

Has it best of both worlds ? Is it an optimal compromise ? YMMV....

Of course it is not a pure field camera. For sure it is a fully featured studio camera. Of course it has shot a lot outside the studio with necessary care or modification (moon, sea fishes..)... IMO we cannot judge such a machine from the religion.

Perhaps we can agree that it is an studio camera designed to be also used for the field. In LF we have a similar animal, the SINAR Norma: Is it an studio camera? Is it fieldable ? Both are true...

 

[itsdoable]

Debate about if the 500 is studio or field ...
... Is it an studio camera? Is it fieldable ? Both are true...

I don't think there is a debate - it was used everywhere.

Your pro use experience is different from mine, but that's not unusual in this world.

The ELM was always only used in the studio. We never (well, almost never) took it into the field. The CM was the one that always went our, smaller, lighter, more portable. Or a Rolleiflex SLX (but that would be another thread).

The Central Shutter was excellent for telephoto work in the field - the 2000 series had significant shutter shock, and you have to push the film a lot more to get a shake free shot. The central shutter was also perfect for daylight out-doors flash fill, something you could never do well with the 2000's.

If it was raining (and that was 3/4s of the year), the 500cm was the one that went out, not the ELM or the SLX. That was from experience on what would fail when they got wet.

(We actually use the SLX in the rain too, you just had to have a backup that was dry. As I said in a previous post, weatherizing only became necessary with electronics, and more so with micro-processor controlled film systems and digital.)

 

[138S]

The ELM was always only used in the studio. We never (well, almost never) took it into the field.

Well, it depends on what it is "into the field". Perhaps not for birding, but if "the field" was shooting a wedding then for sure the EL/M is the suitable model: 24 shots (220) in each back, an assitant loading backs, and the photographer only having to adjust focus, he could concentrate in expression and in composition... (also some attention was required to refine exposure... ) but at the end he could fire 24 shots without any distraction, with eye always in the viewfinder !!! Now imagine if he had to rotate the crank manually, from one shot to the other you end removing the eye from the viewfinder, and and you have the eye in the viewfinder again you lost the train yet.

The EL/M weights quite more, the body alone is 1424g plus batteries !!! then add the metered prism, the back and the lens... but a today's D6 with the 80-200 is the same kind of "feather", so no problem...

Still a fashion or wedding Pro could be quite agile with the EL/M. I've seen wedding Photo Books entirely shot with EL/Ms that are totally jaw dropping. sorry, but today's imaging industry cannot sport that level. Kodak Vericolor II was probably sharper than today's Portra, but still being able to smoothen low contrast skin textures... those photo works were totally Top Notch, with amazing MF focus roll-off that smaller formats only dream with. Today a Pro has quite inferior tools for a wedding, a D850 or a D6 may collect some 5k shots in a wedding, but not a single one is to match by far one selected in a good Vericolor MF Photo book, not matering how many hours were invested in manipulating the digital thing with photoshop...

For this reason I was considering the EL/M more fieldable for commercial Pros of the era, more weight but a fluent shooting allowing to catch every sound expression in the subjects. To hike, the fieldable one is the C/M, agreed...

(Of course, not speaking about the photographer's skill to get nice expressions... this is another concern, only speaking about the artistic quality of the tool.)

 

[Kodachromeguy]

if "the field" was shooting a wedding then for sure the EL/M is the suitable model: 24 shots (220) in each back, an assitant loading backs, and the photographer only having to adjust focus, he could concentrate in expression and in composition... (also some attention was required to refine exposure... ) but at the end he could fire 24 shots without any distraction

Some old-timers may recall that Hasselblad offered an 80mm lens with an automatic exposure module (a box on the top of the lens). I do not know how technically capable these were. I have only seen a few in store windows. Did they sell well?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Some old-timers may recall that Hasselblad offered an 80mm lens with an automatic exposure module (a box on the top of the lens). I do not know how technically capable these were. I have only seen a few in store windows. Did they sell well?

Not so much for the banalities of weddings - remote operation work seems to have been one of the things for which the automation module was intended. The fact that so much kit for turning the 500EL/ELM into something that could be left unattended & self actuating/ remotely triggered, no matter the weather, should tell you about the markets these bits of kit were meant for. That some people regarded Hasselblads as precious studio jewellery says more about the owner's hang-ups than the durability of the design. They are/ were one of the ultimate location cameras, not meant for babying.

And as for all the silly wibbling about the interchangeable backs upthread - it suggests someone who's never had to load a Rolleiflex or Pentax 6x7 in a hurry. Even with an assistant or two, you really want 2-4 bodies for those systems on location - as opposed to 2-4 backs for a Hasselblad etc.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Not so much for the banalities of weddings - remote operation work seems to have been one of the things for which the automation module was intended.

Fuji also offered a lens for their big 6×9 rangefinder with the automatic exposure module mounted on the top of the barrel. It looked very similar to the Hasselblad module. I wonder if a Japanese company made the electronics for both?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Fuji also offered a lens for their big 6×9 rangefinder with the automatic exposure module mounted on the top of the barrel. It looked very similar to the Hasselblad module. I wonder if a Japanese company made the electronics for both?

Compur was also big into electrical/electronic shutter control as well - so the Hasselblad unit may have had parts from several places - I note it makes a big noise about using an SPD rather than CdS cell. On the matter of all the silliness about Hasselblads being studio cameras, the photos used as exemplars of the uses of the Hasselblad AE lenses suggest that they were intended for demanding outdoor roles. I also see that Hasselblad suggest that the Leitz ball-head was fine for an ELM.

One of the odder things I recall about the Fuji RF's was that their evolution into the two focal lengths was because of their usage in group photography at trade fairs, sites of interest etc - with the possibility of one wide, one tighter shot, 4 exposures of each (hence the 1/2 roll 120 film) - in that context an AE lens makes huge sense for making everything more consistent for turning out huge batches of prints.

 

[138S]

Some old-timers may recall that Hasselblad offered an 80mm lens with an automatic exposure module (a box on the top of the lens). I do not know how technically capable these were. I have only seen a few in store windows. Did they sell well?

I've never seen one, they were quite rare, at least in my location. Not only the 80mm, that module was permanently mounted in 80,100,150 and 250mm lenses.


https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=139023

I know a Pro that tested one around 1980 IIRC, but he didn't like it...

The PME I tested delivers consistent center-weighted exposures that can be used directly in many situations, not sure if that system was as consistent... and it looks it was not reliable.

Victor Hasselblad died in 1978, that system was introduced in 1974...