Hasselblad 501cm body - Acceptable wear ?

I've always had good luck with KEH, so wanting another Hasselblad, I picked up this 501cm body, along with a back and 80mm CF Planar. Everything was listed in EX condition. I shot a roll and although I haven't been able to scan it, the negs seem to look fine, with no light leaks, and even spacing between frames.

 

However, I'm wondering if I could have done better considering the wear on the back of the body, or if 'EX' seems a reasonable assessment. If I run my finger over the inner ridge where black has worn off, it's a little bit rough. The back (which has less wear than the body) seems not to be 100% tight with the body if you twist on it. Maybe this is normal for a 22 year old Hasselblad.

 

Should I just go with it and figure this body will last fine for another 20 years or so?

 

Thanks

Btw the cosmetics of the body otherwise look pretty clean. The front where the lens connects has some wear, but seems reasonable.

Depends what you paid for it.

 

The 501cm historically is the absolute worst value in used Hasselblad bodies: rarity spikes the price far beyond its inherent worth vs the more common 500cm, 503cx and 501c. The only tangible improvement it offers is the larger drift-proof mirror: nice, but you pay double the cost of a 500cm to get it. I found it far more cost effective to pick up a couple 500ELX and 553ELX, with the same mirror, for a fraction of the 501cm price- this gives me the benefit of motorized backups and the larger mirror for the rare occasions its actually relevant (twice a year when I go out with the 250mm Sonnar).

 

Anyway... in the very unlikely event a commercial dealer like KEH sold you this 501cm for a screaming bargain price- don't worry about the wear. Its a bit much for a 501cm, but still within range of normal (looks like an ex-studio body thats seen hundreds of back swaps during model sessions). A rough feel to the worn ridges is not unusual, being able to feel some play between body and back is normal: even bodies that show zero back plate wear can have a slight "looseness". As long as the cosmetically worn ridges are still raised, and relatively even in height with the unworn ridges, they will function properly to orient the back and block stray light. I have some bodies that mount backs so tightly I can barely get them on and off, and others that seem to have excessive play but work fine. Its one of those Hasselblad quirks that isn't an issue, unless/until it becomes one (if you start getting light leaks, its an issue).

 

If you paid prevailing market price for a 501cm without such wear, you may have overpaid, but Hasselblads are maddeningly variable: sending it back for another that looks less worn could result in getting one with more hidden, more serious issues. If you feel you paid a fair price, and it seems to be functioning perfectly and reliably, you should probably just keep it and respect its "battle scars" as badges of honor. The 501cm in any condition is hard to find, esp in USA nowadays, so "a bird in the hand"...

Edited June 8, 2019 by orsetto

Thanks orsetto. $1079 + tax with waist level finder & acute matte screen. My mistake was not thinking about which acute matte it was. Once I focused with it I realized the 500cm I had a few years ago had a split screen acute matte; this one is just the cross hairs type. I don’t know that a 500cm goes for half the price. I might be able to trade this for a 500 in same condition with a standard screen and save a few hundred dollars, but then there’s the hassle and cost of return shipping, and as you say, ‘bird in the hand’. Monday they are supposed to get back to me so I can see if they’ll give me any more than their standard buy price for the screen. I’m a day or two past the 14 day return but I’ve been a regular customer for years. Of course I figure a little overpay with them for the 6 month warranty.

 

David Odess has a 12-14 week wait time for repairs- another incentive for not buying elsewhere. I had a very clean 80mm Planar from a private party but it needed repair, so I returned it and went back to KEH for a lens as well.

That seems within range of current market pricing, given it includes the WLF and Acute Matte. A tad high, perhaps, but you're paying for the security and convenience of KEH. I didn't mean to slam the 501cm: its quite nice, if one can afford it. In a way, it justifies its cost via the improved mirror, which almost never drifts out of alignment. Cameras with the older mirror can manifest sudden focus shift as they age, which requires a very expensive trip to David Odess to repair. You could think of the higher 501cm cost as paying upfront for a mirror repair, without the inconvenience of it interrupting your work or having to send it out for weeks.

 

And of course the larger non-vignetting mirror is so much nicer when using the 250mm tele lens (or the 120 Makro very close). A clean 500cm or 503cx with WLF and standard cross Acute Matte typically runs approx $600 via private sale or eBay- if you never use the 180mm or 250mm lens, you won't notice any significant vignetting with the older mirror, and can save $$$ vs 501cm, but there is a chance it may focus drift someday as the mirror mounting foam deteriorates (this happened on two of my own 500cm). Balancing budget constraints vs potential repair factors of each model can be a tough decision.

 

Re the screen: is it first-gen Acute Matte, or Acute Matte D? If its D, you could probably sell it on eBay and net $150 (the non-D $100), which you could then apply toward your preferred Acute Matte (non-D) with split image and checker grid (usually $250-$300). Theres zero performance difference between the D and non-D split image screens: no point whatever in paying more for the D version. Some people notice a slight improvement in the D plain cross vs non-D, but I can't see it (maybe if I had 20/20 vision).

Edited June 8, 2019 by orsetto

I’m not sure but the screen is probably D. I didn’t know there was a 1st gen. I think KEH sells it for $328 and they go for $130 minimum on eBay. I noticed the grid screens are a bit less than the 42215 split screen acute matte without the grid. I’d prefer without.

Is there a ‘non-D’ equivalent to the 42215 split screen micro prism acute matte? That’s the one I’ve been expecting to just suck it up and go ahead and pay $500 for.

Unfortunately no: the 42215 came out in the post-D era, so is only available in "D" guise, which jacks the price up $150 over what it should be. That, and the 42215 is surprisingly rare on the second hand market: when new, it wasn't really all that popular (most users found the checker grid with split center less distracting than the conglomeration of split image+microprism donut+cross bars taking up the entire central half of their view). The 42215 was primarily sold as the included original screen for the 501cm, 503cw, 553ELX and 555ELD: comparatively few were purchased as a secondary option like the checker split was. So the 42215 is the most scarce, most expensive Acute Matte screen today: annoying if its the one you like best.

 

I always thought it odd that Hasselblad stubbornly limited the Acute Matte options to just two or three: plain cross, split with checker grid, or (later) the 42215 with split/micro/cross. Considering how many obscure accessories they made for the system that hardly anyone bought, it would seem a no-brainer to offer Acute Matte versions of their popular older screens 42188 (large split image on plain matte), 42234 (large microprism center on plain matte) and 42250 (large microprism center on checker grid matte). I would vastly prefer an Acute Matte update of any of those three vs the 42170/42217 and 42215 Hasselblad chose to offer instead, but I make do alternating between the standard cross AM 42165 and split/checker 42170.

 

Every so often I've chanced upon an interesting outlier screen, which I tend to stupidly sell off and then regret not keeping. Years ago, I picked up a 500ELM with extra-bright, extra-contrasty 42250 which was super-nice to use. For reasons I can't remember now, I sold it to finance my 42170 (probably because I tend to prefer split image focus aids to microprisms). In retrospect, I wish I had held onto that exceptional 42250: I'm pretty sure it was an original 'blad screen that had been specially treated by a third party screen brightener like Bill Maxwell. Such custom screens sell for hundred$ now: I couldn't afford one if I wanted it, unless one fell into my lap by accident again.

What is the difference with an acute matte screen as opposed to the standard Hasselblad screens? Brighter, easier to focus, more 3 dimensional view?

The Acute Matte is dramatically brighter out to the edges indoors, esp with the slower f/4.0 and f/5.6 Distagons and Sonnars. Many users feel the older screens "pop" into focus better, have more forgiving eye position requirements, and give a more accurate presentation of depth-of-field. This is true, but only relevant outdoors in bright light: indoors, the old screens are utterly useless unless you have genetically perfect vision that can see infrared wavelengths. This is most starkly obvious with the old microprism screens: indoors or in lower light, the large center circle is bright, but the surrounding matte is dim as a coal mine (its like looking thru a tunnel at the headlight of an oncoming train).

 

The Acute Mattes sacrifice a bit of accuracy and "pop" for the ability to actually see and compose the entire frame indoors. They are super bright to the edges, but the matte surface doesn't really "pop" instinctively into or out of focus like the old dark ground glass screens. This is why the Acute Mattes with split image are so popular: the split gives you a fallback to nail accurate focus when you aren't sure about the matte. It is possible to nail focus with the plain cross Acute Matte, but it takes practice and training your eye to lock on a specific part of the screen (the normal tendency is focus on the image floating just under the actual screen, an optical illusion caused by the Acute Matte material: this leads to soft photos).

 

There was a time when the older darker screens were hugely cheaper than Acute Mattes, but some have gone up in price recently. The old plain split image and diagonal split-micro screens now typically sell for over $100 if you can find them: not such a bargain. I did keep a couple of the original cheap plain ground glass with black painted cross screens: I'll use them if I'm quite certain my project will be in broad daylight (they're nice for landscapes and portraits). The Acute Mattes can be a bit of a pain when using the 40mm and 50mm Distagons: eye position becomes critical, or you see vignetting, blacked out split image, and rainbow patterning. So the old screens still have advantages, if the situation is bright enough to make them usable.

Hmm, since I have other cameras to shoot indoors with on the rare occasions I do, maybe I'm misjudging the need for Acute Matte then. Do the standard screens work well in overcast or late afternoon toward evening? I'm wondering now if the 500cm I had before even had an Acute Matte screen. Maybe it was just a standard split screen. I do remember it being an impressive viewfinder- one of the things I enjoyed most about the camera.

Open shade, as depicted on the old Kodak film box inserts, should be OK with the older screens. Ease of viewing/focusing is a very subjective issue: you'd kind of need to try both screens in the same situations to get a feel for what would work for you (and what wouldn't). Some Hasselblad users wouldn't be caught dead without an Acute Matte, others wouldn't be caught dead with one. There are multiple quite polarized discussions on the topic here on photo.net going back years. If you can live without an Acute Matte, you'd save almost enough money to buy another lens or A12 back (arguably more useful to some photographers than a brighter screen).

Ha. I just sent an email to the guy I sold my 500cm to, to see if he can tell me which screen is in it.

 

It's a bit painful to say it but I sold the body, waist level finder, 2 backs, 80 & 60mm lenses- all in excellent condition for $1600 US. It's going to be hilarious if he tells me it has a 42215 Acute Matte focusing screen as well!

Apparently my new blad has the same focusing screen as the old one I had- according to the person I sold it to. OK, so maybe I'm just having a mental block with this screen. I'll work with it with renewed confidence and I'll probably get used to it. If not I'll try a split image screen later.

 

Thanks again for your input on this, orsetto.

Just in case you're still uncertain which screen you have: you can generally identify them by the appearance of the cross bars. The old original 42161 ground glass matte screen has a semi-opaque look when you hold it up to a light, and the cross bars are black ink painted on the top glass. The first gen 42165 Acute Matte is semi-clear when held up to a light: if placed on a newspaper, you can read the text underneath. Cross bars are short and transparent, very thin, embossed on the bottom (not shiny) side. Acute Matte D version 42204 is similar to first Acute Matte, except the cross bars are a bit longer and more spread out from the center. The metal frame on the top (shiny glass) side has two small semi-circles cut into its edge.

Yes, it's the bottom pic, Acute Matte D. Think I'll work with it and it'll be fine. I just saw a comment that center focus aids start to black out at f/5.6 or f/8. Is that so?

They start to black out around 5.6, yes, but with careful eye positioning you can still use them even with the 250mm f/5.6. No different than the split image screens in 35mm SLRs, really: the operating principle is the same. Theres almost never an issue using a split image with the 80mm 2.8, 100mm 3.5 or 150mm 4.0. The 120mm Makro 4.0 is good until focused very close, where eye position becomes more important (the ancient slow 120mm f/5.6 Makro is more like the 250mm). The 180mm 4.0 gets a bit tricky, and of course the slow 250mm 5.6 is more challenging. The 60mm 3.5 falls between: almost as easy as the 80mm, but since its a Distagon retrofocus your eye position gets more important to avoid blackout. The 40mm 4.0 and 50mm 4.0 Distagons require critical eye positioning to avoid split image flicker/blackout (and overalll screen vignette/rainbows if the split image is an Acute Matte).

 

Your plain 42204 Acute Matte D with crossbars is the best version of plain screen for most people. Its quite usable even with f/5.6 lenses, but it does take practice (and good eyesight) to reliably nail focus with lenses other than the 80mm or 100mm. Its seems a bit easier with the standard lenses.

 

In brighter outdoor light the older 42161 ground glass screen is arguably easier to focus, while the older 42234 and 42250 ground glass with large microprism (no split image) are more compatible with the Distagons than Acute Matte focus aids: no blackout or eye position issues, but of course dimmer near the corners and you need to like/understand microprism focus aids. If you're patient and check every couple days, occasionally the old screens turn up at cheaper prices on eBay. 42161 black crossbars can be found for as little as $15-$20, 42234 with microprism center about $45, and 42250 microprism with checker grid about $55. Any of these would be worth the small investment as a backup screen for working outdoors, vs the $250-$450 cost of an Acute Matte with split image. Of course, if you need the split + corner brightness indoors, you'll have to pony up for an Acute Matte.

 

The older 42188 (ground glass with large split image center) and 42218 (ground glass with diagonal split image and microprism collar) rarely appear on eBay, when they do they usually go for $90 minimum (I've never seen anyone ask less than $150 for the diagonal split). While these are nice if you like split image and prefer the coarser ground glass matte to Acute Matte, they are pricey and will have the same blackout vs eye position issues as the Acute Matte splits with the Distagons or slower longer teles. Fortunately any 'blad screen with a focus aid is in hot demand, so if you buy one and don't like it you can usually resell it at only a small dollar lloss (sometimes no loss at all if you snagged one at a bargain price on a good day).

 

Beware no-name generic Chinese split image screens: these are terrible (inaccurate split, dark matte which gives no focus indication). The Ukrainian Arsenal split/micro screen is very nice, but its metal frame tends to be off by a couple microns which throws focus out when used in a Hasselblad body vs the Kiev it was meant for. The once-popular BrightScreen and Beattie IntenScreen often suffer from the same "metal frame is off spec" issues, and today sell used for not much less than Acute Matte, so don't bother.

Edited June 10, 2019 by orsetto

I only use the 80 Planar and may get the 60 Distagon as I had before. Maybe I'll pick up a 42161 to see how it compares to the Acute Matte. Thanks for the rundown.

 

What do people use a 250mm lens for on a Hasselblad? Portraiture?

What do people use a 250mm lens for on a Hasselblad? Portraiture?

 

It was never a popular lens compared to the 150mm, but those who bond with the 250mm use it for a lot of different subjects. It can make beautiful portraits with blown-out soft backgrounds, or used like a scalpel to isolate smaller details in general photography (like a 135mm was used with Nikons). The classic feature of the 250mm Sonnar is ability to compress distance in landscapes, which Ansel Adams exploited in some of his legendary images.

 

But its a tricky lens to master: nailing sharpness can be difficult since depth of field even wide open at f/5.6 is quite shallow (and the lens is notoriously sensitive to vibration even tripod mounted). I'm rarely happy with the results I achieve with the 250mm Sonnar, but when everything comes together it can create magic in that "only Zeiss" way. It has a bad rep as one of the "weaker" lenses in the Hasselblad system, considered vastly inferior to the ridiculously more expensive 250mm Super Achromat, but this is unfair. The original design dates back 80 years: within its limitations, it performs remarkably well, which why the design was never changed during the entire run of the Hasselblad system.

 

Most of the problems people encounter with it actually stem from the clackety-clack, vibration-monster Hasselblad body mechanics: if you take extra pains to work around the rackety body the 250mm comes into its own. Resale price on these dropped dramatically a couple years back: it isn't unusual to find a CF 250mm for as little as $250 (the old C versions go for half that sometimes). At that price, you should definitely take one for a spin someday: your 501cm with larger mirror was made specifically for it.

What are your thoughts on using the Acute Matte D 44204 with a meterless prism finder as far as focusing? Better to use a microprism or split screen to focus since it's not possible to verify focus with a magnifier? Also, from a quick search, specific diopter correction lenses for the prism finders appear to be hard to find. Do you know if any of the finders are useable for someone wearing glasses? I don't really want a chimney finder, since part of my objective would be to raise viewpoint level.

Of late, I've been using the 42170 Acute Matte split/checker screen with the waist level finder for most of my work. So I dug out my two prism finders and the 42204 AM-D plain cross screen to re-acquaint myself with that setup. The photos below show my 500cm bodies with the oldest NC2 unmetered prism, and the mid-period PME meter prism. These share similar eyepiece glass (not sure about the most recent rounded models: they're way overpriced so I don't own one).

 

The NC2 is about as close as you can get to the magnification of the waist level finder (approx 3x vs 4x for WLF). It is also the smallest, least expensive prism. Later, angular prisms like my PME are larger, clumsier and have slightly less apparent magnification. Neither snaps into focus as easily as the WLF, but I hit focus more reliably when using the Distagon wides with the NC2 than the PME. I'm certain this is purely a subjective issue: my eyesight is horrible, so my eyeglass prescription is incredibly strong, and for whatever reason the optics of the NC2 are more compatible. I only use the PME when I need the meter, or I'm using normal or portrait lenses instead of the Distagons.

 

Regarding corrective diopters, I don't find them particularly helpful with Hasselblad prisms because their optics work reasonably well with my eyeglasses. At first I did try to jury rig something early on, because I absolutely require a +0.5 diopter on my Nikon F and F2 bodies. I discovered the standard Nikon F-F2-F3-Nikkormat diopters will fit perfectly within the eyepiece of Hasselblad prisms (see arrows showing each prism with and without the Nikon diopter). It just press fits right in, and comes out if you turn the prism upside down. A drop of rubber cement would give you a semi-permanent installation if desired.

 

After realizing I don't need the diopter correction with 'blad prisms as much as I do with Nikon, I stopped using them, but this is a nice trick to know if you can't find a true Hasselblad diopter in the strength you need. Its also a lifesaver if your Hasselblad prism eyepiece threads are seized: a surprisingly common issue that prevents installing the genuine 'blad diopters. The only drawback of the Nikon diopters is they might very slightly vignette the corners of the focus screen, depending on the thickness of your eyeglasses.

 

For my own use, an Acute Matte with split image is almost a necessity to nail middle-distance focus with the Distagon wides, even the 60mm. Very close or infinity is OK with the 42204, but I struggle with it at indoor distances with lenses shorter than 80mm. At 80mm and above, the plain cross 42165 (AM) and 42204 (AM-D) work about as well as the split image variations (for my vision, anyway- YMMV).

 

Thanks for getting into all that. That's a monster of a lens up top.

 

I have an F2 as well and a Nikon diopter for it. The NC-2 I see for sale look pretty beat up. I think ideally a PM45 would do well, but they're pretty expensive, so for now maybe I'll just hang with the waist level. Sure is good to get back to Hasselblad. The sample/test roll I shot looks great.

The "monster lens" is the CF 250mm f/5.6 Sonnar mentioned in earlier posts. It isn't quite so large in the hand as it appears in pics- about three inches longer than the 150mm. The older silver or black "C" version feels 35% smaller, due to thinner B50 barrel.

 

The NC2 is plentiful and reasonably priced, but you might have to look thru a couple dozen listings for your preferred combination of price and condition. At the moment, KEH has a few nice ones in "bargain" rating (which many consider 8/10 condition) for approx $79: this is typical stable price over the past several years for an NC2 with mostly intact black paint and clean optics. Flawless mint will run you closer to $139, but leave those to collectors: nobody really "needs" a mint NC2. Worn-looking NC2s can be had for as little as $45 with patient shopping: at that price, if the brassed paint bothers you, just repaint it.

 

Most survive in excellent clean optical condition: they were very sturdily made for Hasselblad by Novoflex Germany. They're prone to having the black enamel paint wear off, esp on the front, but this has no effect on anything. Who cares what it looks like as long as it works, and none of the many prisms were attractive or coordinated to the elegant body styling even when new. Prisms are a shooting tool: when you want to admire or display the beauty of your Hassy, just slap the prettier classic WLF back onto it.

 

The newest, rounded PM45 is ludicrously overpriced and looks like it fell off the back of a UFO. The only people who really need one are owners of the equally expensive electronic 200 series bodies with built-in meters that can be damaged by the NC2 or first-gen rectangular prisms. For any other 'blad body, older versions are just as good or better (for a lot less money). Other than the NC2, best bargain is probably the VFC-6 aka original PME meter finder. This is the angular prism with TTL LED meter. These can be found fully operational for under $200, or with dead meters for as little as $50 (in which case they function as unmetered prisms). I nabbed the PME in my photo for $67 two years ago, fully functional, because it had cosmetic chipping on the housing. Still works great (tho you need to shift ISO setting slightly to match Acute Matte vs old ground glass screens).

Edited June 13, 2019 by orsetto

Isn’t an issue with the NC-2 though that you can’t see the whole frame at once with that magnification?

... just wondering too if there’s any advantage with the PME over the NC2 other than the meter. Is the PME lighter?

NC2 is smallest and lightest, with highest magnification. It does have rounded corners that very slightly crop the view by about 8%. For most Hasselblad photography (and photographers with eyeglasses), this is utterly insignificant: the WLF 4x magnifier makes it virtually impossible to see 100% of the screen anyway, so even there you're somewhat guesstimating composition. With the slightly cropped 3x of the NC2, most eyelass wearers can see almost the whole screen comfortably. The Nikon F series exploits 100% finder accuracy, and needed it for common tasks like transparencies, copy work and extreme macro. Hasselblad? Not so much: few people are still shooting 6x6 slides for projection, or doing 1:1 macro with the bellows. For printing or scan-to-screen, its easy enough to work around (or ignore completely most of the time).

 

If you're very concerned with nice cosmetics, the angular PME prism with intact paint (but dead meter) sells for about the same price as a worn-looking NC2. The angular PM. PM3, PM5, PM51, PME etc (and final UFO-inspired PM45 types) have squared corners and minimal finder crop vs the NC2. But this trades off against bulk, weight, uglier design, and lower magnification. The lower magnification is one of those debatable improvements that help some people and not others, akin to the original Nikon F3 (NC2) vs F3HP (later 'blad prisms). If you have perfect vision, the lower mag lets you take in the entire screen at a glance without critical eye positioning- but at the expense of less-decisive focus with the Distagons.

 

There is a small "cult" that favors the Ukranian Kiev knockoff of the NC2: it is a hair brighter, has square corners, doesn't crop the screen, and can be had mint for lower cost than the NC2. I tried one and didn't care for it: the fixed standard diopter isn't quite as neutral as Hasselblads, so it gave me eyestrain, and it isn't as nicely made (the optics can show faint lines in the image from the prism edges). It is very popular, tho: many find it a worthwhile compromise. I also had the Kiev LED meter prism for awhile before I traded it for for the 'blad PME: this was also nice, and (until recently) available new/mint at reasonable cost. Kiev being Kiev, most need to have their meter ISO dial zero-calibrated before first use (easily done). Today, the genuine 'blad PME is a better value: Kiev LED prism prices have inexplicably skyrocketed compared to five years ago, while the PME remained steady or even dropped a bit.

Edited June 13, 2019 by orsetto