Anyone made a 'Schirra' Hasselblad point and shoot ?

<p>

Anyone made a point and shoot out of an old hasselblad ?

<br>

I want to take a hasselblad with 80mm lens on a forthcoming bike tour of NZ, but the weight of 1.5Kg is a

bit off-putting. <br>

I've used my 501C with the sports finder - so I'm happy to work by scale focussing. <br>

</p>

 

<p>

"The Hasselblad 500C, with a planar 80mm lens (modified), was the first Hasselblad camera to be used by

NASA in space. It was purchased by the astronaut Walter M. Schirra from a camera shop in Houston,

Texas.Modification, carried out by NASA, involved removing the lining, mirror, focusing screen and hood,

among other things, to make the camera lighter. "<br>

</p>

<img src="http://www.hasselbladusa.com/media/0fce760c-6ed6-422b-

a9b5-22f5546f56b4-500C_space.jpg" align=CENTER />

 

 

 

<p> Just wondering how much weight I can save if I buy a cheap old 500CM and 80C lens, then strip out

all the flappy bits, and rework the shutter - so that it work like a SWC's shutter </p>

 

<p> Any advice welcome : Thanks </p>

Just buy a Rolleiflex TLR and you will save yourself a lot of hassle.

Bob, my concern with many lighter cameras ( including the Rolleiflex and Mamiya 7 etc. ) is

robustness:

 

The square shape of hasselblad body ( with the lens along the axis ) looks like it would

survive a side impact, if I fell off my bike with the camera in my camelbak.

 

And the engineer in me likes the challenge of the project :-)

Get a good folder camera with a 4- or 5-element lens. The East German Weltax is one fine 6x6 camera that is very small and light. Or a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta with a Tessar and a frame counter. Or a cheap 6x6 box camera if you want the lightest camera possible...

 

If robustness is your game, try a Mamiya C33, one of the sturdiest (and heaviest) 6x6 cameras under the sun.

I don't think the "flappy bits" amount to much weight<g>. You could certainly build a cap where the WLF is (they may even make them). But besides the WLF, screen, and baffles, what else is there? The reason an SWC is so great is that the body doesn't have to have to much extension for the Biogon lens. You could make a lighter winding knob or crank. I can't see much could be done with a back. I don't see it worth the effort though.

The weight is why I bought my Yashica Mat and I'm much happier. The Hassy sits.... Don't waste you money.

Hasselblad made that camera with a great wide angle lens.....its called a superwide...its very small and light.No flapping bits in it.

Right. That was probably the main reason for taking out the mirror: so they could fit the 60mm Biogon CF f/5.6 lens. It is a higher quality lens than the 60mm Distagon, but is not retrofocus, thus will not clear the moving mirror. (Before anyone counters that the 60mm Distagon is a great lens, I know that. I have the CT* and I love it.)

 

Donald, if you go ahead with this project, there a couple of things to think about. First, don't remove the auxiliary shutter blind, unless you want to modify the lens so it stays closed before and after the exposure. I think you are aware of this, as you wrote about working on the shutter.

 

Second, with the MK70, a.k.a. the moon camera, with no finder, composition is a matter of luck. They literally shot from the hip, with the camera attached to the space suit at waist level. The 60mm lens helped to make aiming less critical for them, but you want to use an 80mm. Why don't you try shooting a roll with the finder closed, and see how you like what you get, before you tear up a 500C?

 

You know, without that 60mm Biogon, and the reseau plate, it won't really be a moon camera.

The superwides are nothing but point and shoots -basically box cameras.Set it at f/16 and 1/100 of a second. With a M12 back it even has the "red window".Just like a box camera it has a simple optical finder. Put in B&W plus x (if they still make it) and shoot on a bright day -don't have to focus Make contact prints. You'll get great pictures. Not cheap though.

Sounds like a fun project, but I don't think the weight saving would be worth it. Tend to agree with the Rollei suggestion, or if you don't mind 6x4.5, the Bronica RF645 rangefinder. A SWC version would be great, but the lens is probably too wide as a universal optic - at least that's what I find.

<p><em>Get a good folder camera with a 4- or 5-element lens. The

East German Weltax is one fine 6x6 camera that is very small and

light. Or a Zeiss Ikon Ikonta with a Tessar and a frame

counter.</em></p><p>With many of these oldies, it's the

frame-counting mechanism that wears out.</p><p>If you're interested

in a folder with a good lens that's compact even as folders go, and

if you don't mind a slightly smaller negative (less film to carry

around), consider a <a

href="http://camerapedia.org/wiki/Pearl_(4.5×6_folders)">(postwar)

Pearl (I), Pearl RS or Pearl II</a>. They're well built cameras with

unit focusing. And they have a little window on the back, so if the

frames overlap you'll only have yourself to blame.</p>

Donald, no camera will survive falling off a bike. If the Hasselblad lands on its lens then it

will knock it out of alignment. A Rolleiflex is no less robust than a Hasselblad - in fact you

can find may examples still working perfectly after 60 years of use.

"Just buy a Rolleiflex TLR and you will save yourself a lot of hassle."

 

Am I the only person who spotted that clever pun?

 

Very droll, Bob!

 

:-)))

I'm pretty sure Schirra bought the body from the old George Lange camera shop across

the street from the Texas Medical Center in Houston.

 

Weight was very definitely a concern for the Mercury and Gemini missions. It may have

only been a few ounces but ounces add up. Also given that he was in a pressurized space

suit and helmet, and only had a small porthole to both view and photograph out of , an

SLR viewfinder didn't make sense.Also the lens wasn't interchangable.

 

But for your project I'd look for a Plaubel Makina 67.

You will not save any significant weight by stripping down a 500cm.

About removing the H'blad mirror - I asked a camera technician about this a while back. He said you can easily get it done, but you will also have to have your lens(es) extensively modified so the aperture/shutter won't open when you cock the lens.

 

Tends to ruin the film otherwise :?)

Sounds like a great ride, Don! I would look for a good packing set up rather than

modification. The lowe top loader 70 can get rigged to your chest and has good weather

protection. I think I would also look for a wider glass, didn't there used to be a smaller

60C 5.6 ? I've been thinking about bringing mine on rides as well but haven't got to it. I'll

try the pack this week with a old 60C 3.5 and let you know what it feels like to me.

Aloha, Nick

Thanks all,

 

It looks like <200g weight saving will be possible, so unless a really cheap camera comes

into my hands, I will either stick with 35mm or look more into the lighter MF options

suggested.

 

I'm planning on doing the Molseworth and Rainbow roads ( ~300Km ) unsupported on MTB

once I get to New Zealand - so additional weight matters a lot me ( need to carry Tent,

Food, spare and poor weather clothes etc. for each 2-3 day each leg.

Sorry, but you ain't gong to be able to do it - I've just weighrd my Rollei Automat (loaded) and it comes out at 952g - and a 2.8 would be heavier. A loaded hasselblad A12 magazine alone comes in at 428g - ie about half that of the Rollei - my digital scales won't weigh the 'blad with lens and mag, but you get the picture. If you do come off, remember that a heavier camera will have more momentum and kinetic energy, and so could do itself more damage perhaps.......?

 

IMHO I think that if you want MF, your choice probably ought to be a folder - I have just looked at a Zeiss 6x4.5 folder on the shelf (I can't remember if it is a Nettar or an Ikonta) - it has the same 3.5 Tessar lens as the Rollei, but loaded comes in at 418g. What do you think?

 

Nick

my suggestion for a cheap MF camera for travel would be a Moskva 5. The camera can shoot

in either 6x6 or 6x9 format- has a coupled rangefinder (it is a clone of the Zeiss Super

Ikonta), a very reliable shutter- and very nice 3.5 lens. Have a look on ebay- i have found the

russian and ukranian sellers to be very reliable. The camera is very small compared to a

hasselblad and very robust to boot.

I will weigh in with another recommendation for the Hasselblad SWC. Compared to an SLR

blad, this thing feels like a toy camera - without the weight and bulk of the body [and

prism]it is a joy to carry about.

 

It more or less equals a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera - and if you put an A16 back on it

you get more pictures per roll and also dn't have to worry quite so much about getting teh

verticals dead on.....

 

If you really want the 80mm lens then evidently this isn't for you, but if you are happy with

something a little wider - which would be great for the NZ landscape I think - then you

should consider it.

 

RX