Hasselblad 500 c/m - can't re-attach a12 back

[peter_fowler]

I can't believe my past stroke of genius to have bought into Bronica gear :) ! Peter

[orsetto]

Well, you for sure save a huge amount of money to achieve comparable functionality and images with Bronica SQ.

 

OTOH, the number one complaint I see from Bronica ETR + SQ enthusiasts concerns the shortage of backs that aren't wrecked (apparently they aren't as common or repairable as Hassy or Mamiya backs).

 

The grass is always greener, until we hop over the fence and discover every lawn just has a different set of weeds. ;)

[ben_hutcherson]

I had both an ETR and and SQ system, and I think 7 backs across them(4 120 for the ETR, 2 120 for the SQ, one 220 for the SQ). All of them leaked like a sieve. I talked Jon Goodman into digging out the tooling to make seals for the SQ backs-I only did one and it was quite a job-I sold the other back with the never-installed seal kit included. IIRC(and paraphrasing), he told me something about how he didn't know if he could charge enough to make it worthwhile for him to make ETR back seals again.

 

Also, it's pretty widely thought among leaf-shutter Bronica shooters that a body is just a disposable box on which you hang a lens, finder, and back. They're not particular unreliable, but at the same time if one does die you're best just to toss it and buy another.

 

On the plus side, though, the electronic Seiko shutters seem to never die or drift. I've honestly never been unhappy with a Seiko shutter-both the electronic ones in my Bronicas and the mechanical ones in my RBs. I do store the RB shutters uncocked...I probably should have done the same with the Bronicas when I had them, but at the same time never had any issues from storing them cocked. Unlike a Hasselblad, too, both cocking and uncocking off the camera is pretty straightforward(I usually end up using a coin to cock Hasselblad lenses, while the Bronicas and Mamiyas just require pushing the levers on the back).

 

I still have a kit lying around to do another RB67 back. They're prone to leaking also, and are time consuming to replace, but at least don't require anything particularly weird or otherwise difficult. The Pro-SD backs(which are compatible with all bodies) use a labyrinth type seal, but they also have a reputation for being a bit more fragile. The only one I have is a 645 back(which I've never used-I'm not hauling that much camera around just to shoot 645) but it definitely lacks the solid feel of the Pro and Pro-S backs.

[ralf11womba]

Are there digital backs to fit the 500 cm?

 

If so, are they prohibitively expensive, or...??

[orsetto]

Yes, and yes.

 

Minimum cost for a decent older back with usable (in 2019) technology would be approx $2500- $3500 for a something like a Phase One P25+ or similar Leaf back. These would have CCD sensors close to the frame size of 645 film. ISO tops out at 400 but is optimized for 100: forget low-light shooting. No in-camera JPEG capability: raw files need to be processed in software like Capture One or ACR. A clumsy cable connects the flash socket of the lens to the firing port on the back. Most backs need the modern Prontor flash system in the CF or later lenses, the Compur in the old C lenses can misfire randomly.

 

Modern backs with CMOS sensors ISO-competitive with a Nikon D800 or Sony A7R start at $7500 second hand for the Hasselblad CF-V50c, and skyrocket from there to $20K, $30K, even $40K. The sensors are smaller at 33mm x 44mm, not all that much larger than full-frame DSLR, which makes for an ugly crop factor with the 6x6 Hasselblad lenses (the 50mm or 60mm Distagon becomes a standard lens, the 80mm a portrait lens), and you lose wide angle altogether unless you plop down $2K-$3K for the 40mm CFi (which still ain't that wide on 33x44).

 

You can sometimes snag one of the very old 37mm x 37mm square sensor CCD backs from Phase, Leaf, Sinar or Imacon for under $1500, but the crop factor is rough and many don't have preview screens (you must tether them via FireWire to a MacBook laptop). Some don't even have memory card storage: you have to drag around a bulky heavy "Image Bank" the size of a book (hard drive + battery).

 

Unless you've got tons of dough for a modern back, its actually cheaper and more reliable to buy a complete non-Hasselblad 33x44 focal-plane-shutter body like Pentax 645D or 645Z, or Fuji GFX50. These can use Hasselblad lenses with an adapter, and cost $2200-$5500. The advantage of these is the sensor is built into a solid body, which eliminates the many alignment and firing issues inherent in separate backs on a 500cm. Prices have also dropped to $3K-$4K on older Hasselblad H System CCD digital bodies like H3D, which can use the old Zeiss lenses with a clever (but expensive) adapter that coordinates their leaf shutters with the H body/sensor. Service and support has become an issue for the older H series, so that entails some degree of risk.

 

I'd probably opt for a Pentax 645D at approx $2300. Or better yet, just use the lenses on my Hassys as Victor intended, until nobody makes film anymore.

Edited January 11, 2019 by orsetto

[jean-pierreauger]

The A12 is a tricky proposition. Its true prices of nice second-hand backs have skyrocketed obscenely in the past two years, but its also true that the Hasselblad gear price rollercoaster has a nasty tendency to turn on a dime when you least expect. The current A12 back prices are absurd- seriously absurd compared to their historical trend since 2009 and that of other more stable Hasselblad pieces (bodies, finders, lenses). I would hate to pay $275 for a back on eBay today, only to have them crater back down to $125 tomorrow. The market is fickle, and Hasselblad in general is moderately to severely overpriced right now vs other MF options.

 

That said, it depends on the overall condition of your specific A12 and whether you honestly think you'll make a go of shooting with the system again (after having neglected it for many years). If the back you sent to Hasselblad is clean (no chips or pitting in chrome, crank intact, mounting plate ridges not worn down too much), then spend $150 to have it overhauled. That fee is a bit on the high side, but a pedigree from genuine Hasselblad repair center is worth it. Presumably that high rate includes replacing any critically worn exterior parts (crank, mounting plate).

 

For future reference, for a spare back consider picking up a nice A24. These are routinely available for $50- $80 on eBay from reputable sellers. You can use 120 film in the A24: it just needs slightly different arrow-lineup when loading, and frame spacing will be a bit peculiar (esp the final 12th frame). And of course you need to remember to wind off the film and reload after the twelfth exposure (the counter will keep going to 24, so if you forget you'll be shooting blanks). The inconvenience is worth it for many of us, given the huge (near $200) savings vs current A12 pricing.

 

Re the lenses: sadly there are no guarantees of getting one that won't need repair suddenly (unless you pay a huge premium to buy one recently overhauled with a warranty from the tech). The lens mechanism is the Achilles Heel of the Hassy system, one that bites hard on unsuspecting casual users who don't realize Hasselblads need regular (and expensive) maintenance. Its never been clear why the hell Mamiya, Bronica and other Japanese lens shutters can go 30 years without major repairs, but a Hasselblad lens can't seem to go five years without vomiting all over itself. Its really REALLY annoying and ghastly expensive unless you're committed heart and soul to the "Zeiss look".

 

You can up your chances of getting a lens that will go the distance by shopping carefully. Above all, avoid the older all-metal silver or black "C" lenses like the plague. I learned that the hard way: they are beautiful to look at and the build quality is unsurpassed, but their Compur shutters are a money pit. Forget sentiment and beauty: opt for the uglier newer CF, CFi, CFe or CB lenses and you'll have far fewer problems. Unfortunately everybody else knows this too, so prices are correspondingly higher.

 

The CF 80mm f/2.8 Planar holds its value extremely well, so historically has been difficult to snag for much under $650 in good working condition from sellers like KEH. Individual eBay sellers sometimes let them go cheaper, but with KEH you get a no-questions-asked 30-day return/exchange/refund policy. The CB version is priced similarly or slightly higher, and offers much nicer focus feel and even more durable shutter. Back in the day it was sneered at for having one less element than the CF, but in recent years has been re-appraised as a damned fine lens in its own right (a hair less sharp in the corners but sharper in the center compared to the CF).

 

Going in another direction, recent prices on the modern 60mm f/3.5 Distagon CF are more stable and affordable than the 80mm Planar CF. If you like the slightly wide perspective of your ancient 60mm f/5.6, the newer lens offers much brighter max aperture, more reliable shutter, and often sells for $500 or so if you stalk eBay listings for a couple weeks. It is also available as a slightly nicer CB or CFi, but those versions cost hundreds more than the CF while having the exact same optics.

Could you explained more in details how to put a 120 film in a A24 magazine ? The arrow on the film paper must be before or after the sign on the magazine....

[orsetto]

Could you explained more in details how to put a 120 film in a A24 magazine ? The arrow on the film paper must be before or after the sign on the magazine....

 

Briefly, as summarized by another photo.net member: "start the 120 roll 3 cm ahead of the red arrow. This fits all 12 frames on the film. (Using the red arrow as you would on A12 cuts off half of the 12th frame off 120 film.) Or, just load as normal and don't count on the 12 frame: use it only as a potential 'bonus frame'."

 

There are other more detailed posts about this here on photo.net and elsewhere, there used to be a youTube tutorial as well but when I just checked my bookmark the link was dead. While using 120 in the A24 does work, it isn't as "idiot-proof" or convenient as the A12. I do it because prices of the A12 have tripled in recent years, and I wanted less expensive backs to use on my cheap motorized 500ELX (reserving my A12s for my 500cms). It takes a few rolls practice before you nail down exactly the perfect loading process (each A24 is a tiny bit different),

 

The hard part is loading the A24 perfectly, to get the full 12 exposures from a 120 roll without cutting it off or having wildly erratic spacing 'betweenframes'. Some A24 backs are better at spacing 120 film than others: some can be more challenging to load. If you don't mind limiting yourself to just 11 exposures, and aren't particular about consistent flawless frame spacing, you can pretty much load the A24 just like you would the A12 (and not worry about it).

Edited January 11, 2019 by orsetto

[peter_fowler]

Concerning the Bronica ETR backs , I'm certainly surprised to hear the above mentioned problems , owning 6 , 120 backs and 2 (Etrs(i)

cameras for the last decade and having no problems at all with any of them (cameras or backs ) . Lots of backs on Ebay for around $100

and a few the newer double latch type . Obviously YMMV , :) Peter , a happy Bronica kinda guy .

[ralf11womba]

I have finally gotten Hassy to communicate with me, and they tell me my cm has a non-Acute Matte screen, the “focusing screen with central grid” product #42234.

 

I am now wondering if I should get an Acute Matte screen for it.

 

I will sell the 5.6 lens and buy something faster.

[orsetto]

The 42234 screen is the standard older, dimmer plain ground glass matte. Instead of black painted cross bars, it has a very large central microprism (aka "central grid") spot. The microprism spot is very bright, the surrounding matte very dark with f/4 lenses. The microprism spot breaks up into a very fine diamond pattern when the subject is out of focus- the pattern is almost too fine, defeating the purpose with Distagon wide angles (tho it works well for portrait sessions with the 80mm-150mm lenses). I'd suggest keeping it, and perhaps adding the cheap, standard 42161 black-cross matte screen with no focus aids. The black cross screen is kinda dim and grainy, but evenly bright across the whole screen, which some people find makes it easier to frame and focus with.

 

The Acute Mattes are very bright, and very expensive (plain matte with engraved cross typically goes for $100-$200, split image with checker grid or microprism donut $250-$400). The plain cross A.M. screen is beautiful to view and compose with, as it has no distractions aside from very faint transparent alignment cross bars. But focusing with it can be tricky, esp if you wear glasses: some find it easy, some find it impossible to judge accurately. Hence the popularity (and stratospheric prices) of the Acute Mattes with central split image focus aids. The split image makes focusing a literal snap with most lenses, but matte vignetting can be super annoying with 40mm and 50mm Distagons, and the split tends to black out with the 250mm f/5.6 unless you position your eye exactly right.

 

Acute Matte "D" were the final, most desirable, most popular Hasselblad screen versions. Today, they are often not worth the exhorbitant premium sellers ask over the more common non-D Acute Mattes. Most Hasselblad enthusiasts can't tell the difference between D vs non-D versions of the plain cross or split-image/checker grid screens: they are identical for all practical purposes. The one screen that was ONLY made in a D version was 42215 (split image with microprism ring and cross bars): of course it is the most expensive.

[ralf11womba]

Thanks much. The only one I see readily available is the #42165 - which is $222. Any info on that one?

 

Also, how can I be sure a screen I buy is not a counterfeit? (I know about the D shaped holes in the Acute Matte type D; but what about the regular Acute Matte screens?)

[orsetto]

The 42165 was the most common "original" (non-D) focus screen: standard equipment in later bodies like 501c, 503cx, and 553ELX. It is very nice: see my earlier description of the "plain cross" Acute Matte (which is what the 42165 is). The price you've seen of $222 is way too much, unless it is new old stock with box, case and papers. With a little patience, a good condition condition 42165 can typically be found for $150 (even less if you're willing to accept a little minor wear).

 

You can identify the genuine Acute Matte 42165 by its hair-thin, engraved transparent four-bar alignment cross (as opposed to the thick, black painted cross in the old ground glass screens). Also, the old black cross screens have a much thicker glass sandwich: the Acute Matte looks more like a single thin piece of glass and is recessed deeper in the metal frame (leaving the four little corner feet fully exposed). The followup "D" version of this screen is 42204, identified by the two frame notches, and the center cross bars being longer (and set further apart). Both screens appear equally bright and contrasty to 9 out of 10 Hasselblad users (the tenth one is usually lying to justify the extra money they spent for the "D").

 

The Acute Matte screens are rather fragile, with a tendency to suddenly and inexplicably "decay" (for lack of a better word) in peculiar ways.The cover glass can develop a fogged appearance, and/or concentric circles of matte finish can "disappear" beneath the cover glass. This looks strange and can kill resale value, but once installed in a Hasselblad camera these flaws are invisible (or barely visible) unless the screen is on its last legs.

 

If you don't mind these benign flaws, you can snag a good discount from honest sellers who describe and price these "user" 42165 or 42204 screens appropriately (I picked one up for $77 recently, see pic below). There is no telling when these flaws will randomly develop: one reason to consider carefully before dropping in excess of $400 for something like a scarce "new old stock" 42215 "D" screen. Should you be unlucky, your 42215 can develop fog rings overnight: rather an unpleasant prospect after spending such a sum of money. Shop wisely, and wait for the occasional bargain.

 

[ralf11womba]

Where is a reliable place to buy lenses?

 

Are there any trustworthy sellers on ebay nowadays?

[gone fishing]

One of the best is Dave Odess but you will pay a premium price and he may not have what you are looking for - but if he does and you are willing to pay the price, you won't need to worry about a CLA.

Joel

[andyfalsetta]

With the number of "volume" sellers on eBay these days, it is more economical to do as much of an online inspection and interrogation of the lens/seller as you can and then take your chance it will be fully functional and have clear glass when it arrives. If not, the seller pays for the return so you only lose time. If time is of the essence then pay the premium other sellers ask for.

[tom_chow]

<snip>...

Also, how can I be sure a screen I buy is not a counterfeit? ...

Adding to what orsetto said...

 

If you can inspect them in person, hold the screen up to a point source of light (ie: distant lamp), and you will see a rainbow diffraction pattern of light, non-acute matte screens will just be blurry. Minotla's Acute Matte design was to make the entire surface of the screen out of micro-prisms, similar to the common focus aid, but much finer. This allowed more light to be directed towards the eye position for a brighter view. The downside is that out of focus areas do not look right (ie: not the way they are recorded on film). The "D" version corrected this to some degree (as well as the aerial image issue).

 

The Hasselblad Acute Matte Screen design was 2 layers, the plastic screen and a glass top cover, separated by a space. The glass top cover allowed you to use a grease pen to mark composition element on the screen. (...most of the old screens DO NOT have a glass cover). One of the problems is dirt or moisture gets trapped between the layers. Do not clean the top glass layer with a liquid, it will weep in between and give you those rings that orsetto mentioned - which is the Fresnel surface getting wet. Oily droplets collecting between the layers over time are not unusual. The screen can be disassembled and cleaned, I've done a half dozen - but you run a high risk of permanently scratching the plastic layer. I've never seen an acute matte screen "decay", just dirty, broken, or badly scratched ones.

 

Another thing to keep in mind if you are buying on line is that many boxes that are labelled Acute Matte contain an old non-acute matte screen, not because the seller is trying to cheat, but mostly because they do not know how to recognize an acute matte screen. Most people who upgraded their old screens put them in the box that the acute matte came in.

[orsetto]

There aren't really any "counterfeit" Acute Matte screens: Hasselblad only made three basic models, each of which was weirdly specific enough to be easily identified, all of which have a telltale rainbow shimmer. You also have to bear in mind, the current bizarro-world insanity pricing is a relatively recent development of the second-hand market. When these cameras still ruled the world in the 1990s, the AM screens sold brand new for around $100 apiece: there was no real incentive to counterfeit them, and there were also a ton of third party BriteScreens, IntenScreens, etc to choose from.

 

As tom_chow noted, the biggest "gotcha" was the tendency of owners to stash their original darker screen in the Acute Matte box after they upgraded. Now, years later, eBay is flooded with these mis-packaged screens, innocently listed by non-photographers based on what the box says the thing is. When in doubt, examine the pics closely: 9 out of 10 of these mis-listings will show the black cross screen (a few will have the bubble screen, or old split image). Pass on these.

 

Whether Acute Matte or "D", the three basic Hasselblad AM screens are plain with transparent cross, split image circle with engraved checker grid boxes (note the grid lines don't quite touch the split circle), and the ugly split image + microprism donut + four cross bars. Very late in the game, a small number of the first two designs also had a large inscribed central circle indicating the metering area of the final hideously expensive 200 series electronic Hasselblads: these screens are so rare in the wild you're unlikely to ever see one.

 

Otherwise, THAT'S IT. Any other screen design is NOT Acute Matte: anything with just a split image, or split micro, or diagonal split is a cheap standard Chinese screen (or dark pre-AM Hassy screen). Checker screens with a completed square around the split circle are not Acute Matte: again these are Chinese standard screens, or sometimes BriteScreens or Beattie IntenScreens. The latter two were legit attempts to make brighter screens before Hasselblad came out with A.M.. They are better than nothing, but have issues of their own (low contrast, slightly off-spec thickness). At this late date, go for Acute Matte or don't bother.

 

Re lenses: David Odess was a good (if pricey) source, but of late he tends not to have anything for sale at any price (concentrating more on his repair business). The default idiot-proof dealer for used 'blad gear in USA is KEH. Anything they rate as Exc or above is usually near mint. Exc- or Bargain grade can also be pretty good, but you run more risk of a defect slipping thru. Prices are slightly higher than private seller listings, but KEH has been a used camera dealer for decades and has a 30 day return policy. They also can repair much of what they sell. They only list their best stuff on their own site: most of their eBay listings are the more beat examples (although I picked up a nice "Bargain" 100mm Planar from their eBay store).

[ralf11womba]

Well, now that I paid Hasselblad to repair everything, I find the back will not lock to the body. I am moving the button in the approved dance but no luck. (Also, wound, matching body shutter (both white dots) & dark slide, yada yada)...

 

They also messed up the leatherette covering on the back above the crank.

 

Really unhappy with Hasselblad.

 

Any ideas on how to get the film magazine to latch? The video I found was no help, nor is the manual.

[orsetto]

Contact Hasselblad: tell them the repair is incomplete and needs further work. They really should provide a postpaid return shipping label and make it right.

 

I own one beautiful 500cm backup body that is VERY picky about which backs it will mount. Some snap on completely normally, others require a lot of fiddling and effort (all the same backs are perfectly fine on every other 'blad I put them on). This problem is usually due to misaligned body hooks: yours probably need to be adjusted upwards or downwards a hair, which is difficult to do without proper tools. Hasselblad must have simply forgot to check this after servicing everything else: annoying, but mfr service depts overlook the obvious today (you wouldn't believe some of the repair gaffes Nikon and Sony have foisted on people).

Edited February 11, 2019 by orsetto

[tom_chow]

nul Edited February 11, 2019 by tom_chow

[tom_chow]

Just a caution, you should check the body with a different back. Hasselblad service may have returned the hard points to spec, and it may be your back that is out. I've seen bodies where the hooks on the back went out of spec (and the back was slightly loose on the body), and someone tweaked the receivers in the filmback to compensate, because it's easier to disassemble the back.

 

A lot of repair services insist that you send the whole camera in for this reason, Hasselblad does not because, as a professional service, they assume you know your camera (most professionals had more than one) and they have jigs to return everything to spec.

 

Or they could have just screwed up,

[ralf11womba]

Thx - I sent in the complete camera (lens, body, and magazine), so it seems inexcusable to me. I'll Email them and see what they say.

 

I only have the single film magazine.

[andyfalsetta]

Here is some additional information. There are two interlocks on the film back. One prevents the back from being unlatched by the button on the top of the film back if the dark slide is not inserted. The other interlock prevents the shutter from releasing if the dark slide is in the fully inserted position. This shutter interlock can cause a problem with mounting the back if the interlock (flat spring) in the back has broken, is bent or is just not working correctly.

[ralf11womba]

Thanks - I am not sure what I can do about the interlocks...

 

Hassy is not very on the ball about responding to the Email on this mis-repair...