orsetto

The quote sounds about right: in USA one used to be able to get this done for $99 but service prices have gone up recently due to demand outstripping availability (many renowned older techs retiring or passing away with no apprentices). Here again, conflicting factors somewhat unique to the Mamiya TLR system require some thought. On one hand, it is one of the most cost effective "budget" medium format options due to the lenses being significantly less expensive than for comparable SLR systems. OTOH, the incredibly low price of some lenses like the older silver-face 180mm runs up against the cost of repair: in this case roughly double the average purchase cost of the lens. The question that arises is whether that version of the lens is worth the expense of repair. While the silver face 180mm is a very good lens in its own right, the final black barrel "Super" version of 180mm f/4.5 surpasses it. The Super can be picked up almost any time for a laughably low price (it equals the performance of the legendary Hasselblad Zeiss 180mm at a tiny fraction of the cost). The 180 Super is THE lens to have for Mamiya TLR enthusiasts. What I'm getting at is that the silver face lenses can be superb bargains if purchased cheaply and used lots while they still work, but once their shutters go out it may make more sense to sell them and re-buy a later version of that focal length. If fully functional, it allows you to continue shooting awhile longer for less than the cost of repair while gaining a newer shutter and glass. In some cases like 105mm D, 105mm DS and 180mm Super you also gain improved updated optical formula and/or mechanical features like DOF preview in the DS. Higher serial number (>8xxx) versions of the 55mm wide angle have more consistent optical quality control. The final 80mm f/2.8 S has arguably better coatings than any other C lens. Etc. If/when the newer version lens develops a shutter issue, you may feel the repair investment is more worthwhile. But personal experience with the specific older lens can override that typical decision: some older examples perform really well, and if their glass has proved durable with minimal haze/fog it is quite logical to have them repaired vs opting for a version update that is unknown to you. I own an older silver-face Tessar-formula 105mm f/3.5 that I prefer in some ways to my later 105mm DS: each version has a different character, and my older 105 has the most stable haze-resistant glass of any Mamiya TLR lens in my collection. Some examples of silver-face 80mm and 65mm were exceptionally good performers: the later black updates were frequently better but not always (good silvers are REALLY good, but less common than good black versions). Of course, repair cost for any Mamiya TLR lens is far below sending any Rolleiflex in for shutter repair: if you think of it from that angle, you'll turn your frown into a smile. Mamiyas may be bigger-heavier-less "pretty", but interchangeable lenses and bellows focusing offer great versatility and simplified affordable repairs when needed.

In case you haven't already found this link at IanBFoto website: it covers similar ground to the youTube repair videos for the silver face lenses in photo illustrated PDF form, including an exploded diagram. The only difference between the 65mm, 80mm, 105mm, 135mm and 180mm is the glass barrels and cosmetics of the mount: the actual shutter assembly (the silver faced container) is the same apart from the additional extension arm coupling the C330 auto-cock function to the cocking ring handle on the 180mm. The link opens immediately into the PDF download, which may trigger antivirus warnings.

With few exceptions, all Mamiya lenses in the TLR series employ identical leaf shutter assemblies: the only thing that varies is the screw-in front and rear glass barrels (also, the older silver-face front-setting lenses use an entirely different shutter module from the later all-black lenses with side-facing control settings). So whatever repair tutorial video you locate for any silver-face TLR lens will apply to this 180mm f/4.5. In a nutshell, you would unscrew the front lens barrels and set them aside (there can be some awkwardness with the "figure 8" support bracket moving around: be careful not to bend it as it comes off). in the exposed screw housing you'll find a thin metal retaining ring that holds the silver shutter speed/aperture dial in place. Under these there may or may not be a lift-off dust cover ring. Under that will be the cocking ring and under that the now-exposed shutter gearing. The slow speed gear train module can simply be lifted out as a unit to be soaked in a cleaning agent and then carefully re-lubed. HOWEVER. The Mamiya-Seiko leaf shutter is not as simple to DIY repair as it first appears: its easy as pie for a pro tech who has experience with them (or the near-identical Mamiya Press lens shutters), but they can be a PITA to DIY in certain respects depending on the specific example you're dealing with. The big issue is slow-speed shutter timing is hugely affected by exactly how the module is fitted back into the barrel housing after removal for clean/lube. A fraction of a micron positioning left or right will have vastly disproportionate impact on the speed accuracy (exactly why, I have yet to see clearly explained: it might as well be voodoo). Also, this type of vintage Seiko shutter has an extremely annoying tendency to simply stop working altogether the second you touch it with a tool (I.e., refuse to actually open at all when cocked and released, or fire at approx 1/250th no matter what speed is set). Technically it could not be a more basic simple leaf shutter, but it can be perversely complicated to "reboot" properly. Unless you paid very very little for this lens and wouldn't mind if you bodged it, I'd suggest bringing or sending it to any decent repair tech that handles medium format cameras. They don't need to be Mamiya specialists: the C lens shutters are dead simple for most techs to overhaul. Any that deal with TLRs will have the precision tools and measuring devices to coax the gremlins out of them. The Mamiya TLR lenses almost inevitably develop shutter issues, primarily from age and lack of recent use. So it usually is more cost effective to have them professionally serviced than try to replace with another better-functioning lens. While it is very tempting to just replace such an inexpensive (by medium format standards) lens, I have been down that road several times and it always ended with the replacement lens croaking a couple months later (esp common with the older silver-face versions). After professional servicing, the Mamiya TLR shutters will stay reliable for a long time. What doesn't stay reliable is the glass: the C lenses are excessively prone to fogging and hazing every few months no matter what climate. Fortunately, the lens barrels are easily removed and disassembled for DIY element cleaning (tho the 55mm wide angle is way more complicated than the others).

Anything is possible with eBay, but I think chances are pretty slim you will find a complete crank assembly on offer within a reasonable time frame. The closest you could get is probably a wrecked C220 donor carcass that you could harvest the crank from, but these don't come up that often. Your best bet would be contacting Bill Rogers at mamiyarepair for suggestions. If he has a spare crank assembly available, he might be willing to sell it to you, but he may recommend sending your C220 to him for an overhaul instead if he feels DIY would be too dicey. While disappointing and sometimes painful to the wallet, in cases like this it may be wiser to sell off the current damaged camera for whatever you can get, and just buy another that is fully operational. First version C220 like yours in good condition without lens isn't crazy expensive: likely close to what you would spend to get this one properly repaired. Of course its a personal decision based on several factors (i.e., if this C220 is otherwise in pristine condition it may be more desirable to have it repaired than to purchase a replacement that might not be quite as nice).

Jim Kilroy (dba Barn Owl Cameras) seems to be the "heir apparent" to the late lamented David Odess: Jim was mentored by Odess and inherited all of his tools, jigs and parts stocks when Odess passed away. So far, I've seen only good feedback for Barn Owl from those who entrusted their 'blads to him. There were some concerns and confusion early on before he had a website, but the rudimentary barnowlcameras.net is now up and running, easing communication. Of course, even while David Odess was still with us, he wasn't the only game in town: depending on your location, repair issue and budget he was sometimes not even the best option. Despite the recent mass exodus of repair techs from active work, a number of longstanding general-purpose repair centers with good reputations are still thriving across North America. While Hasselblads can and do develop a few unique repair issues that require specialized tools and training, 90% of what goes wrong can be fixed properly by any good tech who was working 20 years ago: Hasselblad service was/is the bread and butter income stream for most serious camera repair businesses. The most common manual-wind Hasselblad bodies like 500cm, standard accessories like film backs, and common lens focal lengths in the CF and later lens series will remain repairable almost indefinitely. The items that are slowly but surely becoming impossible to service are the motor wind EL series bodies, very long C tele lenses like the 500mm, and electronic focal plane shutter bodies in the 2000 (and esp 200) series. Eventually, some of the more questionable "upgrades" in otherwise-standard later Hasselblad bodies may lead to trouble: I'm already hearing of shops that no longer have patience for the utter idiocy of crumbling "palpas" (i.e. unnecessary useless repair-thwarting focus-screen-dirtying cruddy black foam glop inner body "anti-reflection" coating). This yucky mess was introduced as a new "feature" of the 503cx, but was sadly also foisted on the last runs of beloved workhorse 500cm. You'll know it if you have it: if you find your focus screen is constantly encrusted with black dust no matter how often you hit it with a blower brush, you've got the Palpas curse. Some of the most recent, sophisticated, desirable (and insanely overpriced in the superheated current hipster market) models like 501cm and 503cw may also become difficult to service down the line. They employ a vastly improved, more reliable mirror mechanism which is an outlier in the manual-wind body landscape: far fewer of these were produced than the old-school simpler cruder 500c, 500cm, 501c and 503cx. The 501cm/503cw are inherently less prone to mirror mechanism breakdowns, but if they do need service at some future point the parts may be unobtainium. It is already increasingly difficult and hellishly expensive to replace simple components like the winding cranks, which are not cross-compatible with the earlier common standard-mirror 500 series.

This behavior is usually a sign that the camera needs an overhaul: the lubrication has gotten old and gummy, a spring is tired, or the complex firing sequence has gone out of sync. This specific state of lens shutter closed, auxiliary flaps open and wind knob frozen can often be temporarily cured by firmly wiggling the wind knob back and forth until the lens shutter fires (or pressing the shutter release button finally fires it). This will complete the sequence, unlocking the wind knob and allowing you to recock the camera to remove the lens and send the body in for service. If working the knob does not free the lens shutter to fire, you can try tapping the bottom of the camera on a firm surface like a sturdy table: the lens will usually fire by the second tap. Eyewatering repair costs are an inevitable part of the Hasselblad experience: today, almost no one who buys a random used Hasselblad escapes a hefty repair bill within a year. The body mechanism drifts, the film back has a nylon gear stop that wears out, and the lens shutters were deliberately designed in the depths of Hades to torment Zeiss enthusiasts on a budget. DIY repair is out of the question unless your day job is something similar like rebuilding vintage Rolex watches. Hasselblad is a glorious system in many respects, but it is costly in more ways than one. Some people get away easily: they buy a random Hasselblad outfit and it just works with no problems for a long time. Many others are not so lucky: if yours starts acting up, the best course of action is to save enough money to have the entire camera (lens, body, film back) serviced at the same time. From that point forward, you should have a nice long run before anything needs service again. Most Hasselblad kits in circulation today have no documented history: the lens, body and back might have all passed thru different previous owners, seen different usage, and may or may not have been periodically serviced as required. When you encounter a problem, it may seem localized to the body or lens but actually be a shared issue between them. If you get only the lens or the body serviced, you can end up tearing your hair out in frustration when you discover that doesn't fully solve the problem. While costly, it is much better to start from fresh knowing the entire camera has been properly overhauled. Any other course of action risks disappointment. Note even after servicing, Hasselblads must get used often or they will require service again in short order. The mechanisms need exercise to keep the lubrication evenly dispersed. The lens shutters are especially prone to gumming up if not used for long periods: be sure to cock and fire each lens several times at each shutter speed once a month when not actively shooting film. This is easily done after you remove the film back: you can look thru the rear flaps as you wind and fire the body to eyeball correct lens shutter function.

In my experience, the motorized Hasselblad EL series bodies require less frequent service/repair than the manual wind bodies like 500cm. However, they do occasionally fail: typically without warning when you least expect. You can shoot three rolls with no issues on Monday, then pick up the camera Tuesday only to be confronted with this dreaded zombie state (pressing the release button results in a barely audible click, and nothing else). Sometimes you can revive the camera with new batteries (even if you think the current ones are good), or by cleaning the metal contacts in the battery chamber and battery cover plate. Battery cover issues are far more common with EL cameras that have updated 5xAA battery compartments: the cover is more complex due to the battery check button, multiple small contacts and foam insulation that sometimes degrades creating a short circuit situation. The release button itself is occasionally the culprit. There were two button designs: round, and large square protruding plate. The large square "Apollo" button is ergonomically nicer to use but has a tendency to randomly glitch and not fire the camera for periods of time, then suddenly start working reliably again. The more common round buttons are significantly more reliable and rarely misfire: if your EL has stopped working and has the round release button, chances are the button is not at fault. Hasselblad sold various electric remote cords that attach to either the front shutter button sockets or the multipin socket on the side of the motor box. These can often be bought inexpensively from vintage camera dealers or eBay: every owner of an EL series should have one to double check firing problems (the camera may still fire with the remote cord even if the release button fails: the button is "electro-retro-mechanical" while the remote cord is purely electric). If none of the above gets your EL running again, you have a deeper problem requiring professional service. The gearing lubrication may have gotten gummy, or there's an issue with the solenoid. Unfortunately there are very few repair techs willing to service the motorized 'blads today: its often easier to just buy another used replacement EL body that still works.

Good suggestion, kmac, but might be tricky in this case (as jwingo has indicated their lens is missing the handle altogether). If the replacement part was utterly unobtainable or expensive, fabricating a workaround would be the way to go. However, this particular part is not very difficult to find and doesn't cost very much. I would recommend getting the correct replacement part over a DIY workaround: Mamiya being Mamiya, this simple plastic aperture control handle attaches to the lens in a needlessly complex manner. The handle-lever has a partial sleeve fit over the metal bar with one screw, then two screws secure the other side to the aperture ring. The "gotcha" here is the screws: they are near microscopic in size, not all the same length, and have zero wiggle room for error. This makes fitting a funky DIY handle more difficult than you'd expect: the screws are precisely designed to fit only the original hnadle specs. While most of the Mamiya TLR system is battleship tough, this plastic aperture control lever/handle is a notorious weak point: the cameras are heavy, wedding photographers often carried two during a shoot, and the impact of them inevitably colliding would frequently pulverize the aperture handle. The older silver-face lenses do not have any such plastic parts: this handle is only found on the later all-black lenses. Tho not a common everyday offering, you can track down genuine Mamiya replacement handles on eBay every few weeks. The going rate is approx $25 shipped. You might also try contacting Mamiya repair specialist Bill Rogers Camera to see if he has any spares left for sale. A good looking, tougher, custom nylon 3D printed replacement is sold as item BR6U49Q22 by sergem1 on the Shapeways site (usually for half the cost of a genuine Mamiya handle). IMPORTANT: do not lose the three screws that secure the handle to the lens! Mamiya sold these separately from the handle, they are long discontinued, and most sellers of replacement handles do not have screws available. Be sure to work over a white towel that can catch the screws when you drop them (and you absolutely will, several times while trying to re-install the handle). Also be sure to note which size screw goes in each hole as you remove them: they are not interchangeable and must be replaced the same way to avoid jamming the aperture ring.

My thoughts regarding the Hasselblad origin story seem to have been misinterpreted. To clarify: given I was born around the same time as the 1000F camera, I'm certainly not "judging the past thru a modern lens". I was simply questioning some of the inevitable lore that springs up around the introduction of any landmark product: the lore and mythology tends to obscure some of what was actually happening at the time (Apple Computer is the poster child for this: lots of fog obscuring that one). I do not for one moment question Victor Hasselblad's talent for bird photography, nor his expertise in general photographic materials or principles. What intrigues me are the motives often ascribed to him by third parties, which I have never seen directly attributed or quoted by the man himself (not even in Evald Karlston's definitive biography). The legend states "no camera in existence at the time was suitable for any of VH photography needs, so he decided to create his own system to his specifications". Yet the only concrete examples of this ever presented are the portraits of him struggling with the huge unwieldy Graflex. Totally ignored are the existence of smaller dedicated 6x6 SLR cameras with focal plane shutters, some of which had already been on the market for a decade and had a number of top quality bird capture focal lengths available. The Primarflex was as close to the 1600F as you could get, minus the interchangeable film back, finders and top speed. The Reflex Korelle was another option, some versions had top FP shutter speed of 1/1000. Even the short-lived first iteration of the Exakta 6x6 might have sufficed. Thats all I was questioning: this notion that (aside from Graflex) nothing whatsoever on the market was of any use to Victor. They may not have met some of his specific desires (i.e. interchangeable film backs), but primary features of the 1600F were available in several existing cameras (6x6 format, SLR viewing, focal plane shutter). This does not in any way affect the overall lasting achievement and intent of the early Hasselblad FP cameras: the streamlined design, lighter weight, modularity and stock Fresnel screen caused a sensation for good reason. Its just ironic to me that Victor never quite got what he truly wanted out of the whole exercise (a 6x6 SLR with rock-reliable high-speed focal plane shutter). Many years later circa 1976, he did fully realize his dream camera with the 2000FC, but unfortunately had only a year to enjoy it before his untimely passing. Those earlier 6x6 SLRs were unreliable, but so was the Hasselblad 1600F: very much so. The redesigned 1000F fared better, but was still more problematic than Victor probably hoped for when photographing in the field. There seemed to be universal difficulty among all mfrs of that era to achieve a fully reliable focal plane shutter in a the mid-size 6x6 form factor: the concept worked reasonably well in the enormous Graflex, and very well in the tiny Leica, but scaling it down/up to 6x6 proved elusive. At that point Victor did a total 180 and decided full shutter sync for the emerging electronic flash was a higher priority for his camera than the higher speed focal plane shutter for movement capture. This seems a rather abrupt change in his attitude: granted, the 1600F and 1000F barely achieved an effective top speed of 1/800th, but that still beats the effective 1/375th of Compur leaf shutters. Its extremely interesting that VH chose not to pursue perfecting his prized fast focal plane shutter, opting instead for a slower more mechanically complex innovative leaf shutter system. In retrospect, of course, it was a brilliant and foresighted decision, but at the time must have been quite startling to his associates (if the stories of VH personal camera spec preferences were completely accurate). There are many portraits of VH in the field, happily shooting with his 500c: in later years he often favored the 50mm Distagon to capture an environment vs isolated birds.

Re the origin story of Victor Hasselblad designing his own camera because nothing already on the market was suitable for his bird photography: this always struck me as somewhat inexplicable. The first Hasselblads had focal plane shutters, no mirror lockup feature, and completely manual uncoupled lens diaphragms. Those first few years they were also notably unreliable, and limited to a total of two lens options (80mm or 135mm). How on earth any of this provided Victor with a dramatic advantage over a Rolleiflex TLR is beyond me. Perhaps he really REALLY needed the interchangeable film backs, and that was a boon to him, but the rest? I don't get it. It was four years or so before the 250mm lens came to market: at that point, I could see the advantage (compact 6x6 with SLR framing and tele reach).

Hasselblad offered a remarkably wide range of prism finder variations (across three generations and several decades). Depending on your use case, one of them might prove just what you want/need. None can match the magnification of the waist level finder, but a few come fairly close, and the advantages of prism viewing (unreversed, light tight) can compensate for the lower magnification. For the moment, lets assume you don't require a light meter in your potential prism: the metering feature significantly reduces your range of options in terms of size, appearance, age and price. Later Hasselblad prisms (the PM series) became larger and clunkier: no advantage to them unless you need a TTL meter. The final, relatively scarce PM45 and PM90 are sleeker but visually clash with the "vintage" Hasselblad body styling: utilitarian, expensive, ugly. Most Hasselblad users feel the best overall (unmetered) prism experience is provided by one of the oldest models: the venerable NC2. This is the smallest, least obtrusive, nicest-looking prism iteration. It is also the least expensive, yet offers excellent optical performance (large eyepiece with rubber ring is compatible with eyeglasses, the view is bright, contrasty and magnified 3x (vs the WLF 4.5x). The NC2 is optimized for comfortable operation during 6x6 square composition: the 45 degree angled eyepiece can be awkward when used for verticals with the A16 (645 format) film back. NC2 is such an ideal design, Ukrainian Kiev camera system mfd a near identical copy of it. The Kiev clone can be used on Hasselblads, but I'd recommend avoiding it due to sample variations (I've used a few that didn't have 100% focus accuracy when mounted on a 'blad vs a Kiev, and the optics have slight distortion). Back in the film era the Kiev had a substantial price advantage, today the genuine NC2 is in the same ballpark so no reason not to opt for the Hasselblad version. See photos of my Hasselblads below for a rough size comparison between the WLF and NC2. The NC2 is nearly the same size as the open WLF, but extends toward the film back (and of course weighs more). Its is shown mounted on one of my 500cm along with the 60mm f/3.5 Distagon CB and the metered winding knob (my favorite travel configuration). If you tend to feel a little constricted by the 80mm Planar, the 60mm Distagon might prove a better choice for street/travel photography (roughly comparable to a 35mm lens on a 35mm SLR). While a 45 degree angled prism eyepiece is the most common for Hasselblad, it can be off-putting to some photographers used to 35mm SLRs. Hasselblad did also offer several 90 degree prism variations comparable to the 35mm SLR experience, but that can result in even more awkward handling (hoisting a giant cube up to your face isn't quite as carefree as putting a 35mm SLR to your eye). All camera handling is subjective, but I personally think the 90 degree Hasselblad prisms really require the side mounted handgrip to be practical off a tripod. Some 90 degree Hasselblad prisms (HC1, PM, PM90) have lower 2x to 2.5x magnification. The odd looking HC4 (below) with tubular eyepiece offers 3x magnification but has a terribly narrow eyepoint (near useless if you wear glasses, and very difficult even if you don't). A special longer version of HC4 made for use with the deeper 70mm film magazine offers 4x magnification, but still with the exceedingly narrow eyepoint. Very late in the game, Hasselblad updated these with more eye relief, but none of the 90 degree prisms are as comfortable to use as the 45 degree versions.

The sample photos do seem to primarily exhibit motion blur, perhaps compounded by slightly missed focus. There can be a variety of potential causes for the consistent motion blur, some Hasselblad-specific, some not. One issue is common to most medium format systems that use in-lens leaf shutters: the shutters actually operate at nowhere close to the fastest marked speeds. David Odess, one of the finest Hasselblad technicians, would routinely explain any Zeiss lens he serviced could not be guaranteed to run faster than approx 1/325th when set to 1/500th. Many vintage cameras with leaf shutters that have never been serviced are providing closer to 1/250th or 1/200th when set to 1/500: while negative film can usually handle the exposure discrepancy, motion blur that would have been arrested at a true 1/500 can sneak in at 1/250-1/325. The marked 1/500 speed on most vintage leaf shutters should be considered more aspirational than accurate. Hasselblad is unique among medium format SLRs for the unusually light weight of the body cube and film back. The lighter weight makes for convenient carrying and handling, but limits the camera's ability to self-damp when it fires. Much of this effect is subjective: theres an infamous youTube test of a penny balancing on edge undisturbed on a Hasselblad as the shutter is released. This video is deceptive: it doesn't account for the physical reaction some humans have when they shoot with Hasselblad (they flinch upon firing, exaggerating whatever vibration is happening within the camera itself). Some photographers encounter tricky issues even when their Hasselblad is tripod mounted: some tripods and mounting plates damp vibration better than others in cooperation with Hasselblad. Each of the popular medium format SLR systems employs a different combination of shutter mechanics, mirror geometry, and film blind (for leaf shutter systems). These combine in different ways as different photographers handle them in their own personal manner. The result does not always match expectations based on appearance of the camera, its weight or its firing sound. The huge Mamiya RB67 is twice the size and weight of a Hasselblad. You would assume its far larger mirror would be that much more prone to vibration shock that triggers camera motion blur. But this is not the case: the RB67 mirror has an effective damper system, which combined with the cameras sheer heft makes it remarkably steady for handheld shooting. Careful technique and practice lets many RB67 photographers shoot handheld at shutter speeds approaching Rolleiflex TLR territory (1/60, 1/30 no problem). The Kowa 6 system, a budget Hasselblad knockoff popular with wedding photographers, was somewhat more effective at suppressing camera motion blur at 1/60th and 1/125th handheld. Unlike the independent barn doors and mirror of Hasselblad, the Kowa mirror and film blind are integral and move as a single better-damped unit. The insanely loud, crude-sounding Bronica S2 6x6 SLR was another popular "budget" alternative to Hasselblad. Despite the potential for added vibration from its large focal plane shutter, the extremely complicated noisy Bronica mechanism is so convoluted it manages to cancel itself out in terms of motion blur. The focal plane shutter moves in one direction, a roller blind moves in a counter direction to black out the viewfinder, and the mirror flips from the front edge downward at the rear. This often results in surprisingly decent handheld performance. Then there are cameras that look like they'd be great handheld, but aren't necessarily. The big Pentax 67 comes to mind: looks ideal for street shooting, but its enormous focal plane shutter can manifest gremlins at certain speeds (even fast ones) that induce mechanical blur. Even many tripods can't defeat the Pentax shutter gremlins at certain speeds: as with Hasselblads, some tripods are a more cooperative match than others. TLRs have long been the preferred choice for handheld 6x6 medium format shooting due to their lack of large moving parts. But even among these you'll find exceptions to the rule: certain models of older Rolleiflex and Rolleicord have an awkward shutter release lever that can lead to motion blur, as can many of the Mamiya TLRs with their somewhat crude vertical downward-firing shutter buttons. These TLRs are internally motionless when fired, but the human interface can lead to unexpected unwanted handling blur. Some photographers learn to counter this effectively, others don't. Nothing is perfect...

An unpopular but nonetheless true fact in today's film photography culture: a particular camera system can be "legendary" in reputation and quality, yet also the worst choice for any specific photographer. Its possible vintage Hasselblad is simply incompatible with your instinctive shooting preferences and/or technique. This is easier to evaluate if you have prior film photography experience with another camera system: if you were satisfied with the results of that system, chances are the Hasselblad just doesn't quite work for you (or you need much more practice with it). Hasselblads are capable of superlative quality images, but not everyone can pull that level of performance out of them consistently. They are odd, quirky cameras even among medium format pro systems (which are all eccentric to begin with). Some photographers intuitively bond with Hassy and can get tack sharp results anytime, anywhere. Other photographers find it more of a niche or specialty system, not entirely suited to every one of their needs but ideal for certain things. Still other photographers, no matter their expertise, cannot get consistently sharp results and end up quite frustrated with Hasselblad. Also significant: more than any other similar camera system, Hasselblad were/are heavily dependent on regular maintenance and professional servicing. Several key aspects can go out of alignment, and the very oldest models like 500C can seem OK but be seriously out of whack 50+ years on, esp if you don't know the service history (if any). The mirror support pads on your 500C may have decomposed to dust, throwing your focus point a hair off for every frame. The camera body back mount may not be in precise alignment with your particular film backs, or the backs themselves may be slightly off, which again will impact focus accuracy. Your eyes may have difficulty accurately focusing with the early screen that is permanently installed in most 500C bodies, or the screen may have been improperly adjusted in the past. The final 500C bodies were updated with the 500CM user-changeable focus screen feature: if yours has an easily removable screen, it may be a third party screen which is a little off spec. Hasselblad lenses can be a royal pain to focus accurately, depending on age and version. The oldest all-metal type with narrow sawtooth focus ring and Syncro Compur shutter is the most stiff and difficult to turn, the later CF lenses with diamond pattern rubber focus ring are slightly easier but not much (both can develop play over many years: your focus point can drift a tiny bit as soon as you let go of the lens). The only iteration of Hasselblad lenses as responsive in focus feel as 35mm SLR lenses were the final CB, CFi and CFe versions (with the latter two being hideously more expensive). You say you "pieced together" your 500C outfit: many of us do this, but the drawback is not really knowing the history of the various parts. If you're getting consistently disappointing results, it may be best to bring or send the complete camera to a reputable service tech with experience evaluating and adjusting Hasselblad components. They can tell you if anything has gone off-spec enough to be a significant issue: if not, you can eliminate mechanical error as a potential problem to concentrate fully on your technique. Hasselblads have certainly been used successfully for travel and street work, but the learning curve to make them deliver in that environment can be steep and you may balk against the stringent handling requirements. As you've discovered, 1/125 is the bare minimum handheld shutter speed. Whenever possible, pre-fire the camera with the pre-release tab near the body winding crank: this flips the mirror up and stops the aperture down, so when you press the shutter button all that moves is the lens shutter. Press the shutter button in a smooth steady motion and hold it down for a second: don't jab it quickly or ease up on the press as fast as you would a 35mm SLR. Your 500C has a byzantine mess of gears and springs inside tied to the shutter release button: operating it firmly and steadily ensures the mechanism runs its gauntlet properly. Consider trying one of the old bakelite Hasselblad side grips or pistol grips: these can be surprisingly good for damping and steadying motion blur. The good news is Hasselblads hold their value quite well: use it for a year, and if it still disappoints you can sell it off with no guilt, confident that you gave it a fair shake. Some photographers find a TLR or other brand of medium format SLR works better for them than a Hasselblad: no system is perfect for all photographers all the time. I have tried to use Leica rangefinders of and on for decades, but no matter how hard I try I cannot get a tack sharp photo out of them to save my life. Yet put a clunky Nikon F or F2 in my hand, and I'll nail the shot perfectly. In a similar vein, I often get better "street" results from my huge clunky Mamiya C220f TLR and lenses than I ever do from any of my Hasselblads. Sometimes, whether we like it or not, a Toyota is preferable to a BMW. Horses for courses, as many others have said.

BTW, this type of generic compendium shade often comes with a set of drop-in front masks that further cut down potential sources of flare (similar to the masking inserts for the OEM Hasselblad Compendium shades). A set of square color and efx filters is also usually found in the kit pouch.

Sorry I misunderstood: thought you had the shade but just needed the connecting ring for B60. The bellows shade in itself is nothing special: its an ordinary compendium shade equipped with added hardware to secure it firmly to the bellows unit. You could get the same performance using any standard compendium shade with B60 fitting and a rail setting suitable for 150mm-250mm 6x6 coverage. You don't even need the expensive OEM Hasselblad compendium shade: any random inexpensive sheet filter holder compendium would serve as well. I've successfully used an Ambico filter compendium in this manner (see pic): it has an exchangeable lens fitting at one end and a square filter holder in front, on a track that adjusts shading from 60mm thru 250mm focal lengths. This type of shade/filter holder sells for almost nothing second hand. Only disadvantages: you need to be sure any generic compendium has a forward-operating rail that does not foul on the Hasselblad bellows rail, and includes the usual 67mm or 72mm or B60 lens fitting ring (if not direct B60, you may need a thread to B60 step ring). Also it isn't as secure and free from vibration as the Hasselblad matched bellows hood, and doesn't have the fittings for Hasselblad's optional film duping carrier. But for occasional use at a cost of $20 or less, ithese filter holder compendium shades are hard to beat.