Hasselblad: Built to Last

[ghuczek]

I bought my first Hasselblad, a 500 CM with an 80mm lens back in 1979,

after long and careful deliberation. It is still working! I wonder how

many people will be able to say the same thing 27 years from now with

digital cameras. Here is a photo from the first roll I took. It was

shot on Kodak 6041 (Verichrome Pan). Before I had a darkroom, I had

the film lab processed. The photo was shot on a tripod with a yellow

filter.

 

I still use that same camera and lens. The camera has paid for itself

many times over. No regrets about ever having moved up to medium

format from 35mm.

 

The photo was shot about this time of year at the Kortwright

Conservation Area in Southern Ontario.<div></div>

[paul_neuthaler]

Great. Thanks. I hope me & my Hassie kit, and film, are around in 27 years!<div></div>

[eric_brody]

Mine was purchased in 1983 for the purpose of photographing my then new baby daughter. I still have it, it still works just fine, I use it regularly. The daughter has now finished graduate school and occasionally allows me to photograph her, but not often. Digital cameras are no more designed to last 24 years any more than computers are.

[q.g._de_bakker]

I have a 500 C/M from 1979 too. I use it quite regularly, and it works as it did the first day.<br>Though i have had other cameras serviced, now and again, this one never saw any service since it came from the factory. It just never gave me occassion to think about having it seen too.

[jn02]

George, while I haven't had the honor to have been an active photographer for 27 years my 500 C/M is going on ten years since i purchased it used. I've had zero failures. I always find it entertaining to see posts on Hassy unreliability, usually from bad used purchases from poor resellers. Truly the pinnacle of cameras and always a joy to see developed.

 

Derek Rader

[john_amiet2]

I bought my first Hassellblad 45 years ago, a birthday present for my first daughter on her first birthday. :-)) My wife took the first picture which was me holding my daughter.

 

Unfortunately, I sold that camera but still have four others today. I never sold another one. I got the first 203FE to come south of the equator and put literally thousands of rolls through it over a period of about 12 years. It developed a problem that could not be solved locally, so was sent to Sweden for repair. A brand new body was returned to me at no charge. How good is that for backup?

[michaelaly]

I only bought my Hasselblad about a year and a half ago but it's stories like these that got me into it(not to mention the lovely lovely images). In fact I'm scanning two rolls I shot today. And I hope to still be shooting with it in 20 years or more, just can't beat the Hasselblad.

[frank_bunnik]

I bought a 1969 vintage swc last year. Maybe it has been serviced since 1969, I don't know, but it works flawlessly.

[shambrick007]

"I wonder how many people will be able to say the same thing 27 years from now with digital cameras."<p>How many of us will care? Fellow Hassy owner...

[arthuryeo]

They just keep gong & going & going ... :)

[david k.]

Well, I just started a Hasselblad budget kit, and was simply looking for the best "bang for the buck"....looked at many combinations and settled on a 500 EL, a 100 CT*, with just the standard waist level finder.

 

Both the body and lens are in mint condition, the body is a 1966 model.

 

Was in Yosemite National Park last week, with a tripod, and cable release, and rolls of Pan F.......can't wait to see the results.

 

BTW, as I intend shooting of a tripod anyway, the extra weight of the EL is not an issue, the mirror lock-up feature, with cable release and motor drive make for very easy shooting.

 

For a forty year old rig, and a bargain price, it is fabulous value for top of the line performance.

[leicaglow]

I've had my first setup for 24 years, and it was about 5 years old when I got it. It has never failed me (I hate to tell you I had to replace my light seals for the first time last year!).

 

I've had Nikons that have lasted equally as long. I also shoot with Nikon digital. I'm not so worried about my D200 working in 25 years as I am about it becoming obsolete in 3. My Hasselblad still delivers images and will become obsolete only after the last roll of film is discontinued.

[rod g.]

Brought my 500C body in 1995 with a 12 back (body ca.1969, back ca.1957) amd have added lenses, backs and accessories as needed ever since. Never had an urge to upgrade to even a 500C/M. My favorite finder is the chimney with the adjustable diopter for glasses free shooting. The kit is entirely mechanical, dependable and pre-1980 (except the lightmeter). Once you get use to the Hassie's quirks it's a very natural system to work with and the results are most often outstanding. I'd buy this kit all over again if I had to, couldn't have served me better.

[terence_mahoney1]

<i> I bought my first Hasselblad, a 500 CM with an 80mm lens back in 1979, after long and careful deliberation. It is still working! I wonder how many people will be able to say the same thing 27 years from now with digital cameras.</i></p>They'll be out continuing to make photographs whilst you ponder the irony that your Hasselblad remains fully functional well past the time film and processing have ceased to be.

[sandeep_singh_brar]

Those Blads are mere youngsters compared to the folks shooting almost 60 year old Rolleiflexes from the golden era of the early 1950's with their Planar and Xenotar lenses which still seem to be in high demand even today and spare parts are still readily available. It's pretty neat to see contemporary photographers and photography students shooting with the Rolleiflexes.

[ghuczek]

Terrence -- I ponder the irony that my Deardorff was made over 70 years ago and I still continue to use it.

[simonpg]

Good post George and so nice to hear such stories. My first Hasselblad was a 501CM bought about 1 year old, old 5 years ago - so I have been sadly deprived of such joy for so many years as others have posted here.

 

Reading others' posts here like those of John A and QG highlight the fact that often the good stories are "hidden" while the minority bad stories are loudly screamed out - naturally enough. It seems that iconic brands are more obvious targets for the loudest unhappy screams when things go wrong - for very obvious reasons.

 

The fact is that iconic brands don't become iconic for no good reason - Hasselblad gear did not become the preference of so many pros for so long just for reasons of perceived quality. The proof was in the gear's longevity and reliability. But we all have to be mindful that these are quite complex mechanical devices and things can and will go wrong some time.

 

The real test is like John A's experience; when local servicing is not a sufficient cure for a problem, we will hope that the manufacturer will step in and make good our investment as was done in John's case. That's a "great" manufacturer.

[terence_mahoney1]

<i>Terrence -- I ponder the irony that my Deardorff was made over 70 years ago and I still continue to use it.</i></p>But the question specifically dealt with 27 years hence. Let's see if you're still useing that Deardorff in 2033. In fact let's talk in 5 years.