Early Hasselblad 500C observations/question

Fellow Hasselbleeders; your help would be appreciated.

A series of events led me to search for a '59 production 500C body. I found one that was needing a service and dug into it last night. I have read that earlier versions of the 500C had some differences and this information is correct. However, where I've been led to believe there was a more "handbuilt" or "made to fit" aspect to the earlier 500C bodies I don't find that to be true. The parts in this body are very similar to those I have seen in the other four I have had apart but there are some differences, the most significant of which I can point out in one of the photos.

I could really use some help understanding one particular thing about this version of the 500C, that being the apparently missing component between a mounting bracket as shown in the photo and the horizontal detent lever for the Auxiliary Shutter spring. Of the four bodies I have dismantled and serviced, there were three different Auxiliary Shutter Spring damping configurations. It appears that Hasselblad was struggling with or developing a braking or damping system for the Aux Shutter but this one appears to be incomplete.

If anyone has any info on this and especially can provide insight into what might be missing on this body, I would really appreciate it. At this point I have the body back together and set up correctly. It functions as well as any other I have seen although there clearly is a component (s) missing.

Thanks for any comments/input.

If I'm not mistaken, Hasselblad used to claim in their ads that all their cameras were "handbuilt". :D

1959 was roughly halfway thru the series of rolling improvements made to the 500c: several alterations had already been made since the '57 debut. It isn't so much that the earliest 500c were "handbuilt" than they were an overall work in progress, made in batches. Hasselblad didn't finalize the internals til approx the early '60s: you won't notice any weird handmade parts in older examples, but you can sometimes find alternative parts or assemblies.

This was most significant/obvious in the brake. David Odess mentions somewhere on his site that techs in the mid '60s didn't trust or fully understand the improved brake Hasselblad began recommending. The early brake was problematic, and misunderstandings resulted in some rather odd repairs (which can look like production variations all these years later, but aren't really). In a surprising number pf cases, techs would remove the improved brake altogether and substitute something else. The (apparently) missing part in your example might be related to such an episode. Or not: I think this is something only an experienced Hasselblad tech could answer accurately (DIY folk won't have seen enough examples, or the service bulletins).

Reading your posts is always fascinating, Andy.

If I trusted myself, I would take apart and photograph my 1960 500C(which is my main medium format body). Unfortunately, even though I have some experience as a watchmaker, I often find myself struggling with "do no harm" in camera repair and I'm not inclined to attempt anything with a known good body.

From the man (David Odess)

There is a large, powerful spring in the camera body that opens and closes the rear flaps. The original 500 C bodies, made in 1957 and 1958, had an air piston (not unlike the piston on your storm door) which served as a shock absorber to absorb the shock of the flaps opening and closing. By absorbing the shock, the brake would prevent the upper flap from cracking at the axle.

 

In late 1958, the entire configuration of the gears, springs and arms in the body was modified, along with the brake assembly.

 

The new brake assembly was a vast improvement over the original brake, but problems started to develop. There was a large rubber disk in this brake, and, after years of use, the disk began to soften up and get gummy. When this happened, the flaps couldn't open and close properly and the camera would jam up.

 

In 1970 the brake assembly was modified. The rubber disk was replaced by a metal disk with a small rubber "doughnut". It worked great. It was such a good design that, to this day, I have never seen or heard of a body jamming up because of the newer type brake assembly.

 

But there was another problem. Not with the brake, but with some technicians. They didn't trust the new brake assembly. They had seen so many bodies jam up from the two previous versions of the brake that, when working on a body, the first thing they would do would be to remove the new style brake.

 

Without the brake assembly, the shock of the flaps opening and closing was transmitted to the flaps themselves. The upper flap, sooner or later, would start to crack at the axle.

 

There is no way to properly repair a cracked flap; it has to be replaced. Not only is this a pain in the neck job to do, but it is also very expensive.

 

If I replace a brake assembly in your camera body, it is because you had the older style brake. If I install a brake assembly in your camera body, it is because someone had removed the brake.

Air piston was removed on your sample.

Great responses guys. Thanks..

Orsetto, ,

That information regarding "building in batches" and continuing development explains a lot. It seems like the basic design was a winner from the start and they were just trying to address problems (like the Aux Shutter brake) and examples of where they could speed up/simplify production. I read somewhere that they took suggestions from techs regarding what to modify. Companies that do this today are fairly common. One that did this in 1957 is pretty rare IMO. Two things that "jump out" at me are the mouse trap style spring on the interlock that prevents shutter release when dark slide is in place, and the coil spring that tensions the "cocked yes/no" flag (red or white flag seen in the body window). You can see these springs at the lower center of the photo. Both springs run vertically to an anchor point under the large rectangular white metal mechanism plate that dominates the mechanism. These springs are anchored to a "stand-off" that the mechanism plate is screwed down on. One of them actually loops around the standoff so the only way to install it is to do it when the mechanism plate is removed (!) or loosened enough to be lifted. This would be no mean feat since it disturbs the mirror lift mechanism, the shutter drive spring tension, the connections to the Aux Shutter flaps, etc, etc. Essentially to do this right, the tech would almost have to strip the device down to the bare chassis and build it up again (or do some shade tree move like bending the mechanism plate). No doubt techs "shouting" at the engineers led to a new design. All the other bodies I have seen (whopping four) have more simple designs for these springs. Different subject but related; I drive an older Benz and I swear the heater core/ air con evaporator was hung on a rope on the assembly line and they then built the car around it. The disassembly necessary to get to it is just ridiculous.

Tom Chow,

Thank you for this. I can almost visualize some kind of shock absorber being mounted there. I think you are right. Maybe I can find something on the web illustrating this assembly. Its interesting that the mechanism works seemingly flawlessly without it but it would be nice to either have one or at least know what should have been there.

Ben,

I totally understand your reluctance to tamper with a good working assembly. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Having said that, and knowing that you are a watchmaker, I can tell you there are very few reasons to ever let your beloved 500C out of your hands if you wanted to attack it when it needs service. Actually I can only imagine one - setting the height of the focusing screen. Anything else is "cake" for someone with your skills. I maintain my small watch collection but only infrequently have I been able to make a part. THAT to me is what separates a hobbyist (like me) from a watchmaker. If I can compare the skills necessary to tackle a 500C to those needed to repair/service a watch, I would say its like working on an oversized pocket watch. Where a magnetized screwdriver would be taboo with a watch, it makes working on a 500C easier. Where a loupe and magnifier are essential with a watch or pocketwatch, there is no magnification necessary with a 500C The 503 pdf service manual originally provided to me by Orsetto, (and lately I have seen posted on the web) contains all the necessary guidance for putting a 500C back together. When the day comes where your Aux Shutter flaps start to slow down, this will be the cue to start thinking about DIY'ing it. I would be more than happy to talk through it before you wanted to decide.

As a side note, I bought the few bodies I have been involved with from a great guy in NJ (no relationship). He is on ebay and for the last five months or so has been selling down a collection of bodies only that he inherited. His prices have been fair and he pretty much under describes what he sells. He is listed as mrbubblesupplycheap As an example, there is a very nice body listed for $145 shipping included. Granted, it has a cracked focus screen, but its a great way to get your feet wet servicing a 500C. I don't think a complete service could cost as little as the price of this body. And heck, you'll have a spare one ready when your "main squeeze" starts to get sluggish. Thinking about that focus screen, if someone like us were to try and replace it, what would be the harm in counting the turns on each screw as it is being removed and installing a new screen using the same corresponding number of turns? Worst case, a REAL camera repair tech would have to dial it in. How much could ten minutes of their time cost?

Old vintage MEDIUM FORMAT FILM Hasselblad 500C camera Body for parts Lot B | eBay

... I can almost visualize some kind of shock absorber being mounted there. I think you are right. Maybe I can find something on the web illustrating this assembly. Its interesting that the mechanism works seemingly flawlessly without it but it would be nice to either have one or at least know what should have been there.

I've rarely seen one, and saw a picture of the air cylinder once a long time ago, but I can't locate it.

Here is what the later bodies looked like (this is from a c/m from https://wkb.home.xs4all.nl/Hasselblad/Naked-Blad/)

You can see the space that the air shock use to be never really got used again, but was a convenient place to put a big spring.

The upgraded rubber disc absorber is behind the plate with gears. Your sample should have had it added if the air damper was removed.

After my recent forays into repairing a couple of Kowa Super sixes and their lens, plus a Pentacon 6 TL , I gotta

tell you this looks almost rudimentary (although solid enough) . And I used to think working on Japanese

motorcycles was about as fine and precise as I could possibly aspire to :). Peter

ps; I even took a few pictures of them if some one wants to dive in over their head.

Tom, I have seen the rubber lined "flywheel" on a couple of the bodies I repaired. They both had black metal plates over them to keep the flywheel from falling off. They were anchored by the lower left most screw holding the mechanism plate to the body. By the time they got to the C/M it looks like Hasselblad's engineers developed a way to fasten the flywheel/brake without the need for the cover plate. I will continue looking for images of the air cylinder. One interesting point is that the 503 service manual makes no mention of how much tension should be on the Aux Shutter return spring. This is the clock type spring under the piece you were talking about. With the mechanism assembled with one turn on the spring, the Aux Shutter flaps will not reliably close. With two turns they work fine. They work even more quickly and sharply with three turns. I wonder what the correct tension is because without this specification provided, techs will do what they want and this might lead to the fracturing that all these different designs of braking were developed for. I have all of mine set at three turns - I live dangerously :)

Another interesting point, the other important spring is the shutter release drive spring. This is tensioned by rotating the lower right-most gear in the gear train clockwise prior to assembling the front plate to the body. The '59 500C shown here had three turns on the spring when I released it upon disassembly. The 503 manual says four turns. That is quite a bit more tension. The result is a more rapid activation of the shutter on the lens.when moving from three turns to four. I set this one up as per the manual.

After my recent forays into repairing a couple of Kowa Super sixes and their lens, plus a Pentacon 6 TL , I gotta

tell you this looks almost rudimentary (although solid enough) ..

Peter,

Last Summer I tackled a P6TL and thanks to Rich Oleson's documentation, mine was running perfectly. The times on my shutter speed tester were below 10% deviation on most speeds and remarkably under 5% on the faster speeds. The P6 is a great camera and a very reasonably priced system if you can tune them yourself. I must admit though that after sitting for six months, the 1/125th speed gremlin crept back into my camera. I was able to put a couple of drops of Ronsol on the springs in the Speed Controller and after they dried, a bit more oil. It is fine now but clearly is the weakpoint of the P6 and Praktisix.

Since using 35mm most of my life I found the similar layout of the P6 to be just right. I don't get the sense that I am holding a 35mm on steroids.

Fellow Hasselbleeders; your help would be appreciated.

 

A series of events led me to search for a '59 production 500C body. I found one that was needing a service and dug into it last night. I have read that earlier versions of the 500C had some differences and this information is correct. However, where I've been led to believe there was a more "handbuilt" or "made to fit" aspect to the earlier 500C bodies I don't find that to be true. The parts in this body are very similar to those I have seen in the other four I have had apart but there are some differences, the most significant of which I can point out in one of the photos.

 

I could really use some help understanding one particular thing about this version of the 500C, that being the apparently missing component between a mounting bracket as shown in the photo and the horizontal detent lever for the Auxiliary Shutter spring. Of the four bodies I have dismantled and serviced, there were three different Auxiliary Shutter Spring damping configurations. It appears that Hasselblad was struggling with or developing a braking or damping system for the Aux Shutter but this one appears to be incomplete.[ATTACH=full]1289146[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1289147[/ATTACH]

 

If anyone has any info on this and especially can provide insight into what might be missing on this body, I would really appreciate it. At this point I have the body back together and set up correctly. It functions as well as any other I have seen although there clearly is a component (s) missing.

 

Thanks for any comments/input.

I have this type of cy

Fellow Hasselbleeders; your help would be appreciated.

 

A series of events led me to search for a '59 production 500C body. I found one that was needing a service and dug into it last night. I have read that earlier versions of the 500C had some differences and this information is correct. However, where I've been led to believe there was a more "handbuilt" or "made to fit" aspect to the earlier 500C bodies I don't find that to be true. The parts in this body are very similar to those I have seen in the other four I have had apart but there are some differences, the most significant of which I can point out in one of the photos.

 

I could really use some help understanding one particular thing about this version of the 500C, that being the apparently missing component between a mounting bracket as shown in the photo and the horizontal detent lever for the Auxiliary Shutter spring. Of the four bodies I have dismantled and serviced, there were three different Auxiliary Shutter Spring damping configurations. It appears that Hasselblad was struggling with or developing a braking or damping system for the Aux Shutter but this one appears to be incomplete.[ATTACH=full]1289146[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=full]1289147[/ATTACH]

 

If anyone has any info on this and especially can provide insight into what might be missing on this body, I would really appreciate it. At this point I have the body back together and set up correctly. It functions as well as any other I have seen although there clearly is a component (s) missing.

 

Thanks for any comments/input.

I have this type of cy

I have a camera with the damper cylinder/piston .It is an aluminum cylinder and a polished steel piston with a hole in it for the pin on the arm.I would like to put pictures on this but I don't know how to do that

Robert, once you have figured out how to load a photo I would be interested in seeing the piston. I envision that it works like the damper on a Compound shutter.

To get you started posting photos, look for the "upload a file" button. Once you click on it, you will see a "choose a file" button. This lets you navigate your own library of files to select the one you want. One bit of advice, you should re-size the photo to around 1000 pixels on its longest edge. If its a square image -1000 x 1000 would be a good starting point. Once you have a photo uploaded, you need to select a button that says something like "full image" or "full size" Once you have done this, the photo should show up in a preview of how it will look in the finished post. Good luck.; I am looking forward to a shot of the piston when you get around to it.