Hasselblad 500 EL/M

[pieterdekoninck]

Recently I have come across several 500 EL/M bodies at what seems to be bargain prices. Is this a problem-laden camera? I know the batteries can be replaced with an adapter to take off-the-shelf ones. I cannot find anything much about the Hasselblad 500 EL/M online, which leads me to think I should shy away from buying one. Anyone out there know about this camera?

[ben_hutcherson]

@orsetto got me interested in them probably last year or in the early part of 2019. In honestly, if you can tolerate the extra weight/bulk over a "C" body, they are hard to beat, especially as a secondary/backup body.

 

As you said, the original batteries are basically a thing of the past, but there are a lot of adapters out there including a bunch of pre-made ones and some DIY solutions. I run mine on a 9V battery via an inexpensive adapter. I use the type where the adapter itself sits in one of the two battery compartments and the 9V in the other, which is a design some dislike, but it's been fine for me.

 

I find it a bit unwieldy with an 80mm Planar, but pretty much other lens balances it out nicely.

 

One of the best things about them is that they are inexpensive-a complete one with a WLF often won't cost much more than a WLF by itself. The other side of this is that, unlike manual advance bodies, they're often not worth fixing.

 

Also, although Hasselblads are kind of middle of the road in terms of mirror vibration as MF SLRs go(they're not as well damped as something like an RB67, but not as bad as a Bronica S2) but the heavier motorized bodies tend to dampen that out even more vs. the "C" type manual advance.

 

The focusing screen situation for these is basically the same as for the 500C/M. Most will have shipped with the black cross plain GG screen, which is dim(but does "pop" nicely into focus). A genuine Hasselblad brighter screen can cost you plenty, particularly if you want the popular focus aids. Aftermarket screens tend to either be even more expensive than genuine Hasselblad, or not as good. Rick Oleson personally fitted a screen to my EL/M while I waited, and swore when it was done that he'd never do another.

[Rick Helmke]

This takes me back. I used an ELM and a 150 for high school

football back in the day. My F2 would only flash sync at 1/80 while the Hasselblad went up to 1/500. It was slower than I was accustomed but it was one shot per play anyway and only 12 exposures per roll. The good old days, thank goodness for Acufine.

 

Rick H.

[orsetto]

See my post (#12) in this older thread for a good overview of the EL/M type of cameras vs other Hasselblads:

Hasselblad 500EL

 

The EL/M is usually the minimum I'd recommend, because it lets you remove the focus screen for easy dust cleaning (or replacement with a nicer Acute Matte screen). The oldest EL model has a fixed, dim screen: OK for occasional use, not great for a daily user. It s possible to DIY change the screen, but its a bit more involved and invasive, and not everyone gets the thing re-assembled correctly. That said, ben_hutcherson had very good luck installing a new bright screen he purchased from the Rick Oleson website for approx $80. If you find a real bargain good-running EL for under $150, it might be worth considering the DIY Oleson screen upgrade. This is much cheaper than buying a used Acute Matte screen ($160-$450) for the later ELM or ELX models.

 

Rick Oleson does not offer a screen for the later models, only the original EL, so the only realistic screen upgrade for those newer 'blads is a pricey second-hand Acute Matte. Looked at another way, you can often buy a motorized ELM or ELX, plus an Acute Matte screen, for about the same cost as a manual-wind 500cm or 503cx with old plain dark ground glass screen. If you don't mind (or prefer) the motor option, getting an Acute Matte screen becomes much more economically feasible with an ELM or ELX vs CM/CX.

[Ed_Ingold]

The one to look for is a 555ELD, which takes ordinary AA batteries - five of them. I have one because it fires a CFV digital back electronically, and has other useful features too.

[orsetto]

The 555ELD is the fiercest EL variation, but still way more expensive than the other ELs by a country mile, and unless you plan to immediately use a CFV digital back it has no significant advantage over the far less expensive 553ELX.

 

The 553 is essentially the same camera with the same AA battery chamber, but without the 555 CFV digital back contacts or NASA-spec heavier-duty mirror mechanism. The 555ELD was a niche model optimized for studio product and fashion pros transitioning from film to digital. The electronic back contacts avoided the need for a sync cable attached to the lens. The NASA-grade mirror mechanics upgrade was a typical Hasselblad over-reaction to a theoretical problem: they feared pros would fire off many more continuous shots with a digital back than with film, thus putting more stress on the mechanism leading to more frequent breakdowns. In reality, any EL is pretty hard to break: the motor generally gives out before the mirror does, and no amateur enthusiast is going to be firing off hundreds of shots per day like the studio pros did. It should also be noted the 555's electronic contacts will only operate a CFV back: the still-popular Phase One and Leaf backs with larger CCD sensors still require a sync cable connected to the lens flash port.

 

If all you really want is the AA battery feature, don't overlook the fact that Hasselblad offered a retrofit service for the older 500ELM and 500ELX bodies after the 553 debuted the AA feature. I've owned a couple of these updated bodies, they turn up regularly at dealers like KEH and on eBay if you're patient, often at a significant discount vs the 553. Do remember the difference between ELM and ELX if you go this route: the 500ELX is identical to the 553ELX aside from the battery chamber (so an AA-modded 500ELX is exactly the same as a 553ELX). But the 500ELM lacks the larger non-vignetting mirror and the TTL flash circuit.

[q.g._de_bakker]

Two minor additions to what Orsetto wrote:

 

While needing a synch cord running from lens to back using Phase One and other 3rd party backs on a 555 ELD , the ELD's contacts do still do something. When using the digital release, the contacts synch the camera (not the lens) and the back. The camera will not release unless the back is ready. And the back signals when the exposure has finished, and the camera will wind on, regardless of what your finger on the release button does or doesn't do.

Worth much? I don't know. But il like it. I would like it more if they would indeed obviate the need for a synch cable, but still...

 

The difference between the ELX versions besides the battery configuration is that the 553 is of the 3-generation (Acute Matte screen, Palpas coating and such).

 

 

I have (and have seen) quite a few ELs and EL/Ms that do not really work anymore (motors 'running wild', and won't stop until you remove the battery. Sloppy mechanics. The result of hard (read: relentless, motor powered) use. The ELX models are younger, and the ones i have and know are quite good. The ELDs however do impress as very sturdy thingies. Could be because of age. But the ELD indeed is a further improvement on the 553 ELX model. Could well be that. The ELD has been (and is) my turn-to Hasselblad since a few years after it became available. (The 503 CW is my second choice (less weight), but i somehow feel the CW will not last as long as the ELD (not when used with the motor attached). But time will tell.)

I guess what i am saying is: get the newest (and least used) model and body you can find.

[orsetto]

q.g._de_bakker's additional clarifications reminded me: the standard focus screen caveat for all prospective Hasselblad purchases applies to these ELs as well. Always examine the body itself, listing photos, and/or ask the seller to confirm what screen comes installed in the camera. It was common for buyers to upgrade the screens on older bodies, and newer bodies that originally came with desirable Acute Matte screens are rarely found with those same screens still installed today.

 

This is especially true of the late runs of 553ELX and all 555ELD: these originally came with the split image/microprism Acute Matte D model 42215 screen, which is today the most highly sought after, most overpriced camera focus screen on the face of the earth (changing hands for an average $400 used). That screen itself is more valuable than any EL body aside from the 555ELD, and even a 555ELD should take a 30-40% price hit if that screen is missing. Check carefully before you buy: an older model 'blad might include a nicer newer screen, and newer 'blads may have had their superior screen swapped for the older ground glass. The latter instance should be compensated by a lower asking price.

 

Re the palpas internal anti-reflection coating in the later models: this was a good idea very poorly implemented. The coating is inevitably cracked by now in nearly all 'blads that have it, resulting in black palpas dust getting dumped on the focus screen with every exposure. This is normal, as is a very shoddy appearance of the rear barn doors (worn, cracked). It looks ugly and the dust can be annoying to keep after, but the cameras are otherwise (thankfully) unaffected by their deteriorating internal palpas (stiff black foam insulation coating vs the black paint used inside older models).

 

Lastly: aside from heavy pro abuse, many a case of motor malfunction is caused by the badly designed big square "NASA" style shutter release button fitted to some EL variants. This square button is notorious for self-shorting and causing erratic motor function (won't fire single frame, locked in continuous mode, etc). Over the years I've found that simply replacing this big square ELX shutter button with the older smaller round EL/ELM button cures most malfunctioning cameras. The buttons are interchangeable, snapping on and off easily: before sending a motor 'blad in for service, try a round shutter button.

Edited December 31, 2019 by orsetto

[q.g._de_bakker]

I can only agree that the square release button is to be avoided. But though it is a source of problems, it cannot agree that it the source of all problems, and that changing to a standard, round release button will cure a 'runaway' motor. Older EL-models can exhibit the same (or similar) motor problems without ever having been fitted with one of those square release plates.

It's not heavy pro use (alone) that causes excessive wear. The motor of any motor drive (goes for the Winder F and Winder CW too) is quite powerfull and when it's on it's on and does not 'go easy' on the mechanism, nor does it stop for anything in the way. You can of course be rough on a manual wind camera too, but i'll bet they last longer than motor driven ones.

The thing to do buying used motor driven cameras (and used cameras in general) is: buy as 'young' and as late a model as possible. No guarantee that you then get a better one. But it improves the odds. I would avoid EL and even EL/M models. Especially seeing how cheap ELX models are today. ELDs are still relatively expensive.

 

The thing with the Acute Matte screens is that the older, non-Acute Matte ones, though dim, are actually better, in that they allow more precise focussing and a better view of how out of focus parts of the image will look when captured on film or on a chip. If and when there's enough light, the ancient screens are great and the Acute Mattes only so-so. So don't be too hesitant when you find a good deal on a camera that doesn't have an Acute Matte inside.

 

Yes, the Palpas coating will have shrunk and split in 3rd generation V-System cameras. It looks ugly, but still works. Palpas-dust may be a problem, but i haven't found it to be so myself. That's one thing the ELD is supposed to have going for it over the 553 ELX model: further improvement in stray light reduction. Can't say i've noticed much of it. That doesn't mean per se that it is not there.

[Ed_Ingold]

If you use a sync cable with a digital back, you must enter a value for the maximum exposure time, typically 1 second. That value also established the minimum time between exposures, which becomes annoying when taking time exposures. Using the electronic contacts in the 555 ELD only, the exposure time is however long you hold the shutter release, and you can take the next exposure without delay. The same is true for 200 series cameras which have been factory-modified for digital backs.

 

Normal operation of the ELD causes the mirror to return to viewing position immediately. 200 series cameras return the mirror, but you must manually cock the shutter lens to restore the view. You can easily pre-release the mirror to return after the exposure, or lock it up until unlocked.

 

The only drawbacks are weight, size and noise.

Edited December 31, 2019 by Ed_Ingold

[q.g._de_bakker]

If you use a sync cable with a digital back, you must enter a value for the maximum exposure time, typically 1 second. [...]

 

Not all digital backs, Ed. Phase One P backs, for instance, do not need to be told.

When using those on a ELD, how long you hold the shutter button only matters when making long exposures on B (to keep the shutter open). Else, the back senses when the exposure is done and signals the camera to go on.

But you do get to sit through the dark-exposure wait.

[Ed_Ingold]

A sync cable is only used with a lens shutter. The duration of the shutter opening is not transmitted to the body nor the back. 500 bodies can trigger a CFV back with a mechanical extension of the shutter release. 200 bodies require a sync cable with shuttered lenses, but only a modified electrical connection when using the focal plane shutter.

[Niels - NHSN]

Is this a problem-laden camera?

 

Not first hand experiences and not specific to the EL/M:

A company I worked at in Japan 8-9 years ago, had a camera club.

5 of the members had various Hasselblads cameras. I recall that these cameras were rarely seen on our photo outings because they were often in for minor fixing; I recall talks of jamming and light leaks etc.

Regardless, the cameras were obviously loved as there were often talks of newly acquired lenses and accessories.

 

Another related anecdote: I own a late Rolleiflex T "white face". The last batch of this model made by Rollei for the British Ministry of Defence in the early 70's. When I researched my purchase, I came across a statement that BMoD wanted switch from Hasselblad to a less service requiring camera.

 

FWIW, My impression is that this system is a little more finicky than the average medium format system, but also that if you have the correctly matching, bodies, backs and accessories, and experience with the system, it can be a very enjoyable system.

[q.g._de_bakker]

"Not first hand experience", indeed.

Here's mine. Almost half a century, using quite a few Hasseblad V cameras of almost all types. Only one (1) body ever needed to be sent in for repair, due to stupid operator error. Nothing finecky about them. Not that other brands do not also make sturdy thingies.

You also do not need "correctly matching bodies [etc.]". Where did you get the silly idea that you do? On internet, from other "not first hand experience" experts?

 

Please, when someone asks for advice, do give sound advice, that you know to be true yourself. There is far too much nonsense repeated over and over, and over again on the internet by all too many "not first hand experience" experts.

Edited January 1, 2020 by q.g._de_bakker

[Niels - NHSN]

"Not first hand experience"

Glad to see you can read, but I feel sorry for you, that you seemly don't understand what you read.

 

My post reflects full disclosure of the origins of the statements. Anybody is free to give it the value they personally feel it deserves.

 

I would like to point out, that most science is based on observations - and the scientist is not expected to be subject of an experiment - for obvious reasons.

My post has nothing to do with science, of course, but my personal observations are based on interaction with a group of 5 people who actually owned Hasselblad cameras - As an observer; clearly not as an owner with first hand experience with the cameras - as I fully disclose.

The emotional tone of your post may interestingly serve as a good illustration; that when individuals has a personal emotional attachment to a subject, the they run the risks of colouring their statements and actions with prejudice rather than being objective.

 

I don't have a personal or emotional investment i Hasselblad, but you obviously do.

 

Cheers,

[Ed_Ingold]

don't have a personal or emotional investment i Hasselblad, but you obviously do.

i.e., No personal experience, and uncritical acceptance of questionable information. It is bad science to reach a conclusion then look for data to support it.

 

How many 40 year old cameras, other than Hasselblad and Leica, are still in common use? How many have merged with the digital age? For the cost of a Nikon D5, my 1980 Hasselblad can become a 50 MP digital camera (upgraded from 16 MP).

[orsetto]

My impression is that this system is a little more finicky than the average medium format system

 

As a long-time Hasselblad fanatic, having experienced more bodies, backs, lenses and accessories than most of my 'blad-owning friends, I must agree with this statement. Other elements of your post could be argued, but it is absolutely a fact that TODAY, for the average dilettante film photographer who only knows the system from its legendary reputation, Hasselblad can be a bit of a wildcard. Aside from my own, er, "adventures", I have encountered more than a few woefully-unprepared 'blad aspirants who were bitterly disappointed by what a PITA the system can be in terms of fussy-ness.

 

It does no one any good to keep beating the drum of Hasselblad being some sort of mystical, fabulously reliable system when it simply isn't. It never really was in the first place: not in the sense that average joe or jane photographer understands "reliable" to be (i.e., Nikon F). From day one, the system was designed with the notion it would be periodically and regularly serviced like a '50s automobile: if maintained in this manner, then yes, it is very reliable. The problem is, this crucial maintenance factor was almost never mentioned by the camera press in its heyday: even the very 'blad-skeptical Modern Photography rarely (if ever) brought it up. Hasselblad itself did very clearly publicize the original 1000f, 1600f, and 500c as professional instruments that would need servicing at more frequent intervals than more typical systems. Much ado was made in initial press coverage of their efficient, professional service network. But by the late '60s and their NASA involvement, all public messaging omitted that point.

 

This leads many an unwary photographer to jump on a Hasselblad deal today before doing enough homework, then getting unpleasantly surprised that the system may be more of a headache than they bargained for. It can screw you to a brick wall and eviscerate you financially when you least expect: unless purchased from a service tech or camera dealer with a "recently-overhauled" warranty, chances are (at minimum) you'll face a pricey lens shutter/diaphragm repair at some inconvenient point. The film back seals crap out so frequently there are dozens of DIY replacement tutorials online, yet every day it seems another new 'blad owner plaintively posts a thread somewhere asking "Is this a light leak? What do I do about it?" The back gearing gets gummy, body barn doors are a frequent sore point, and mirror pad wear is another oft-sneaky "gotcha".

 

All these problems go away with an overhaul, and stay away if you send the kit in for touch-up maintenance every few years. Professional users (the ones with any brains) sent their gear in annually, the wealthy amateurs not as often. The second -hand market today is quite different: you have tons of Hasselblad gear trading hands that hasn't seen a technician in decades. A large percentage are discarded pro items with hidden wear, or examples from recently-deceased doctor/dentist/lawyer estates that have been sitting unused in a closet since 1991. A clueless newbie who's never owned anything but DSLR or 35mm film cameras can easily get ensnared by one of these, and sour on the entire system in short order.

 

Vintage Hasselblad is wonderful: the optics render like no other, the cameras are gorgeously crafted, pride of ownership can be inspiring. But to fully enjoy the system, potential owners MUST be aware the intricate interlocking pieces were engineered with OCD procedural usage and regular maintenance checks in mind. Expect fussy operation: something as simple as attaching or removing lenses can be a Jeopardy-level challenge vs the almost brainless task it is with other cameras. Prepare for immediate or ongoing service costs that simply don't occur with other similar systems. Whatever you are budgeting to get into Hasselblad, add half again that amount to get it overhauled before serious use (better to do it now than be surprised at a bad time later).

 

I must stress, none of the above is meant as a slam against Hasselblad: the system functions as per the legend when used and maintained as intended. The problem is, casual aspirants today with no conception of those intentions may be bitterly disappointed if they assume the "legend" of reliability is the same type of reliability as a Nikon F. Nothing made in Europe matches Japanese "reliability" in the terms younger, casual film photographers might assume (i.e. even Rolleiflex and Leica are comparable to Hasselblad, but a bit easier to cope with because all their fussy mechanics are concentrated in a single-piece body- you aren't adding random additional film backs and lens shutters to the mix).

 

A Mamiya RB67 will almost never suffer a lens jam, because the system was designed after Hasselblad paved the way and showed the interface pitfalls. A Bronica SQ will almost never suffer a sticky shutter issue, again benefiting from coming later in the game (after Bronica learned from both Hasselblad and its own mechanical misadventures). The large clunky Mamiya TLRs aren't as svelte and sexy as a Rolleiflex, OTOH their lens shutters can be serviced by your local gas station attendant (or you can just discard the lens set and buy another inexpensive functional snap-in lens set). Of course you can still face the occasional film advance or seals issue with Japanese medium format, or get bitten by total trainwrecks like the Pentax 67II, Kowa 66, or plastic Makina 6x7. But this pales in comparison to the aggravation you'll get from a disused or balky German / Swedish mechanical masterpiece: if the camera you covet has the name "Compur" anywhere on it, assume a repair bill to arise soon after purchase.

 

I'm aware I've perhaps been less fortunate than most in my experiences, and many 'blad enthusiasts here have never had an ugly surprise or issue with the system. I'm (genuinely) thrilled for them, but that doesn't mean the potential for disappointment isn't still there, or that it isn't significantly higher for Hasselblad, Rolliflex and Laica than for other comparable systems. So long as one is aware of and prepared for possible issues and additional costs, all these systems are wonderful: knowledge is power. The strained analogy I always make is to second-hand Rolls Royce automobiles of the same vintage and original price structure: sure, almost anyone can afford to buy one now for the price of a used Chevy, but the servicing costs and pitfalls are as high as when the things cost a quarter million brand new. Greatly depreciated buy-in price is only the tip of the iceberg: be mindful and savvy of this when considering such a system, and it can be very rewarding. Stumble into it thinking it will still be as functional as the 1971 Nikkormat you bought at a pawn shop for $10, and you could be in for a rude awakening.

Edited January 2, 2020 by orsetto

[arthur_gottschalk]

Getting back to the 555ELD, I see that Wilde says "Upgrading to the 555 model is especially recommended. This 'workhorse' has a heavy duty motor, an improved stray light protection, and and a new motor release and mirror suspension system-- the type that has proven itself for a number of years in the space cameras." Perhaps these are the reasons this camera is much move expensive than the 553.

[orsetto]

Perhaps these are the reasons this camera is much move expensive than the 553.

 

Scarcity is the #1 reason the 555ELD costs more on the used market than any other EL. It can't be price shopped, because if you want one, at any given time only a few (if any) are available on eBay in any particular country. Buyers have to take what they can get at full market price: waiting around for a cheaper example from a deceased dentist's estate (or any of the other usual eBay shopping tricks) won't work. Its the same with traditional dealers: they know the ELD is rare, and somewhat collectible for a standard-issue Hasselblad, so prices remain high.

 

The only practical justification to buy one in 2020 instead of a 553 or 500 ELX is you're more likely not to be cheated out of the pricey 42215 Acute Matte screen that it originally came with than other models. Sellers routinely harvest the Acute Mattes from most 'blad EL bodies to sell separately for $200- $400, but buyers willing to pony up $800-$1200 for a used 555ELD know damned well the thing absolutely came with the 42215, and expect it to be present. Without that screen, the price of a 555ELD plummets, so if you want one for much less than the going rate look for one without its original Acute Matte D.

 

Its still poor value today for what it is vs 553ELX or 500ELX as a second-hand camera (and was outrageous at $3300 brand new in 2001). The NASA mechanism is total overkill, irrelevant for enthusiast use (esp with film), and if the commercial photographer who owned it before you rode it into the ground with a digital back it can be no less likely to fail than a 553 or 500 ELX (yet even harder to get repaired unless you know a NASA retiree).

 

The electric contacts for cordless digital back operation seem like a great idea, until you find out they only work with Hasselblad-brand crop-sensor backs, and only after you spend an additional $300 for an external battery bracket. Because the nitwits in Goteborg saddled their otherwise-beautiful CFV digital backs with a clumsy external Sony camcorder battery that fouls on the motor box of EL bodies. That battery L bracket is the single most price-gouging, offensively expensive item Haaselblad ever offered: $300? Really? To solve a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with? Ugh.

 

The 555ELD was invented for studio fashion shoots with a digital back, with a gaggle of art directors and corporate drones hovering over the photographer. In that specific environment, the advantages of the ELD electrical contacts become evident (better integration with tethering software and remote triggering). In normal environments (non-studio, no gaggle of interlopers, no remote triggering, with film or untethered digital): a 553ELX or 500ELX will do just as well for half the cost. Or less: if you're willing to use 9v battery instead of AA, you can buy three 500ELX for the cost of one 555ELD. If you somehow manage to wear out a 500ELX, you can wear out two more before you break even with ELD cost.

 

The ELD is the last and best EL model, no question, but the price/performance numbers don't add up for most non-commercial users who just want a backup body (or an affordable Hasselblad body). In their era, the motorized Hasselblads were more desirable than the handcranked models and sold for significantly higher prices. In todays market, the EL models are an afterthought: almost nobody wants them, because nobody is burning thru bricks of film with a motor any more. They've become relegated to entry-level or second-string status vs 500cm or 503cw. So the pricey 555ELD sits in nowhere land: too expensive to be entry level, yet not particularly worth its cost for its features.

Edited February 11, 2020 by orsetto

[arthur_gottschalk]

I see that Hasselblad tech David Odess no longer works on EL cameras (if he ever did), and refers those repairs to Hasselblad in New Jersey. I wonder what kind of job they do, and at what cost.

[ben_hutcherson]

It does no one any good to keep beating the drum of Hasselblad being some sort of mystical, fabulously reliable system when it simply isn't. It never really was in the first place: not in the sense that average joe or jane photographer understands "reliable" to be (i.e., Nikon F). From day one, the system was designed with the notion it would be periodically and regularly serviced like a '50s automobile: if maintained in this manner, then yes, it is very reliable. The problem is, this crucial maintenance factor was almost never mentioned by the camera press in its heyday: even the very 'blad-skeptical Modern Photography rarely (if ever) brought it up.

 

I've talked on here many times about British sports cars, and in particular my much-loved 1970 MGB.

 

I frequently get questions from co-workers who think they might be interested in owning one, or another similar car. I consider my MG generally reliable, and in fact the only tow home I've had was from a punctured radiator(too much of a story to get into here, but it wasn't the car's fault).

 

No one I know has bought an MGB based on my advice, but I've actively encouraged a few to pursue it, and actively discouraged a few others. The guy who custom ordered 100 head gaskets for his daily driver because it was an NLA apart has the right attitude to own an MG, and in fact would appreciate the easy availability of parts. The person who drives a mid-2000s Camry and adamantly refuses to check, much less change, their oil because "Toyotas never need maintenance" would be a poor candidate to own an temperamental British car.

 

I view Hasselbad ownership much the same way. If you are willing to put up with the quirks of the system, it's like nothing else. A person who wants to treat it like a single digit Nikon film camera(the camera equivalent to a Camry-it just does what you need it to do with only occasional intervention) would be more at home with a Bronica. At the end of the day most eyes probably couldn't tell the difference if both cameras were in competent hands, much like how no one can really tell if I arrived at my destination in my MG or my 10-year old Lincoln(aside from smelling like exhaust, and possibly not being able to hear well for a few minutes, if I'd driven the MG).

[pieterdekoninck]

Now that we're on the subject of cars, I remember once being at my mechanic's shop when one of his clients stopped by in his new-to-him 7-series BMW. He was crowing about how he got the car for a low price. The mechanic then reminded him that he was still going to have to pay for a complicated, high-tech $80,000-car maintenance, parts and repair costs. I guess the same goes for cameras: you might be able to buy into a Hasselblad system relatively cheap (compared to the original price), but you still have the same cost of maintenance for the body, the backs and lenses.

[q.g._de_bakker]

The electric contacts for cordless digital back operation seem like a great idea, until you find out they only work with Hasselblad-brand crop-sensor backs, and only after you spend an additional $300 for an external battery bracket. Because the nitwits in Goteborg saddled their otherwise-beautiful CFV digital backs with a clumsy external Sony camcorder battery that fouls on the motor box of EL bodies. That battery L bracket is the single most price-gouging, offensively expensive item Haaselblad ever offered: $300? Really? To solve a problem that shouldn't exist to begin with? Ugh.

 

Yes and no. The electrical contacts work pretty well with non-Hasselblad branded digital backs (either that, or someone forgot to tell my ELDs and PhaseOne backs hat they shouldn't be working together as happily as they are). But yes, you need a synch cord to let the back synch. The contacts communicate anyway, preventing release of the camera before the back is ready, and triggering the motor to wind on when the back notices the exposure is done. Do you need that? Not really. But it isn't something that gets in the way either. Quite usefull, even though not essential.

 

These P1 backs have their batteries incorporated inside the chassis, so no brackets required. No problem either, hence, using them on a SWC. So get one of those, instead of a Hasselblad back (though they do look prettier, the Hasselblad ones).

 

In short: what you mention above is more a Hasselblad CFV-back issue than a camera issue.

 

The ELDs are quite good cameras. Nothing wrong with them. And though not yet as cheap as older models, their price is coming down (the last one i bought - used - was surprisingly affordable, compared to what they went for not that much earlier). And if you find an affordable one (and what that means depends on you), get one. Else get an ELX.

[q.g._de_bakker]

One other thing: in this and other threads, the impression is given that Hasselblads need more service than any of their competitors. While they do indeed benefit from regular service (as much as any mechanical device does, as a function also of how much it is used), they really do not 'need it, or else...'.

Yes, lubricants used in Zeiss lenses tend to get soapy (as they also do in Rolleiflex lenses), but they often do not, even when left unused for years.

And yes, those pesky magazine slide seals... just switch to digital, and never again... ;)

So do not let this scare you.

 

And that, by the way, from half a century of personal experience with quite a few (some would say: too many) of them. Which was why a good many of them only knew sporadic use.

[orsetto]

Yes and no. The electrical contacts work pretty well with non-Hasselblad branded digital backs (either that, or someone forgot to tell my ELDs and PhaseOne backs hat they shouldn't be working together as happily as they are). But yes, you need a synch cord to let the back synch. The contacts communicate anyway, preventing release of the camera before the back is ready, and triggering the motor to wind on when the back notices the exposure is done. Do you need that? Not really. But it isn't something that gets in the way either. Quite usefull, even though not essential..

 

No contradiction here with what I stated above: the ELD contacts can come in handy in with non-Hasselblad backs in some narrowly specific circumstances (i,e,, the studio shoots it was intended for, or if you have some particular fetish to shoot motorized medium format tethered at slow speeds as if it was a Nikon D6, so require the back to clairvoyantly communicate its readiness to shoot at a blazing 0.8 fps). Otherwise, ELD still needs a sync cord to the lens with anything but the Hassy backs for every other use case, which puts it on par with all the other V cameras.