Hasselblad 1000F

[ben_hutcherson]

I couldn't pass this one up when offered it the other day. I honestly can't find many if any signs it was ever used. The shutter curtains are perfect, and the take up spool in the magazine is unbranded metal. There is essentially no wear on the back hooks or catch. The dark slide bail is super tight(unlike my more heavily used Hassy magazines), it's tight fitting in the slot(tighter than some of my well used ones even after fresh light seals) and the darkslide shows what look more like machining marks than scratches from repeated insertion/removal.

I will probably have to run a roll of film through this at some point, but it's just a darn nice looking camera to have on the shelf.

BTW too, the manual for the 1000F makes a big deal about how bright the focusing screen is. It's not as bright as the Rick Oleson Britescreen that I have in my 500C and 500 EL/M, but it's much brighter and more even than I remember the original 500C screen being or the /M type replaceable plain ground glass screen I have around here. IIRC the 500C had a condensor lens under the screen, and they are brighter in the center than at the edges. They're certainly useable but are dim. I wish I could have the 1000F screen in all my bodies. It uses a fresnel lens(visible, but the manual also mentions it) and is not as bright as, again, a Britescreen or factory Acute-matte, but has really nice "pop" in focus and seems a lot less prone to an aerial image than the newer screens. The 500C and the earlier /M set-up seems a step backwards to me. Those screens do "pop" really nicely, but heaven help you if you're in less than great light.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by ben_hutcherson

[mjferron]

Looks too nice to be a user. Good find. 

[James Bryant]

I would be interested in the results if you use it to take pictures. I used a 500c for 30 years but never saw a working 100F.

[bruce_z._li2]

Hope it works! Such a nice piece of historical equipment. Always wanted to try the Ektar 80/2.8 lens from that system.

[ben_hutcherson]

8 hours ago, bruce_z._li2 said:

Hope it works! Such a nice piece of historical equipment. Always wanted to try the Ektar 80/2.8 lens from that system.

As best as I can tell it does. 1 second is about 1 1/2, but otherwise shutter speeds are probably close enough to try print film. Everything else seems to work.

I've read that the Ektars are VERY highly regarded, and Ebay prices seem to reflect that. It was a bit of sticker shock to see 80mm Ektars for more than double what I paid for this one! From my reading there's some speculation that Hasselblad switched from Kodak to Zeiss because the Zeiss lenses were less expensive, which in 2023 is a crazy thing to think about.

I bought this camera sight-unseen from my favorite camera store back in Kentucky. I actually called the shop about something else, and the owner says "Oh, I just got this in and I know you want it." I was non-committal but he said something like "I'm just going to to set it back here behind the counter and you call me when you decide you do." I sent a Paypal payment to him an hour later...

I actually hadn't realized, though, until I really started researching these that they use a Tessar and not a Planar. I've used the Tessar-type Nikon lenses a fair bit(45mm f/2.8 GN and 45mm f/2.8 AI-P), have had Rolleicords and Rolleiflexes with 75mm f/3.5 Xenars, and at one point did have an Automat III(I think) with the f/3.5 Tessar. When I first got into large format, a lot of my lenses were 4/3 Tessar-type lenses, including the Ektar on my Speed Graphic, but of course a lot slower.

I've heard mixed things about the f/2.8 Zeiss Tessars in medium format, but we'll see. One thing that did really surprise me on this is how close it focuses compared to the 80mm "C" Planar I have on my 500C. I need to get a set of extension tubes, which I've managed to go 5 years without owning(I bought my 500C in 2018) but I know a lot of folks consider them a practical necessity for things like portraits with the 150mm f/4 C Sonnar. I've managed to get by without, especially since I tend to compose portraits wide for cropping to 4:5 from square, but there have been times where even one of the skinny ones would have been really useful.

In any case, as far as using this one goes, I think I'll probably use one of my other film backs on it to keep this one nice. If I understand correctly, not all 1600F/1000F backs are compatible with V cameras for a specific reason I'm forgetting at the moment(missing a provision for one of the interlocks), but any V system 12 or A12 back(or even an A24 I'd guess, but I'm not burning a roll of 220 in an unknown camera) should work fine.

 

[orsetto]

Congratulations on finding yet another amazing treasure via your local magical mystery used camera shop! Someone should make a Pixar movie about that shop: truly incredible what falls into their lap they then pass directly to you. Thats the most minty looking 1000F I've ever seen, very very nice. You say the shutter works reasonably well, overall operation seems sound, lens and viewfinder are clear? Wowsa.

From your pics, it appears to be a late model variation (likely the next-to-last). Body and film back date to 1956 by the serial numbers. Given that date, and the film back having the modern close-to-front frame counter location and penultimate version of the ASA film door cover, means its a Type C v1 back. These are cross-compatible with the leaf shutter 500 bodies, also any film back that works on your 500 will also work normally on the 1000F.  According to Nordin's invaluable "Compendium", anyway, and he's usually correct about these things.

Your Tessar lens is the more common, later short barrel version: also a lovely piece. It would be interesting to hear your opinion of how a 2.8 Tessar renders vs the later Planar for the 500 series, since not too many Hasselblad enthusiasts own both systems to compare. The primo, elusive Kodak Ektars are indeed very spendy nowdays: kinda poetic since Hasselblad ditched Kodak for being too expensive back in the day (tho then it was more due to the US dollar exchange rates being much less favorable vs sourcing from Zeiss directly in Europe).

Perhaps the 80mm Ektar for Hasselblad renders similar to the legendary 100mm f/3.5 Ektar on the Medalist 6x9 rangefinder brick? "Compendium" notes the 80mm Ektar used innovative coating for the era, and more radioactive Thorium in its low dispersion elements than usual (possibly more than the Medalist 100mm).

Enjoy this gem, and report back on your experience if/when you get a chance!

[hunter_compton]

22 minutes ago, orsetto said:

Perhaps the 80mm Ektar for Hasselblad renders similar to the legendary 100mm f/3.5 Ektar on the Medalist 6x9 rangefinder brick? "Compendium" notes the 80mm Ektar used innovative coating for the era, and more radioactive Thorium in its low dispersion elements than usual (possibly more than the Medalist 100mm).

They probably do render similarly, both are five element Heliar designs by Kodak engineer Fred E. Altman. The Medalist lens uses no Thorium in its construction though. 

[ben_hutcherson]

35 minutes ago, orsetto said:

Congratulations on finding yet another amazing treasure via your local magical mystery used camera shop! Someone should make a Pixar movie about that shop: truly incredible what falls into their lap they then pass directly to you. Thats the most minty looking 1000F I've ever seen, very very nice. You say the shutter works reasonably well, overall operation seems sound, lens and viewfinder are clear? Wowsa.

From your pics, it appears to be a late model variation (likely the next-to-last). Body and film back date to 1956 by the serial numbers. Given that date, and the film back having the modern close-to-front frame counter location and penultimate version of the ASA film door cover, means its a Type C v1 back. These are cross-compatible with the leaf shutter 500 bodies, also any film back that works on your 500 will also work normally on the 1000F.  According to Nordin's invaluable "Compendium", anyway, and he's usually correct about these things.

Your Tessar lens is the more common, later short barrel version: also a lovely piece. It would be interesting to hear your opinion of how a 2.8 Tessar renders vs the later Planar for the 500 series, since not too many Hasselblad enthusiasts own both systems to compare. The primo, elusive Kodak Ektars are indeed very spendy nowdays: kinda poetic since Hasselblad ditched Kodak for being too expensive back in the day (tho then it was more due to the US dollar exchange rates being much less favorable vs sourcing from Zeiss directly in Europe).

Perhaps the 80mm Ektar for Hasselblad renders similar to the legendary 100mm f/3.5 Ektar on the Medalist 6x9 rangefinder brick? "Compendium" notes the 80mm Ektar used innovative coating for the era, and more radioactive Thorium in its low dispersion elements than usual (possibly more than the Medalist 100mm).

Enjoy this gem, and report back on your experience if/when you get a chance!

Thanks for the thoughts and all the information!

Unfortunately, this shop is not so local to me anymore after moving 3 years ago, but I still stay in touch and deal with them.

I may have shared this before, but here's a wonderful article that really captures the spirit of the shop. It's not JUST all the treasures within, but Chuck himself who makes the place magical, for lack of a better term.

https://archive.louisville.com/content/chuck-rubin-photographics-film-photography-store-louisville

Unfortunately too, "the plague" as Chuck was/is fond of calling it, caused a shake-up and he ended up having to move from his equally legendary location which is where the above story was written. His new shop is nice(I've only been there once) but a bit hidden as it's in an office building rather than being a stand-alone with a giant mural painted on the side on one of the busiest streets in town. The new shop is smaller, and unfortunately too in the move a whole lot of stuff just ended up in the dumpster. In fact, this whole purchase started with me calling to look for one specific cable for a Metz 60 CT-4, something that in the old store I'd likely have been pointed to a box buried in a dark corner of the back room to go find myself(and possibly been told that I could buy the whole box if I wanted) to "I dumped all the old Metz 45 and 60 stuff when I moved." As luck would have it, though, a complete 60 CT-4 outfit with exactly what I was looking for walked in the store the next day, Chuck bought it and called me, and gave me a great price on the whole thing(as if I needed another).

In any case, I think you all have convinced me that I need to shoot this camera. What I'll likely do is load up one of my backs, shoot half of it on the 1000F, and do the other on the 500C with similar photos so that I can have a reasonable comparison.

All of this talk of the Ektars has me really itching to try one, but I guess it's also telling that I paid $600 for this camera and the Ektar alone seems to run ~$1500 on Ebay. Maybe I'll keep an eye open for an untested or not working 1600F kit with one and roll the dice that it will be clean(since I understand that was the standard lens with those). I MIGHT get lucky at a much more reasonable price doing that...

[orsetto]

While researching film back compatibility between your 1000F and 500C bodies, I was amused to discover the "Type C" back variation didn't actually coincide with introduction of the 500C body. Originally it denoted evolution of updates to the 1000F/1600F film backs, which ran from Type A to Type B to finally Type C, with smaller incremental variations under each type. You have the next-to-last Type C v1, sold for 1000F/1600F but designed with an eye toward the pending changeover to 500C (earlier Type A and Type B are not compatible with leaf shutter camera bodies). The final Type C v2 for 1000F/1600F seems to have directly transitioned into the 500C-paired "C12" back (with the C now referencing "Compur" for leaf shutter, as with the 500C camera body).

Adventures in nomenclature...

[robert_ante]

Beautiful camera. Hasselblad succeeded because of its superior design. Long ago I had a 1000. With adapters a wide selection of lenses by Zeiss, Leitz, and Nikon was available.

However, the shutter mechanism was extremely fragile when new, let alone with passage of time. Also instructions in manual must be followed to the letter. After mine died, I had to wait for a long time for arrival of 2000FCM. With repairs and maintenance of 2000FCM now nonexistent, I am awaiting its death.