Hasselblad 501CM

[kiwirob]

I'm thinking of purchasing a HASSELBLAD 501CM BODY WITH 80MM F2.8 CB PLANAR LENS

& A12 MAGAZINE from a local dealer. Its in good condition and the company is a

reputable one and the price is so nice, this just seems like the perfect time to

get it, but.... he has doubts, yes he does.

 

Does anyone have any experience of these? I've heard tell that sometimes the

film doesn't lie flat in the back. I'll do the usual test when I go see it, like

flicking through each shutter speed and aperture etc and shoot a roll of on it,

but are there any other things to look out for?

 

I've read reviews and comparisons between Rolleis and Pentax etc and it

undoubtedly gives a good image and is a sturdy bit of kit, but any advice from

anyone would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks. Rob

[bob_smith]

I have used a 500CM for over 10 years and I have never been tempted to buy any other

camera since I bought it...although I did have a couple of brief affairs with a 2.8 E2 and 3.5F

Rollei's...

I have all "C" lenses made in '68, '71, and '72, the body in '89 and the A-12 in '91. Not one

failure or problem. I have put over 800 rolls of film through the camera and I had had the

whole bunch CLA'd two years ago. I don't baby it but I don't abuse it either. Have seen zero

evidence of unflat film.

[William Kahn]

I've had my 501CM for five years, and my experience mirrors Bob's. It's just an excellent, reliable robust camera. I've never had any problems with film flatness, and the only flatness problems I've heard of are related to doing things like shooting 120 film in an A24 back.

[russ_britt3]

Who told you about film flatness problems? No such problem....Hasseys as good as it gets.

[geronimo]

Rob, I've been shooting with a 500C/M for the past 5 years. I've even bought a second kit given the current used market prices. I certainly never had any film flatness issue nor any mechanical issue (my first hassy was from 1971). As bob says, I've had brief affairs with other systems such as mamiya 67 and 645, Rolleiflex and Rolleicord but they did not compare to the user experience of the Hassy and the great availability of secondhand market items. Get it.

[norris_lam]

Never heard such a problem of film flatness. Actually u can see it if you wont mind lossing one or two frames of film. I own 501CM for quite many years and it disappointed me few times as its shutter and mirror all jam together. I knew this was not new to the Hasso users (as told by the official repair center) as they will prepare for 2nd body during photo trip. Pls don't let me disappointed you, mechanic is mechanic, just like a car. The camera and in particular the 80mm lens is very very sharp. Enjoy shooting. The camera set is a piece of art when you hold it in your hand.

[derek_stanton2]

I think the 'issue' of Hasselblad Film Flatness is more an issue of Rollei's claims that their

back's keep film flatter. Same, perhaps, with the Contax 645, which had an optional

Vacuum Film Back to improve film flatness. But, if you've followed photographic history,

you would be aware of the countless number of fantastic Hasselblad images, and even if

other cameras were able to keep film flatter, it seems to not be a significant matter.

 

I haven't noticed any problems with my Hasselblads, save the one time when i realized too

late that i hadn't tucked the film under the little retaining piece. But, that was my error.

Otherwise, i would probably advise that you don't keep film in the camera, unused, for

long periods of time, as it might curl. I read this somewhere, and soon after, had some

unsharp images from a Rolleiflex. Not the same system, no, but maybe that's something

worthy of consideration. Maybe not....

[brucecahn]

Have had these cameras since the 1960's. First the 500C, then the CM, now the new model, whatever it is called. They are the best cameras for 6x6. No film flatness problems. The only problem is that it jams sometimes. Once you learn how to use it this is not a problem. Results are better than any 6x7. Have also had Mamiyas, Pentax 67, Bronica, old Rollei twins and one SL66. It beats them all, though I would choose the Rollei f 3.5 for natural light.

[wai_leong_lee]

Film flatness has nothing to do with the camera.

[ed_skibeki]

Film flatness may not be a big problem with the recurve magazine design, but it's hardly a non-issue. A search on this site will offer up myriad posts on the topic.

 

In response to a similar question posted some time ago, K. Fleischer, an employee of Zeiss responded in the following way...

 

 

The problem is real! This is what I wrote about it in Zeiss Camera Lens News (you can access CLN at www.zeiss.de, select English language):

 

Is rollfilm 220 better than 120 in terms of film flatness?

 

Zeiss has recently developed a new measuring system to evaluate film flatness in medium format photography.

 

The new system is based on an computerized microscope that can automatically scan and focus on multiple points of a film frame in a medium format camera magazine. The obtained focusing data are recorded by a computer and evaluated by a propriatory Zeiss software. The result is a mapping of the film topography with an accuracy of one millionth of a meter (1 micron), according to the developer of this system.

 

The purpose of this new device is to find out how well film magazine mechanics are designed in today's medium format camera systems, how precise they position the film and how well they hold it flat. From these findings Zeiss can draw conclusions about the field flatness required for medium format lenses and Zeiss can also trace causes for lack of sharpness in customer's photos. This is particularly interesting since more than 99% of all customer complaints about lacking sharpness in their photos can be attributed to misalignments of critical components in camera, viewfinder, or magazine, focus errors, camera shake and vibrations, film curvature, and other reasons.

 

So far, Zeiss has found that film curvature can have a major influence as a source of unsharpness. This has also been known by Zeiss' camera making partners Alpa, Hasselblad, Kyocera (Contax) and Rollei. Since Zeiss' evaluation program is not completed yet, we would like not to draw too many conclusions prematurely. But two things can be stated already as hints to enable sharper photos with medium format cameras at wide open apertures, since exactly those are invited by the high level of aberration correction in Zeiss lenses:

 

1. 220 type rollfilm usually offers better flatness than 120 type by a factor of almost 2. This is an advantage with fast, motorized cameras like the Contax 645 AF, Hasselblad 555 ELD (and previous motorized Hasselblad cameras) and Rolleiflex 6000 series cameras.

 

2. Film flatness problems are mainly caused by the combined influence of two factors: the rollers in the camera or magazine that bend the film, and the time a certain part of the film is bent by such a roller.

 

Camera manufacturers usually space the rollers in a way that bent portions of the film will never be positioned near the center of the image. Therefore only marginal regions of the image should be affected by sharpness problems due to film flatness errors.

 

Since the photographer cannot alter the geometry and mechanics of his camera, he can only influence the other factor: time. A film run through the camera without much time between exposures should result in good flatness and hence sharpness. Five minutes between exposures may be some sort of limit, depending on brand and type of film. 15 minutes are likely to show an influence of bending around rollers. Two hours definitively will.

 

As a rule of thumb: For best sharpness in medium format, prefer 220 type roll film and run it through the camera rather quickly.

 

Camera Lens News No. 10, Summer 2000 [Quit]

 

-- Kornelius J. Fleischer, March 08, 2001; 03:21 A.M. Eastern

[benny_spinoza]

Why worry about absolute film flatness at the edges if you are not a professional? For non-pros (and even most pros), what little film curvature there might be is a non-issue. Buy the Hassy. The prices have dropped so much the past few years...they are a great buy. It's the kind of camera you can keep the rest of your life, and pass on in your estate. Nowadays, I see wedding photographers with their DSLR canons. There has been a major dump of Hassys on the used market by wedding photographers. Buy while the price is low. Someday, the glut will subside, and prices may actually rise.

[frankz]

Complaining about film flatness in a Hasselblad is rather like trying to pick the fly poop out of the pepper. The backs are good - period. Sounds more like someone's advertising implication to me.

[bob_smith]

I have never experienced a jam because I always check to make sure I don't remove a lens

unless the camera is cocked, and the lens I put on it in the same state.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Ernie,<br><br>The problem is real... marketing nonsense.<br>Fleischer/M�ller was, after all, head of strategic marketing at Zeiss.<br><br>The Zeiss brand Contax was launching a vacuum back. And Zeiss tried to find a way to push it on the market.<br>So they suddenly found they had done tests, an almost scientific experiment. And would you know it, 220 film (the only one that can be used in that vacuum back) is flattest!<br><br>As was already mentioned, roll film has been used for many, many years before Zeiss discovered there was a problem. And we, poor saps, never noticed there was... We (well... better photgraphers than i am) even made great pictures without knowing that (according to what the Strategic Marketing Department said) they were not.

[ed_skibeki]

Hi Q.G.

 

One of the advantages of digital, we're told, is the flatness of the sensor. I admit to never noticing any real world problems with film flatness, with Hassie backs, but then most of my pictures are on tripod, with tiny aperture.

 

Might a 1 week kink in a shot taken at 2.8 show out-of-focus problems? I don't know. I know you've pointed out Fleichers' suspect motives in past posts connected to this issue, but it stands to reason that flatter is better, and if you look at the film gate on a roll that's just been advanced after sitting for a while, it bulges forward noticeably. I would guess at least 1 mm, which is not insignificant on a wide angle lens.

[kiwirob]

well guys, you pretty much made up my mind here. Thanks a lot for all the comments for and against. Now I just gotta hope nobody else has gone and bought it while I dithered.

Cheers, Rob.

[wai_leong_lee]

Film flatness is not a problem of the camera because of the modular design, ie if it's not flat, it's due to the design of the back, has nothing to do with the camera. Hence whether it's a 501CM, 503, 500, etc. doesn't make the film any flatter.

[kiwirob]

Damnit! I phone up at 09.00 this morning and it was sold at 17.15 last night. *sniff*

[andreas_carl]

There is always keh.com

[kiwirob]

thanks! had never spotted this site before, I'll give it a whirl.