Are newer V-Series cameras more accurate?

Discussion in 'Medium Format' started by jim_coyote, Nov 26, 2016.

  1. I have a 1987 500 c/m, and it seems to back-focus. This is problematic because I mostly use it for portraits with a 150 f/4 wide open, so DOF is pretty shallow.
    I understand that focus shift can be a result of the foam pads that hold the mirror breaking down, an incorrectly adjusted focus screen, or simply incorrect body length. I've also read that newer bodies were built to tighter tolerances.
    Would a newer 503CW focus more accurately? Would it be worth an upgrade?
    Thank you.
     
  2. The older bodies can be serviced and brought back to new by factory trained repairmen.
    I would recommend either David Odess or Hasselblad in New Jersey for this work.
    Even if you buy a newer camera it too will probally need to be serviced.

    So it's your call, buy newer and get service or get the one you now have serviced.......they are all mechanical in nature.

    I have never heard of "incorrect body lengths" not sure I would trust that source for further information?
    The newer bodies do have updates that you may find useful?
     
  3. As far as I can tell, the biggest upgrades to the 503CW over the 500c/m are the gliding mirror, TTL, and Palpas coating.

    Viewfinder vignetting/blackout isn't an issue with the 150mm lens, I use the flash in manual mode, and I'm not sure that the Palpas coating is a big deal.
    Mostly, I just wondered whether the newer cameras were built to tighter spec because they were made to work with digital backs, so I wondered if it would give me sharper focus.
     
  4. "the newer cameras were built to tighter spec" I still have NEVER heard this before.
    Where did you hear this?
     
  5. Is this correct?
    The internal body of a Hasselblad is an assembly of plates, to which the several bits of the mechanism are attached.
    That assembly of plates can, and may need to, be adjusted (which is done using a hammer, tapping it 'in shape') to adjust correct body length.

    Source: http://www.apug.org/forum/index.php?threads/hasselblad-focus-stability-issues.57157/print
     
  6. The Hasselblad bodies were machined from a solid block of metal.
     
  7. I'm going through the same problem at the moment. I have sent off my body and A12 back to David for recalibration. I'm almost positive it is the mirror assembly, the pads under the mirror, or the resting ramp. He will figure it out.
     
  8. "the newer cameras were built to tighter spec" I still have NEVER heard this before.​
    I'm not a Hasselblad user, but I do recall a recommendation to use a factory-matched pair of body + film back; the rationale given was that if the body was ever so slightly "long" then the flange on the matched back would be ever so slightly "short" to compensate, or vice-versa. I don't recall which era of bodies this applied to.
     
  9. Ray the insert and back are a matched pair, and always have been.
    Find the source for this "long body" info?
     
  10. Ray the insert and back are a matched pair, and always have been.​
    Russ, I misremembered it - you are quite right: it was the insert and back that were matched, not the back and body.
     
  11. The Hasselblad bodies were machined from a solid block of metal.
    They are actually a casting which is machined - not a solid block.
     
  12. Well I wish all the other "experts" would have answered the question first.......bye
     
  13. Well I wish all the other "experts" would have answered the question first
    Not sure what you mean by this Russ - care to explain?
     
  14. What's the matter Russ, cat got your tongue?......bye
     

Share This Page