Age versus Condition

I am thinking of purchasing a used Hasselblad V series camera and was wondering what other peoples thoughts are on Age versus Condition.

 

In other words, what is better:

-An older camera that looks and works good

-A newer camera that may not look or work as good

 

Very similar to the used car question of year versus mileage.

 

Any feedback at all would be appreciated.

All of my cameras are between 40 years old (Nikon F2A) and 25 years (Nikon F3HP). They all work properly and are in excellent condition, but I had a couple with light meters off by up to 1 stop. I sold those - cheaper to buy replacements than have them fixed.

Hasselblad V series were at one time the mainstay of pro's. I would lean towards good condition. They are not cheap to repair or service. A CLA alone is a lot less cash outlay than a service plus repair. Go for CF lenses rather than C. Good hunting.

For me, condition is way more important than age, also mechanical soundness vs. good looks.

Hasselblads that have seen heavy professional use are not necessarily a good investment in the future.

On the other hand, there occasionally can be those cameras that are being disposed of by hobbyists and collectors who in some cases may have owned the camera(s) since new or near-new. These particular cameras are worth checking out, but an honest update on their working history and treatment is still recommended.

 

Hasselblad bodies that have been dropped or show signs of very heavy use should be examined professionally for body trueness; it is not uncommon for the bodies to be out-of-square from rough treatment.

 

Some of my cameras (Hasselblad and Pentax 67 are around 25 to 35 years old but used with new or near-new lenses.

I suggest you get a camera that allows for the focusing screen to be changed at will. You will probably want to use much brighter focusing screens like the Acute-Matt or the Acute-Matt D. That would be a 500C/M, introduced in 1970, rather than the older 500C. If you think you'll want to use TTL flash you'll need a 503CX, introduced in 1989. And if you plan to use longer lenses you might want a more recent camera like the 503CW (1996) or the 501CM (1997), both of which have the latest mirror geometry that reduces cut-off at the top of the picture when using those lenses.

condition vs age... tough call.

 

A camera that has been in storage since almost new may have low mileage and in excellent condition but being stagnant so long may require a CLA to get the old lubes and dry rotted shutter curtains replaced. That will be a brand new camera at that point. Just be aware of how it was stored, look or rather use your nose to detect signs of fungus.

 

Then there are the well cared for heavy use cameras owned by a pro. Those will be in very good condition mechanically but cosmetics may have something to be desired.

I guess what I was trying to say is that the age vrs condition debate has got to include what you want to do with the camera. Probably better to have a newer camera in good condition.

A 40 year old that looks like new probably has seen little use. A camera that has been to Kosovo and back may be badly worn, even if functional. In any case, a professional CLA is advisable on all used equipment you intend to use (rather than display). That includes lenses and backs. Every operation, winding, shutter speed changes and diaphragm, should be butter-smooth. Resistance changing shutter speeds may indicate real trouble in lieu of a CLA. I had a C50 literally fall apart in my hands, pieces of gear train and such.

My core Hasselblad kit came from the same source, and as best as I can tell it was lightly used. One of the things on my "to do" list is to have David Odess service everything, even though that won't be cheap. My 50mm and 80mm have stiff focus, and the slow speeds are dead on my 80mm. Fortunately, my 150mm and 250mm seem completely fine.

 

Even though I redid the light seals myself, I OCCASIONALLY have an issue on my 12 back with the first two frame overlapping(fortunately my A12 and A24 are fine). For the time being, to be safe after I've exposed the first frame and wind the camera, I flip open the peephole and manually advance until I see the 2 on the backing paper. It's a bit of a pain, but beats losing two frames and is one SMALL advantage I have with the 12 back that's not available on the "A" series backs.

 

We often have discussions here about how advisable it is to service chrome lenses vs. replacing them with CF lenses. I've decided to go the "service" route as I figure a $300 CF 80mm is still going to need a $200 service. Since mine MOSTLY still work(even the slow speeds on my 80mm will still "tick" a bit-they just won't run to completion) I figure that a service will buy me a lot more use.

 

Just a few days ago, I emailed Sover Wong and got on his waiting list for F2s. That's 13 months out, but when my number comes I'm probably going to bite the bullet and just send him all 8 or 9 F2s that I have(I quit counting), or at least one example of every major type(I might only send one F2A and one F2 Photomic). The F2 is probably one of the most reliable cameras I've ever used, and most truck along fine without service, but there's a lot of satisfaction in knowing that you have cameras that are mechanically good as new. I had Ken Oikawa service a New F-1 about 10 years ago, and I need to send him both my other New F-1 and my F-1n before he retires or passes away.

On the other hand, there occasionally can be those cameras that are being disposed of by hobbyists and collectors who in some cases may have owned the camera(s)

 

This translates into "find a camera that was owned by a physician." ;)

Hasselblads are so cheap now that you might as well get a new one in nice condition.

Some cameras seem to hold up better than others, even with hard use, and some are more repairable today because there are a lot of them out there and so people still specialize in them. Case in point, Leica. Leica M’s deserve their reputation for ruggedness and the design tends to remain working 60 years after being made. And there are a fair few people still specializing in their repair.

 

Other cameras, including some I love, the Contax/Kyocera/Yashica SLRs were phenomenally fun to use, but the early ones especially had notoriously bad electronics and are hard, if not impossible to repair today. And even the later ones have no real spare parts available today. When my RTS III dies, there is no real way I’ll ever be able to repair it. It took a year for my local tech, a former Contax/Yashica employee who repaired them his whole life, to find a replacement part for the RTS III and that’s the only reason it still works now. I don’t expect to be able to do that again.

 

Being well built wasn’t necessarily a defense against obsolescence. I’d try to do a little googling about how the cameras you are considering get repaired. Make sure there are some options in case you need something as simple as a service for them. Pretend you have bought them already and need some repair. See what your options are.

 

Just from a repairability standpoint, I think you’re better off with newer (still repairable by the manufacturer). For cameras in good condition, regard them more as great ways to take a trip into history rather than a way to get a camera you need to rely on.