henry_finley1

<p>Yes, the thin cross-beam of the shell was broken on one side, The thin cross beam at the top rear of the shell. But the broken edges match up and the top edge of the chassis rear window frame keeps it in place nicely.<br /> I might note again that on any other of the C, C/M, EL, ELM class camera I've worked on, infinity never agrees perfectly. But I attribute that to probably the pads under the mirror being rotten.</p>

<p>Here's where I don't get you. Though I removed the chassis from the shell, I did not disassemble any of the chassis panels. The lens hooks to the chassis and doesn't even touch the shell; the same for the back. So how could I have possibly made it a long camera? The camera does not even need the shell at all to be useable, strictly speaking (aside from needing the shell to be a holder for the screen). But on that count, when you tighten the screws under the tripod socket base, everything is as it was.</p>

<p>Thank you. But what I'm wondering is how a Hasselblad made in 1996 could be so far out of whack. It's not like it's had an extra 30 years for people to be tinkering with it. And I know nothing about the "gliding mirror" mechanism--whether it could be prone to getting out of adjustment. So lacking the proper Hasselblad workbench and fixtures, I'm doing some forensics to get a handle as to why or how this could be happening. I'm hungry to learn these cameras, and have so little resources to glean knowledge from.</p>

<p>Do NOT get the Russian stuff.</p>

<p>I did it myself on a Hasselblad 80mm. I was a first-timer, and it turned out perfectly. Separation repairs are easy.</p>

<p>OK, I've buttoned up the super cheapo 553 project and the camera is working again. Now I have noticed a very large discrepency in the infinity focus as compared to my other Hass bodies. That being said, like the man who owns 1 watch always knows the time. Wen he owns 2 watches, he never knows what time it really is. So it is with Hasselblads and their focusing accuracy. Infinity rarely agrees. That's why there are professional technicians.<br /> That being said, I am having a hard time even conceiving how focus could be so far off infinity in the finder as this one. We're talking 50 feet on the lens dial is infinity on this camera. Focuses WAY past infinity. Something is not right here. Yes, the original Accumat screen (or whatever... Interscreen, maybe); is installed correctly. This is my first experience with the gliding mirror. I've taken a couple pictures. The adjustment for the mirror stops are suspiciously close to one end of their range. Why, I ask. And the screen does not sit up on flat chrome-looking pegs. It rest on 4 pegs that look like cheap brass rivets. Maybe Hass changed the design from the C/M days.<br /> But something very strange is up. I wonder if that gliding mirror design is prone to get out-of-whack, or what.</p><div></div>

<p>BTW--so as not to sound arrogant, as we speak another thread of mine about another Hass is running. On that one, I'M the obvious boob.</p>

<p>553 ELX project is done. Turned out beautifully--ready for work. Here she sits on the work table all finished up. The parts in the background upper left are a conversion project I'm working on to shed some tonnage off my Horseman L 8x10. The ball peen hammer is unrelated to camera repair (most of the time).<br>

Oh, BTW--I got the last repairman's whiskers out of the Hass, while I was at it. He was an obvious boob, as he had also broken one side the upper rear cross-brace of the body casting. Probably dropped it.</p><div></div>

<p>I've been working on cameras for years, with very few losses. For a self-taught man, I am a very thorough and attentive worker. Maybe that's half my problem. This thing has turned into a bag of worms on me and I'm tired of it. All I want is a silly stupid spring back in, and it won't go back in. I'm convinced the piston-era models were a bad design, prone to that spring getting weak or any other lubrication or wear problem. If Hasselblad had continued manufacturing cameras like that, they would never have been Apollo-grade equipment. And I'm sure many weddings would have been ruined. It's a bad design. I think the post-1970 design took advantage of the weight of the damper collar for inertia, so if the spring got a bit weak, the weight and inertia of the collar would pull it on through the cycle.<br /> It is obvious the piston models had to be in top shape all the time, or you were begging for trouble. That said, I'd still like it to be working with piston, if possible. But since the spring will not go back in, it's done. I've tried everything a thousand times. It's a wonder I haven't destroyed the spring.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. Destroying cameras--classic rare cameras is something I take as a bitter defeat. The camera is actually not destroyed. I just can't get it back together and don't have the money to pay it away. An expert could probably have this thing humming in 30 minutes, with what's already right here on my table. In fact I had it working just by unhooking the piston lever from the piston. Then I made the dumb mistake of taking out the coil spring. THEN it occurred to me that the 1957 model with piston was a bad design I could have corrected by converting it to the post 1971 arrangement.</p>

<p>Well, so much for that. Looks like the end of project and in the junk box it goes. I can't get the coil spring back in, my fingertips are sore, and the barn doors don't go up when I trip off the camera. So obviously I've gotten something out of whack. You only need the coil spring to close the doors, something else opens them, and they're not opening Till I turn the inner spindle the coil spring hooks to. Maybe I'd best be glad I can handle working on EL's and ELM's, but the C is a different machine entirely.<br>

I ruined an EL once learning to work on them. Looks like I've ruined a C. Sure do hate it was an original '57. I didn't even learn anything in the sacrifice. Thanks, fellows.</p>

<p>Dismantling the camera completely would be my first and easiest choice. I wouldn't have a problem in the world with that. Except for those fixtures and jigs necessary for reassembly, which I don't have. Without them, it would be foolish to disassemble things you couldn't put back together without proper measurement.<br>

As far as the piston assembly, I have come to the conclusion that this was a bad design bound to cause trouble. I proved that theory by unhooking the actuation arm and tripping it a couple times, and it worked perfectly. THEN I took out the coil spring. That was dumb. Five hours of labor and fingertips so sore I can't touch it now for a week, and that spring still isn't back in. But this camera WILL be put back to original.<br>

Personally I think a damper conversion is the only way to make this 1957 dependable, but it wouldn't be original. I'm an "original equipment" sort of guy.</p>

 

<p>Boy have I learned a lesson--do NOT take out that coil spring.</p>

<p>Well it looks like the barn doors not closing completely is probably caused by a broken coil spring under that big gear that drives the film back. Does anybody know whether the center screw of that gear is left or right hand thread? Of course I'm going to have to remove the arm that drives the piston on this '57 model, before I can take the gear apart to get to the coil spring.</p>

<p>What I did was place a screwdriver on 3 points around the perimeter on the nut pointed inward toward the center and gave it a few light but authoritative whacks. Then applied more force, knowing all the while the poor little gear pawl inside was really taking some punishment. I'm convinced there must be a fixture made for this to take the stress off the gear and pawl. I used a pair of snap-ring pliers as my spanner wrench.<br>

As far as working on the things that require special jigs, I simply leave those adjustments alone. In replacing foam however, I mike the body before I take the top panel off to re-foam it. That's really all I CAN do. There's just some things we have no business fooling with without the correct fixtures and jigs. <br>

I wouldn't even know how to go about procuring them, and they'd probably all cost as much as another mortgage. Then there's the training, which we do not have. Some things are just left best well-enough-alone. </p>

<p>I tell you what I wish I could take over some Hasselblad tech's fixtures and jigs. I can do this. A career change at 57. Some people are just good. I'm one of them. Thanks, fellows.</p>

<p>got it! Sometimes you just have to look at it as if you had already thrown it in the trash and ask yourself what you've got to lose, now.</p>

<p>Only 2 minutes of a 140 watt Weller soldering gun tip directly on it. Ain't no chemical going to break this nut loose. This is a real hardcase. I truly believe it is hopeless.</p>

<p>So I've got this original model 1957 500C body that I picked up for a mere $30. All the others I've gotten my hands on I had to just flip, because I'm basically not in a financial class to where I have any business owning expensive cameras. So this one was to be mine to keep. But it's hopeless. All I want to do is go in and clean it up to where the back doors will shut all the way--no big deal.<br>

But it's not going to happen. It won't let me get past the spanner nut on the right hand side. That nut will NOT come loose--no way. One silly stupid simple little nut, and that sucker will NOT budge. This is ridiculous. Totally hopeless.</p>

<p>I don't particularly like my foam idea anyway. Although foam may have some amount of "dampening" capability, I have an idea that Hasselblad chose the spring for it's "harmonic dampening" capability. There's one thing I do know now. This camera did NOT have that spring in it when I got it. If it did, I would have found it in this house today. I did NOT lose that spring. The boob that tightened his whiskers in the screws before me, lost it. But I want one. He also lost 3 pieces of leather, but I'll survive that. I don't tolerate knucklehead work very well. No excuse for it.</p>

<p>I wouldn't know where to order it. One time I had talked to Hasselblad about ordering, but they were charging 600 dollars for a hamburger. I'll wait for Douglas to chime in on his own before trying to message him. I'm not familiar with the names on here.</p>

<p>The only reason I can figure Hasselblad put in this configuration of the front spring is to cut down on body shell vibration. Without the spring, I am supposing the next best remedy would be to put in a piece of foam. Og course it would deteriorate over time, but no worse than the mirror bumper foam, which would necessitate opening up the camera again some day. Any and all ideas welcomed. Thanks.</p>

<p>Well as it turns out I found the other spacer. But the spring between them is nowhere to be found. I hate working on something where an obvious boob preceeded me. I can't know whether there was one in the first place. I wonder what I'd have reassembling without it.</p>

<p>Thanks, guys. Looks like you all are right. Not only am I missing one of the spacers. but the little spring that goes between them. It was obvious somebody has been in this camera before, and tightened up a couple whiskers in it. I wonder what I'll have proceeding with re-assembly without these parts.</p><div></div>

<p>Camera needs CLA, and possibly broken spring.</p>