Considering a Hasselblad 500

<p>As a gift for my dad. He's worked very hard, and will hopefully have more spare time next year, so I want to get him something he's always wanted. I've looked at a Leica, but he gives the impression this would be of more interest (without actually asking him, which would ruin the surprise of course).</p>

<p>I've looked at numerous medium format cameras before, but never considered Hasselblad because of the associated prices. So I was looking for some general advise, is there anything one should be aware of if purchasing such cameras in 2012/2013? Is it as simple as finding one in good condition, preferably from a reputable dealer? </p>

<p>Anything specific I should look for/avoid? Or similarly, any models that have known faults. I was looking at the earlier models (because of price), but there seem to be plenty about and still in good condition. I'm not sure of exact models, but 500C and 500C/M seem to pop up often.</p>

<p>Many thanks for your time,<br>

Richard</p>

<p>Reputable camera stores such as KEH and B&H handle used Hasselblads and have return policies etc. David Odess is a very reputable independent who is a Hasselblad expert, while I don't deal with him, I wouldn't hesitate.</p>

<p>Hi Dave. You raise a good point. I'm in the UK, and won't consider buying outside of the UK (there just isn't any reason, there seem to be enough here). Many thanks for your input.</p>

<p>I would at least do a cm over the regular 500 as he can they change the screens.<br />You will probably have more problems/light leaks with the film backs than any other part of the system. You will need new light seals at least but that's a user repair and can be bought on ebay.</p>

<p>The main difference between the 500C and the 500C/M is that the focusing screen in the 500C/M<br>

can be changed by the user, while that of the 500C must be changed by a technician with access<br>

to special test equipment to set its position properly.</p>

<p>By definition the 500C/M is newer than the 500C, so less likely to need repairs.</p>

<p>This is a very solid camera, not often in need of repair. I would suggest buying one in good cosmetic<br>

condition and have a competent technician do a CLA (Clean Lube Adjust). Definitely get a good<br>

money-back warranty on any purchase, in case a hidden problem is discovered.</p>

<p>There are several series of lenses available. The original is the C series, almost always chrome.</p>

<p>I prefer the successor CF series (normally black). They have a wider focusing ring, rubber coated<br>

so it's easy on the fingers. There are some other improvements over the earlier C series.</p>

<p>All CF and later lenses, and some of the last C lenses, have T* ("tee-star") multi-coating, which<br>

makes the lens less susceptible to flare. You'll find the characters T* in red on the front lens ring.</p>

<p>You'll need an A12 back, which provides 12 exposures on 120 film. Avoid the A16, which is 16<br>

exposures on the same film in a reduced 6x4.5cm format.<br>

You'll usually see backs listed as having "matching numbers". That refers to the serial number<br>

on the outside and the three-digit number inside on the film insert. These are matched at the<br>

factory and should remain so. Avoid any back with mis-matched numbers.</p>

<p>You can determine the age of a body or back from the two letters in the serial number.<br>

VHPICTURES<br>

1234567890<br>

For example, TU would be (19)67, while SH would be (20)02.</p>

<p>The Hasselblad 500-series (now called the V series) is a superb kit. You won't find better<br>

optics from any manufacturer. That's why I started shooting Hasselblad in 1970.</p>

<p>Good luck with it.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Thanks, Leigh. Concise and informative.</p>

<p>I would also find one with the newer winding lever, rather than just a knob. Depending on your budget, consider a couple things: 1) if he has sight problems, consider buying a waist level finder replacement diopter for his eyes. 2) consider having the camera CLA'd (cleaned) and brought to tip top condition. 3) get a light meter, such as a Sekonic or Gossen Digisix.</p>

<p>Stick with a 500 C/M. The price difference isn't much. Also, I don't think you need a CF lens. An 80mm will work great. Stick with a T* version (IMO). Do a search to find out other things, such as getting a matching insert for the back (the last three numbers match the last three numbers of the back's serial number). </p>

<i>"The original is the C series, almost always chrome."</i><br><br>The majority in black finish.<br><br><i>"I prefer the successor CF series (normally black)."</i><br><br>Only black.<br><br><i>"some of the last C lenses, have T* ("tee-star") multi-coating"</i><br><br>Most C lenses (and all of the later) have T* coating.<br><br><i>"Avoid the A16, which is 16

exposures on the same film in a reduced 6x4.5cm format."</i><br><br>Why?<br><br><i>"The Hasselblad 500-series (now called the V series)"</i><br><br>The 500 is indeed all that's left of it, but the entire Hasselblad system that's not part of the X-Pan or H-series was dubbed "V-System" when the H1 appeared.<br><br>;-)

<i>"consider buying a waist level finder replacement diopter for his eyes."</i><br><br>First make sure that the camera comes with a waist level finder that allows changing diopters (the one with the side panels that each fold down the middle, and having a black tab instead of a round chrome knob to open the thing).

<p>Richard, one of the most important features of the later models which you should be aware of before making a purchase is the "gliding mirror system" which allows viewing of the entire screen with longer lenses and close up accessories. The older models do not have this feature, and the top of the finder suffers from vignetting with longer focal lengths, making accurate composition more difficult.</p>

Good point.<br>Of the non-motorized 500-series SLR-models, only the 503 CW and 501 CM have the gliding mirror, all the others do not (the M in 501 CM is important: the 501 C has the older mirror.)

<p>> The majority in black finish.<br /> Heck no. The original sentence (<em>"The original is the C series, almost always chrome."</em> ) is more true. It was a rarity to see a C series lens in black early on. I fondled my first Hasselblad 500C in 1972 and some time after that could (barely...) afford a (barely...) used 500C/M "transitional" body (marked as 500C but with a user-interchangeable focusing screen) and did not see a black C lens in a flesh for many years. Granted, all this took place in the depths of the dark pinko-commie misery behind the iron courtain, so perhaps the bad capitalists at Hasselblad were selling us chrome crap only, but still...</p>

<p>Edit: Yeah, the C *T lenses were black (not all either.)</p>

<i>"> The majority in black finish.<br>Heck no. "</i><br><br>Heck yes.<br>There are more black finish C lenses than chrome C lenses. There's nothing we can do about that.

<p>Q.G.:<br>

You are wrong, period. I have not only lived through that period but also have a 1970 Hasselblad catalogue in which black lenses are not mentioned. Moreover, here is a quote from Antique and Classic Cameras (a not too shabby source):</p>

<p>"C" <strong><tt>Lenses are single coated Carl Zeiss lenses with 1/500 to 1 sec Synchro-Compur shutters. Chrome finished lenses were produced from the 1957 to the early 1970's. The switch to black finish lenses starts about 1972. </tt></strong></p>

<p><strong></strong>C *T lenses are different (quote from the above source <strong>"Some Chrome finished lenses feature "T*" coatings, but otherwise all are black finished lenses"</strong> ) but the "C" lenses (and that's what we are talking about) are in a different category than "C *T" lenses. Saying that "most C lenses were black", without making that important distinction between C and C *T optics, is simply historically incorrect.</p>

<p>Thanks to all of those that stopped by to add comments. Great stuff. The sort of details that I was looking for that I would overlook without hands-on experience or knowledge. A couple of follow up questions:</p>

<p>1) 80/2.8 Planar - is the MFD an issue? I'm unsure of how to compare it to 35mm film & 50mm lens. This would be the only lens he'd use, and I could see him using it for people often, so just wondering if extension tubes are common use with it, or whether the 6 feet minimum focus is fine to work with. Also, on this lens, does the T* really make a great deal of difference in challenging situations? I'm never really sure about coatings, as I've some single coated lenses perform just as well as some much more modern ones.<br>

2) <strong>Hasselblad 500C/M + 80/2.8 Planar vs Rollei SLX Mk1 + 80/2.8 HTF</strong>. So both 6x6 and both have an 80/2.8 Zeiss. The former is fully mechanical, the latter seems to be more automatic. The Rollei also seems to be half the price - is it best avoided? I wonder what I'm missing, seeing as it's much cheaper and has the same negative size and lens. Or is the lens much different? </p>

<p>Again, input appreciated. Thank you!</p>

Michael,<br><br>I'm not wrong at all. In fact, i'm pretty well informed. Which you appear not to be. (I'm sorry, but that's really so.)<br><br>There are more black C lenses than there are "chrome" C lenses.<br>The fact that the change from T to T* coating happened at about the same time as the transition from "chrome" to black finish has nothing to do with that. Nor does the fact that T* coating is an improvement over T coating.<br>They just made and sold more black C lenses than they did "chrome" C lenses. Nothing you and i can do about it. It's historic fact.

Richard,<br><br>The 80 mm Planar has been the same, remained unchanged, since about 1961. There's one exception, though: the CB 80 mm lens is of a different optical design.<br>It's a very good lens, which compares very well to the best lenses available in other formats. No worries about optical quality.<br>The different versions differ in barrel. The early C lenses had an all-metal barrel, with a Synchro Compur shutter inside. A bit less easy to use than the later versions, but still very nice.<br>The CF lenses that replaced the C lenses has improved ergonomics (rubberized focussing ring grips, instead of knurled metal rings; better EV-coupling of aperture and shutterspeed rings; easier to use depth of field preview; more secure flash connector), a larger filter mount (makes it a bit easier to stack filters, and improves the lens shade effectiveness), and a different shutter: Prontor CF (profviding an option to disengage the shutter - which you do not need/cannot use on a 500-series camera). The later CFi lenses have yet more improved ergonomics (easier to turn and smoother focusing rings), improved internal baffling, and more durable materials used in the mounts. The CFE lenses are CFi lenses with additional electronics that convey information about the aperture settings from lens to metering system inside 200-series cameras. Of no use when you use a 500-series camera.<br><br>As you have noticed, differences in the effect of single layer and multilayer coatings are minimal. A good lens shade does lots more to reduce flare and improve contrast.<br><br>The SLX was a capable camera, but both Rollei's first try at an full electronic and automatic camera (and as such definitely not as good as, for instance, the later Rollei 6008) and completely dependent on a proprietary battery which presents problems and is hard to replace.<br>I would not hesitate getting a later 6000-series Rollei (Rollei made top notch products, bettered by noone), but would indeed stay away from an SLX. But there are people on P.Net with lots more knowledge of the Rollei system, and i'm sure they will chime in re the SLX.<br>The lenses are the same Zeiss designed lenses as used by Hasselblad, made to the same standards.

<p>Hi,<br>

I would buy from a dealer and recommend Ffordes or Aperture - a quick scan of these shows that Ffordes only has a couple of black 501/503's which are fine, but the black enamel does show wear more than the chrome cameras. Aperture has a chrome 500cm. http://www.apertureuk.com/hasselblad.html#hass<br>

They are great cameras whatever vintage, just remember that in buying used they could be getting on a bit with quite a lot of use (some maybe professional). These cameras can really handle it, but you might have to pay for an ocasional bit of servicing to adjust frame spacing or shutter speeds - this is normal. Really recommend investing in a faster viewing screen if you can afford one (I think I have a spare I can sell you cheap). Its a great idea for a present.....dont forget he'll need a light meter. Of all the camera's Ive ever had the 500cm is the nicest camera to own/use/feel - and the lenses are some of the best you can get. The used prices seem to be rising slighty compared to a few years ago when I sold mine....so quality still costs.</p>

<p>Thank you both for your advise. I think I'll avoid the Rollei SLX but the 6006 is an interesting alternative. Same 6x6, same 80/2.8 Zeiss. I think the fully mechanical nature of the Hasselblad might be more attractive to him, but I'll give it some thought before I make any decision as this isn't an immediate purchase (I will start saving now).</p>

<p>Thanks for the link Tony, I hadn't heard of apertureuk.com, although I've been using ffordes for years now (excellent service) so might check them every now and then to see if they get anything new in.</p>

<p>Can you guys recommend a simply but reliable spot meter? We have Gossen Digisix which is good for an average for something to go on, but not for isolating different parts of light. It doesn't need to have flash metering or anything fancy.</p>

<p>I have a new problem: After reading what you guys have said and doing a bit of research myself I now feel like I want one as well! Sounds like an really enjoyable way of practicing photography, so... maybe one day for me too.</p>

<p>Hi Richard,</p>

<p>Re meters...<br /> I strongly recommend the Sekonic L-558. That particular model is no longer in production,<br /> but should be readily available on the used market. It's much more reasonably priced than<br /> any of its successors with "digital" in the name, which means nothing except added cost.</p>

<p>The L-558 has both incident and 1° spot functions, for both ambient and flash, with the<br /> option of adding a PocketWizard-compatible transmitter to remotely trigger a flash.<br>

It's a very rugged and reliable meter.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

The Digisix isn't a bad choice at all.<br>Incident metering (easiest and most accurate) most of the time. And often you can move up to your subject to meter isolated parts of it in reflected mode. If necessary.

<p><is a 55 year old guy who just bought (actually it was a barter for one of my more valuable acoustic guitars) his first Hasselblad 500 c/m. I'm lovin it!! Still trying to find the date of manufacturing on it. I saw this comment in this thread:</p>

<p>"........."TU" would be (19)67................."</p>

<p>Not sure I fully understand why "1967" would be a specific and only date listed. I thought they produced these up til at least 1970. Guess I need to know more about the coding and so forth. Still in a learning curve.</p>

<p>-Soupy1957</p>

<p>I gave TU and SH as examples.</p>

<p>You take the two letters in the body or magazine serial number and substitute<br>

the numbers given in the correlation that I provided. Let me try it again:</p>

<p>V=1<br /> H=2<br /> P=3<br /> I=4<br /> C=5<br /> T=6<br /> U=7<br /> R=8<br /> E=9<br /> S=0</p>

<p>I thought the previous explanation was kinda obvious.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>