Are there better years of 500CMs then others?

[michael_sinopoli]

I am looking to purchase a 500CM with 80mm CF lense and I am trying

to see if a particular year/s are better then others. I looked at

older threads and couldn't find any that answer my question

directly. I think that any year in the 80's would be good but would

like to ask the forum. If I did my research correctly the CM was

manufactured until about 89 and then the "500CM Classic" was released

until 92. I was told that during the transition of ownership of

Hasselblad during the mid 90's their quality sliped a little, so I

would want to stay in the 80's. So, I found a 500CM kit with the

newer crank and newer viewer, like the Classic, with the diopter that

can be changed, 80mm CF and 120 back for $1,100USD. I think this is

a good deal and I am going to see it tomorrow and if it looks good I

think I will buy it. I was told from the shop owner that it is in

E++ shape and a professional did not use it. It is manufactured in

1985 thus the RC SN number. Comes with a 100 day warrenty. Looking

for any input to my pending plung into medium format. Thanks.

[blake_abbott]

I purchased an 86 model for about the same price/same shape and am very pleased with it. I bought a handheld meter and have been nothing but satisfied with the results from this camera. I really like the low tech (electronics=none) and high quality. I'm forced to slow down and think about what I'm doing. Mine came with the older Acutematte screen which is sufficiently bright for me. I've heard some of the older (non-acutematte) screens are not to bright, so you might check on that.

[ulrik_neupert]

A late Hasselblad 500 CM like this with warranty is the camera to go for. There are earlier 500 CM cameras with a less good internal coating against flare, less sturdy magazine catches etc. My 500 CM cameras are from 1984 and 1986 and are of the newer type. Have a look at the magazine. The "A12" type is more comfortable to use than the very old "12" type. "A12" type magazines from around 1984 and later are a little more comfortable to load because of a small change of the magazine insert. Make sure that the three digit number of the magazine insert is the same as the last three digits of the serial number of the magazine shell. Be prepared to spend money on an Acute Matte D screen (I prefer the split image/microprism type over everything else).

 

Ulrik

[jay_.]

Another body worth checking out is the 503CX. It's still got the high-class construction of the 500C/M (the cheapening started with the 503CXi where they took off the body-cocked mechanism/indicator, the shutter release lock, and changed to the bulky tripod plate)plus OTF TTL flash and most important, came standard with the Acute-Matte screen which is the most essential ingredient of enjoying using a Blad.

[michael_sinopoli]

Well I am back from purchasing the 500CM described above. It was very clean, SN matched on the A12, not very much wear, even around the back where the magazine attaches. The waistlevel screen has a split screen. I am not sure if this is a standard screen or not but it looks bright. He also gave me the adapter for the tripod hole to make it smaller. I think I got a good deal. Thank you for all of your input.

[majid]

I would recommend you get the Acratech Arca-Swiss QR plate (if you have a tripod and head with matching clamp). It fits the 3/8" hole in my 500C/M's tripod foot and has 2 side flanges to prevent twisting. I paid $1200 for the same setup as yours from fellow Photo.netter Paul Neuthaler, and I am very happy with it, although I did have to spend quite a bit more later to get an Acute-Matte D screen (an upgrade I heartily recommend).

 

When you get the chance, take pictures on very high-resolution film like Velvia or T-Max and view them with a 50x inspection microscope. The results will blow you away...

[michael_sinopoli]

Thank you for the recommendation Fazal. I will have to see which screen I have exactly because I have no idea other then it is a split screen which is a diagonal line and a circle surrounding it. The camera is being shipped to me so I will look to see if there is a part number on it or something to identify it.

[Sandeha Lynch]

You've raised my curiosity about screens. Mine, (on a '93 500C/M Classic) is a grid screen with a central magnifier. No part number. Is this identifiable? Is it likely to be the original screen?

[john_mitchell3]

The 1992-93 Hasselblad catalog and a "500 Classic" brochure I have at home, state that the Classic model came equipped with a 42250 focusing screen with grid and central 15mm diameter microprism. This is not an Acute-Matte screen. I bought my 1993 Classic in used, as-new condition still in the box with some warranty left. Fortunately, the first owner had installed a 42170 Acute-Matte screen (grid with split-image rangefinder--the split-image is horizontal or vertical depending on how you install the screen, not diagonal). At that time, Hasselblad also offered a standard, non-Acute-Matte 42218 screen without grid, but with a 5mm diameter diagonal split-image rangefinder within a 14mm diameter microprism grid or collar. I have had no complaints about my 1993 model 500C/M.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Thanks for your response on the screens, John. I like fresnel focusing, but not when I'm in a hurry. I may look into a split screen sometime.