orsetto

Ah, you have the sought-after 3.5F model! Much easier to replace screens on that one, since it was designed to be user-changeable. My experience with Chinese generic eBay screens has been disappointing. I tried a couple in my Hasselblad and one in my Mamiya TLR: as Niels noted, they are brighter but the focus accuracy wasn't good and only the central split image is of any real use. Some people seem to have better luck with them: I think they (perversely) work better in the cameras that were NOT designed to have user-changeable screens. Those cameras have lots of tiny washers and/or adjustment screws in the screen mount, requiring fussy adjustment to calibrate a new screen to the focus point of the lens/body. More tedious installation procedure than the "just pop in another screen" cameras, but all the nitpicky adjustments allow you to finely position the goofy Chinese screens for more accurate focus precision. The easy-replace cameras have a fixed position for the screen: if the replacement doesn't meet mfr specs exactly, sloppy focus accuracy can result. Yes, the Rick Oleson screen has gone up in price recently, but it is still a decent deal in the context of medium format screen prices. Many second-hand mfr-branded screens will cost as much or more on eBay, but often are not as bright or contrasty. Acute Mattes are pretty much the only game in town for Hasselblads with user-changeable screens: those are priced in the stratosphere ($229 for plain matte, $400 to $600 for split image). The Rick Oleson at $100 brand new, with custom grid lines available, is a pretty good value by comparison. Oleson has been selling screens for many years, becoming the go-to source for many photographers needing an upgrade. Originally, he obtained screen materials from China: similar to but better grade than the generic stuff on eBay. A few years back, he was able to purchase rights to the screen technology used by the now-defunct BriteScreen company. BriteScreen was the most popular premium replacement screen supplier for 35mm and medium-format cameras during the 70s-80s heyday of the film era, sold in all the major camera stores. Demand began to fade in the 90s as mfrs finally began to offer brighter stock screens in their cameras, but BriteScreens were still sought after for older orphaned cameras. So its important to note the screens offered by Oleson today are not generic: they're an evolution of what was once a premium retail product line by a respected proprietary mfr. They are more comparable to new mfr-branded screens than generic Chinese screens. Unfortunately, Oleson can only supply a bare screen: this is great for cameras that don't have a metal rim molded to the screen, but those of us with Hasselblads are out of luck. Hassy screens have a complex embedded metal frame that positions them in a drop-in screen well, as opposed to the more common pop-up camera frame that you just slide a bare screen into. Another popular alternative for Rolleiflex TLRs is to re-purpose the nice bright late-version screens Mamiya made for their RB67 and RZ67 cameras. With a little bit of cutting down, these will fit a Rolleiflex and offer an excellent viewing/focusing experience. I traded my older Mamiya 220 and 330F TLRs for the final model 220F just to get the final Mamiya TLR screen: its hands down the best I've ever used in a 6x6 camera (better than the over-bright, obscenely-priced Hasselblad Acute Matte). As with anything recommended on web forums, the Mamiya alternative was jumped on by loads of Rollei enthusiasts as soon as it was first mentioned, so today it can be very difficult to find a brand new (or even used) Mamiya RB/RZ screen. If you do find one, the cost to purchase it and have a tech cut it down and install in your 'flex will likely exceed the cost of a pre-cut Oleson screen (in USA, anyway: in Europe it might be more cost effective to source a Mamiya screen from a Japanese eBay dealer).

It is normal for the screen corners to be dimmer than the center when using old medium format waist level cameras with vintage ground glass focus screens. If yours seems excessively dimmer in the corners, some typical issues could be at play that you might want to have serviced by a good tech. On the very old Rollei models (and other similar cameras), the ground glass and/or fresnel plate can yellow or get grungy from age and environmental factors. Your pic above shows the common "slightly dirty fresnel" issue, with the concentric rings seeming to have darker bands. A little of this is normal, a lot is distracting and should be checked by a tech. Older screens can have a separate fresnel plate sandwiched with a ground glass plate, more modern designs etch the fresnel pattern directly on the one-piece (typically plastic) screen. A related part that can also age out is the mirror: they can get tarnished, pick up a layer of cigarette smoke, or the silver coating can flake off. Replacing the mirror and/or focus screen is not terribly difficult, but if you aren't already skilled at camera repair you may want to have it done by a technician. Late model Rolleis have easily removed viewing hoods and user-changeable focus screens: with these the screen is a simple drop-in piece, so all you need to do is find a screen that you like better. OTOH, the newer cameras don't usually need a new screen unless yours is unusually dirty or you just want a different version with a split image or microprism focusing aid. There are nice modern brighter genuine Rollei drop-in interchangeable screens, but they can be hard to find. The older camera models with fixed hoods and focus screens are the ones most likely to benefit from a newer brighter screen, unfortunately replacing the screens in these can be a very fiddly and tricky procedure (changing the screen often requires tedious re-calibration of focus tracking). Most Rollei repair techs stock replacement screens, so you can send your TLR in for one-stop servicing and screen replacement/setup. Some users prefer a specific type of focus screen, they will purchase a screen directly from a screen supplier then send the screen bundled with their camera to a repair tech. There are several types of focus screen to choose from. First you need to decide if you want a plain matte screen, or would like the addition of a central split image or microprism focus aid. Then you need to choose the screen material: standard ground glass similar to the original vintage, a more modern brighter plastic screen (from a supplier like Rick Oleson), or a custom specially-treated ultra bright screen (such as Maxwell). Plain ground glass is still preferred by some photographers for the high focusing precision and depth of field rendering it offers when shooting outdoors in bright natural light, but it can be too dim for indoor situations. The midrange Rick Oleson screen is a popular price/performance compromise: noticeably brighter into the corners, good contrast and focus precision, and a choice of focusing aids, grid lines, etc. The ultra bright premium screens are hideously expensive and sometimes very fragile: super bright for night and indoor use, but they sacrifice a bit of "snap" and depth of field impression. Replacement mirrors are a much simpler part with little in the way of price or perfromance variations: they're either good or cheap garbage. Any decent Rollei repair person will have a source of good replacement mirrors. Removing / replacing a TLR mirror is fairly straightforward but again, if you aren't familiar with camera repairs you could easily botch the installation. Given the current crazy prices for vintage medium format cameras, esp Rolleis, its usually best to hand the task off to a good repair shop.

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...

No part of a once-$5000 lens should 'rattle loudly", but then we're talking about Zeiss' less-than-steller CF lens barrel design, so anything is possible after a couple decades. The front ring being slightly rattly would not bother me much: this is not uncommon with CF lenses (even when the name ring seems very tightly screwed down, as in your example). But a rattle loud enough to alarm you while adjusting the shutter ring could indicate something internal is in dire need of service. Given the optical quality and monetary value of the 250mm SA, getting it overhauled by a good Hasselblad tech would be a worthwhile investment in peace of mind. You could probably continue using it as-is for quite awhile, but Hasselblad lenses of unknown maintenance history have a tendency to random sudden failure. Since you are getting operational noise as a forewarning, perhaps you should heed the warning and have the lens serviced sooner rather than later.

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!

If you're referring to my post earlier in this thread, note I was specifically comparing 500 reflex body with reflex 40mm vs the the SWC with 38mm Biogon when used for street/PJ shooting. My point was the larger reflex body with blunderbuss reflex lens, coupled with the more noticeable firing sound, is not nearly as discreet as the smaller, tidier, near-silent SWC. Thats not to say many great street scenes haven't been made over many decades with the reflex 500 series, but if being less noticeable is the goal and the 40mm AOV is high priority, an SWC could be the more compelling system. In other more common use cases, the 500 series performs differently for different photographers. The vibration issue can be overblown, the noise is objectively irksome depending on environment. I find shooting the 500 reflex bodies with trigger-equipped side grip yields much better results at slower shutter speeds than the direct body release, others have no issue getting steady shots cradling the body without a grip. Ergonomics are a factor among different users: FWIW, I have the same issue with the body release on my Mamiya TLRs, which have no moving mirror (the position of and action of the body release, compounded by an awkward weight distribution, results in more physical movement while firing vs using a side-mounted trigger grip release). OTOH, I can successfully shoot the massive Mamiya RB67 reflex camera at remarkably low shutter speeds without a grip, due to its perfect weight balance and extremely well damped mirror action.

The Pentax 6x7 series is known to be a bit fiddly and tricky to service in some respects. This is true of nearly all medium format system cameras, of course: they're all practically bespoke designs compared to mass-produced 35mm systems. But each MF system has its own spin on the Achilles Heel. For the big Pentax, its the shutter mechanism, which was apparently always a work-in-progress for the company engineers. Assuming you have had other successful dealings employing the same repair tech for other cameras, he might simply not be completely capable of fully overhauling a Pentax 6x7. This can happen with any local or non-specialist tech: they mean well, but they can screw up with low-volume cameras that rarely cross their workbench. You balance their lower fees against that risk, and sometimes lose. Here in NYC, I had a local guy do most of my Hasselblad and Mamiya servicing before he retired: he'd been in business 40 years, had the certs from Hasselblad and Mamiya on his shop wall, etc. Yet he would still goof up an arcane repair occasionally: if he couldn't correct it on a second try, he'd return some of the fee and I'd ship the item off to one of the legendary specialists who charge double to triple the going rate. While you can get away with this kind of dice roll with common mechanically-based cameras like Hasselblad, you can't with the much less common Pentax 6x7. Far fewer techs have picked up the expertise to tune them properly, so you really do need to send them straight off to a Pentax 6x7 specialist. The big Pentax employs fairly primitive electronics on top of a slightly wonky shutter mechanism. When it develops the capping problem that yours has, it can be any one (or a combination of) three common causes: accumulated grime in the shutter tracks, drifted spring tension, or bad solenoids. Most generic techs can handle routine cleaning, but (as tom_chow notes above) they can easily misalign other sensitive parts in the course of it if they aren't well-experienced with the 6x7. Adjustment of the 6x7 shutter is a fine art, often requiring repeated minute mechanical and electrical syncing. This goes beyond just futzing with the curtain timing springs, a quick-n-dirty hack that works for many other cameras. Theres a tech-savvy geek over on the PentaxForums who bought a beater 6x7 body and documented his DIY rebuild project: his photos and descriptions of the process were enough to send me running for the liquor cabinet. As with every other medium format system, there is only one elderly tech in all of North America who is well-regarded as a Pentax 6x7 guru with a supply of spare parts. Try Eric Hendrickson: his website is still up, so he may still be taking repair work (email him and ask). Otherwise, check with a few of the top generalist repair firms that receive high ratings on forums like this: get confirmation from them via email that they are indeed skilled and equipped to properly evaluate and overhaul a Pentax 6x7 shutter. Good luck, a well-working Pentax 6x7 is a wonderful beast to shoot with!

1. Yes, several sources agree the front threads of the Mutars are 67mm. However, I would be extra careful when first attempting to mount modern-day 67mm filters onto any 40-60 year old European lenses. Zeiss in that era was all about bayonet and "series" non-threaded filters: there was a set of dedicated Rollei filters specifically marketed for use with the Mutars. These may or may not have been 100% compatible with ordinary threaded 67mm filters as we know them today. It is possible the "67mm threads" on the Mutars are more akin to the "Series 8" retaining ring threads on Zeiss Hasselblad wide angle lenses of the same period. If so, the threads are marginally 67mm but of slightly different pitch: modern standard 67mm filters will mount partially with no problem but cannot screw completely down without issues. As with the old 'blad Distagons, slowly thread a 67mm filter on, and if you feel any significant resistance at approx the half-screwed-in point STOP and leave the filter at that point. It is secure enough to stay put, while still being removable. If you force the filter further in, it may seize from cross threading. 2. Re the focus scales: just a guess, but these appear to be focus distance conversion tables for zone or scale focusing the Rolleiflex knob when the Mutar is in use. Since one would normally compose and focus thru the Mutar lens pair via the reflex viewfinder, no compensation would be required: the viewfinder focus indication is accurate. However, the mechanical printed distance scale on the camera focus knob may not match the optical focus point due to modifications introduced by the Mutar. In the event you prefer to zone or scale focus, the tiered scale on the Mutar indicates the corrected distance you should set on the focus knob. I believe you would look for the actual distance you want to select on the white scale, then compare to the yellow scale above to see the new compensated distance you should set when the Mutar is mounted. Perhaps you could check both theories and report back? I'm as surprised as you to discover there are zero web mentions describing the Mutars in use, beyond endless discussions of how to use the Rollei adapter rings to convert the Mutars to fit various B1, II and III Rolleiflex models, and endless debates whether their optical quality is as good as prime lenses. Considering how collectible they are, its odd the Mutars haven't received the same exhaustive duplicative discussion as all the other Rolleiflex tidbits.

So envious of Niels -NHSN: what a brace of Rolleis! SCL, too: *beautiful* Yashica and Diacord! I love the Rolleiflex TLRs as much as anyone, but they can park a lot of cash in one place that might be spent in other ways if you aren't a dedicated Rolleiflex photographer. So (somewhat regretfully), I find myself in the contrarian camp with SCL. Over the years, I decided to compromise on Hasselblad as my 6x6 SLR (to get my Zeiss Planar fix) and the final Mamiya C220F for my daily driver TLR. The Mamiya won me over with its best-in-class stock focus screen, interchangeable lens options like the killer 180mm f/4.5 Super Tele, built-in closeup bellows, and intuitive twin focus knobs. But at twice the size/weight of the Rolleiflex/Yashica/Minolta/Ricoh, its an acquired taste for sure. (Note to SCL: having owned both, I find the Mamiya C220 preferable to the more advanced C330. The auto parallax compensation and wind-coupled shutter cocking features of the 330 come at the cost of janky winding feel and even more weight. Also the auto-parallax indicator is a pain to adjust for each lens change: the fixed parallax lines in the 220 are actually faster and more intuitive. The big winding knob of the 220F is quick and butter smooth). Rolleiflex can't be beat for the combination of portability and premium optics, as long as you tend to "see" in 75-80mm AOV, enjoy the standard TLR form factor, and perhaps will use it as your primary camera. Of course if you were lucky enough to acquire a Rolleiflex (or five) back in the days when prices were merely "collectible" instead of hipster-fueled, or simply have money to burn on extra cameras today, they're even harder to resist as an additional system. With the current craze for medium format film photography, alternative TLRs like Yashica, Minolta, Mamiya and Ricoh have shot up in pricing (so the stretch to a Rolleiflex may not be as daunting anymore). Ten years ago you could pick up a nice Diacord for $29, a mint Yashica or Minolta for under a C note, or a clean Mamiya C220 with lens for $129. Sadly, them days is gone.

Nowadays, nearly every second-hand camera is a pig-in-a-poke mystery, ala "Lets Make A Deal" (what will you offer for the unseen camera in an opaque box behind the dark curtain being presented by the smiling huckster?). Guarantees and genuine honesty come at a higher cost, usually from a handful of professional specialist dealers (where "film testing" is a rarity: they'll just have the thing gone over by a tech they trust pre-sale, then offer you an after-sale warranty period). When an eBay seller claims "film tested", my usual response is to roll my eyes and continue scrolling to another listing (invariably "film tested" translates to "double the typical asking price for merely taking my word that everything is peachy"). The sellers alleged "film test" doesn't interest me: I wasn't there when they did it (and can't verify if/how/when they it). So a private seller allowing a potential buyer to take home a camera and personally test it prior to a purchase commitment (or any money changing hands) is widely considered a remarkable, anomalous gesture by many of us here. Whether you choose to reward the sellers trust by offering a bit more than you would for a totally random camera is of course a personal decision. Everyone wants a bargain at the lowest possible price, so its understandable some might not see the point in rewarding what should actually be the prevailing policy for all transactions. In my case, I'd probably offer a percentage premium over lowball (just to nudge the universe in the direction of more such buying opportunities).

Possibly the best advice anyone can give you re purchasing a Rolleiflex: if you have no experience or knowledge of them whatsoever, don't go hunting for "bargains" or try to buy within a certain budget-minded price point. This almost always leads to regret, sometimes very expensive regret. Condition is EVERYTHING with a Rolleiflex, this cannot be emphasized enough: if you don't know what you're doing, resign yourself to paying the going market price for a good example from a reputable dealer with a warranty (preferably with a recent documented servicing). While better cheaper deals are certainly possible to the savvy-patient-expert buyer, generally you need to mentally file Rolleiflex in the same category as Leica rangefinders and Hasselblad SLRs (i.e., they are now playthings for the wealthy who can afford the upkeep, or lunatic enthusiasts like ourselves willing to roll the dice and risk going into hock). All these classic European cameras with beautiful appearance, legendary optics and intricate engineering can plunge the unwary straight to financial ruin in short order. The repair cost to fix hidden defects or issues is excruciating, as is the wait time for a competent tech. And there is always potential for unpleasant surprises: if nothing else, Compur leaf shutters can drop dead overnight despite working perfectly the day before. Not to mention tampered lenses, misalignment, film transport issues, etc. So unless you stumble across a stupendous bargain worth having overhauled by a specialist tech, choose a Rolleiflex from a known good seller who will stand behind it as fully operational for a few months after purchase. With that caveat out of the way... AJG covered most of the basics above. There are myriad similar models to choose from, which can be very confusing to the uninitiated. And if you've never used a TLR before, it may not make sense to drop a ton of cash on a premium Rolleiflex only to discover you hate the handling or parallax inherent in the TLR concept. To get an initial feel for the TLR experience, consider starting with a much less expensive Rolleicord. Tho honestly a comparably-priced vintage Yashica or Minolta TLR would get you closer to the Rolleiflex feature set than a more spartan Rolleicord (which has its own charms, of course). Short version: the most popular "starter" Rolleiflex is probably the later Automat variants, like MX-EVS, although these are more expensive now than a couple years ago. Figure $595 minimum for good condition from good seller with warranty. Beyond that, skys the limit: final run of model 3.5F starts at $900 and can zoom over $2000 for a pristine example with recent overhaul. Add several hundred more for the 2.8F. Long version: You probably don't want to go earlier than the 1950s era unless you really know what to look for in prior models. The Tessar f/3.5 is the baseline performance optic: more Rolleiflex photos were taken with this lens than any of the others. Some Rolleiflex models were fitted with the Schneider Xenar instead of the Zeiss Tessar: its an exercise in hair splitting to tell them apart, so if you find a good deal on a Xenar don't hesitate. The simpler Triotar has its share of fans, but requires a practiced eye to get the most out of: Tessar/Xenar is the more versatile benchmark. The Zeiss Planar (and Schneider Xenotar) improve on the Tessar/Xenar performance, but for many the difference is not as dramatic as the legend suggests. Used at f/8 at midrange to infinity distances, it would be difficult to detect a significant performance variance among any of these four lenses. The Planar/Xenotar reveal their advantages when shooting wider apertures at closer distances, for which they're better optimized than the Tessar/Xenar. if you don't shoot many face portraits or flower pics, and don't often shoot wide open at f/3.5, you can save a chunk of cash by opting for the Tessar/Xenar. Re f/3.5 vs f/2.8: the primary difference is bragging rights and cost. Lens accessories (closeup kits, filters, caps, hoods) for the larger diameter f/2.8 are also harder to find and more expensive. Its nice to have the extra stop for very low light shooting, and the bulging 2.8 lens pair is that much more retro-distinctive, but realistically most Rolleiflex photographers survive quite happily with the f/3.5. There is no difference in viewfinder brightness, since the f/3.5 models employ f/2.8 viewing lenses. The EV shutter/aperture control gimmick is a love it or hate it affair. More photographers hate it than love it, but you can get used to it quickly and its easier to work around on most Rolleiflex cameras than the more irksome implementation of Hasselblad. The sportsfinder is nice to have as an option in fast moving situations: Rollei's ingenious feature allowing you to check focus when using the sportsfinder is unique among TLRs. The newer the Rolleiflex model, the more features and updates you'll get (removable WLF to permit mounting a prism finder, brighter and/or more easily changeable focus screen, selenium meter, etc). Some models have one-off specific features, like the multiblade rounded iris of the Planar lens mounted in the 2.8C version.

Prices have been pretty stable over the past few years for the 50mm C lens in silver barrel: if anything, prices seem to have dropped recently. Curiously, the available supply of 50mm C in silver barrel with T* multicoating is better than its ever been (even odder, the price premium for the rather rare silver barrel T* variation has almost vanished). I think I paid $679 for a mint silver 50mm C T* in 2013 that quickly developed a sticky shutter, I see several similar examples for sale today in the $400 range (on par with the far more common black barrel 50mm C T*). OTOH, prices on surviving silver 60mm C lenses have noticeably increased from a few years ago. Not surprising: far fewer of these were made than the 50mm to begin with, and the early 60mm was almost exclusively bought by pros who beat them into the ground and left them for dead (vs the tens of thousands of still-mint 50mm C lenses bought by dentists and abandoned in a closet for decades). To whatever degree there is a Hasselblad collector's market, the early 60mm is definitely sought after. The 60mm f/5.6 was among the first wave lenses introduced with the 500C camera, the improved faster 60mm f/4 followed up a few years later only to be almost immediately displaced by the vastly more popular 50mm C. Supply of both early silver 60mm variations is limited today: only 2000 each (give or take) of the f/5.6 and f/4 version were made. The f/5.6 was discontinued in 1961, the f/4 in 1964: age + limited production = collectible pricing. Contrast this with the silver 50mm f/4 C that replaced them: approx 30K were sold between 1964 and 1973, plus another 40K in black finish thru 1982 when the CF version arrived. So the pool of available silver 60mm lenses is tiny. Most of the f/5.6 I've seen were well and truly worn and grungy, the f/4 seemed to suffer less abuse but has been hoarded more by collectors. Complicating matters further, the later 60mm f/3.5 black barrel C T* was a significant improvement, one of the best optics Zeiss made for Hasselblad. It is an overall better performer, and with 11K made and sold between 1976-1982 easily found at reasonable prices. Of course it wouldn't match an otherwise all-silver C lens lineup in your camera bag (think of it as a Black Swan). Sweet lens, but after I handled the immensely more comfortable 60mm CB version I sold it with no regrets. The C lenses are works of industrial art, but the focus ring handling of the wide to normal focal lengths is abysmal. The later CF and CB/CFi/CFe look like they were made by Vivitar on an off day, but are much easier to operate. The CF focus is still ridiculously slow and stiff but at least has a comfortable rubber grip, final CB/CFi/CFe have buttery smooth perfectly-damped focus feel (they should, for the prices asked).

Previous replies summed it up neatly. Whether we like it or not, since its rise to dominance nearly thirty years ago, eBay has been the one and only metric for used camera pricing. If you want to know the current demand and value of a camera or lens, you search for it on eBay, filter the results to show only "sold" examples, and average the prices the item sold for over the past few months (in the same condition as the example you're considering). Then you can break it down a little further to work out a mutually satisfactory deal for you and the seller. Lets say the average recent sold price on eBay in this condition is $200. Selling on eBay costs a roughly 14% commission, and entails the hassle of packing and shipping (and hoping an obnoxious scammy buyer doesn't decide to return the camera and stiff the seller out of additional return shipping fees). Traditional used camera dealers are quicker and easier but will offer far less to the seller: often just 35%-50% of current eBay sold prices. So one could quite reasonably offer an in-person, for-cash seller approx 15% - 25% below the going eBay price (offer $160 for an item that typically fetches $200 on eBay). Individual situations may vary in terms of the buyer/seller dynamic. You might factor in how well you know the seller (will they remain in your life as a friend or will you never see them again), what their motivation to sell is (are they desperate for cash or just idly want to unload a surplus camera), and whether you think the seller had enough friggin brains to do their own eBay price check beforehand (which even my long-deceased grandmother knows to do at this point, but...). Such considerations might lead you to offer significantly less than (or closer to) the going eBay price. i.e., I wouldn't be comfortable buying a camera from a social acquaintance for a ridiculous lowball price, because I'd feel bad and they might feel resentful if they realize later they let it go too cheap. With a total stranger, the onus is more on them to know the value of what they are selling: if they seem happy to accept a lowball offer, theres really no ethical dilemma. Of course the risk of a too-lowball offer is annoying the seller, who may just walk away in disgust instead of negotiating to an agreeable counter-offer. I agree with previous replies that there is indeed a definite, tangible value to a seller allowing you take a vintage camera home for an extended film test before purchase (or declining). The certainty of knowing it either works perfect or needs repair before laying out the cash avoids a ton of potential aggravation and hassle you'd otherwise experience with eBay or a web dealer. The precise dollar value you place on that peace of mind is up to you, but its worth something. Personally, I'd value the in-home trial at the differential between average eBay sold price and the discounted cash price I'd typically offer an in-person seller. Without a trial, I'd offer $155 to $175 for an in-person purchase of a $200 camera. With in-home trial, I'd gladly offer the full average eBay "sold" price on a properly-functioning item.

Aw, thats too bad, smiffy_smiffy: sorry to hear your shutter failure was worst case scenario. That particular failure mode wasn't what I'd call "common" when the FE2 was sold new, but it was reported often enough that early examples of the FE2 (and FM2) with the titanium honeycomb shutter picked up a somewhat iffy reputation. Nikon (as usual) made matters worse by denying the issue and making outlandish claims about "destructive users" before finally redesigning the 1/4000 shutter altogether. IIRC, the FE2 was discontinued prior to the introduction of the revised aluminum non-honeycomb shutter module, which was fitted to the ongoing FM2 production runs. The good news: most FE2 and FM2 bodies that were going to suffer this major shutter failure did so back in their heyday. The majority of FE2/FM2 that have survived in fully functional condition thru the decades until today are much less likely to be afflicted by this complete physical shutter breakdown. So chances are pretty good you would not experience this disappointment again with another FE2. I've never had a shutter problem with any of the FM/FE/FM2/FE2 bodies I've owned, or Nikkormats with the earlier Copal blade shutter, but I do get hit with problems in F and F2 shutters. It is common for them to develop self-capping faults (the shutter does not open at the fastest 1/1000 or 1/2000 speeds). At least one has the option to just live with and work around that glitch if we aren't prepared to pay for repairs for awhile: the FE2 shutter crashing into itself and jamming is unfortunately an unrecoverable camera killer.

Its been known to happen to other FE2 owners posting here and elsewhere, yes, but then almost any camera model you could name can and will experience a random failure at some point. While of course its very upsetting when it happens to our own prized camera, try not to take it personally. Even the most premium rugged pro camera models could not be expected to perform flawless beyond their 10th birthday: the FE2 was discontinued in 1987, so aging issues should not be too surprising. You weren't specific in describing your FE2 shutter failure: there are several typical causes and solutions. If the shutter has literally physically failed (when looking at the opened camera back the shutter looks like a jammed window blind), the camera is toast: in that case you should probably sell it as a defective/parts body, and replace with another FE2 from a trusted seller. Physically jammed wrecked FE2 shutters are fairly rare nowadays, most of the FE2 bodies that were going to manifest that problem got afflicted early on. It would be unusual for an FE2 to crash like that after several decades, but a few cases have been reported. If the shutter seems physically OK, 90% of problems trace back to battery or battery compartment issues. Batteries can seem new but not have full power: try a brand new set of batteries that have a fresh date on the package (a couple years ahead of now). Turn the shutter dial to mechanical 1/250th setting: if it fires, set to another manual speed and/or auto and see if all is back to normal. If no change, try cleaning the battery contact points in the body + cap with a cotton swab or pencil eraser moistened with vinegar. If still no luck, you either have a simple mechanical jam or a fussy electronic issue. If you search "Nikon FE jammed" you'll find a number of forum posts and youTube videos explaining how to take off the baseplate and reset the typical mechanical jam spots. If even that doesn't return function to normal, you most likely have an electronics issue which will probably not be cost effective to repair: with most 35mm SLRs, a replacement body is usually the most logical answer today. Don't let a random failure ruin your enjoyment of the FE2: if you really like the camera, just get another better example and carry on. The FE2 has held up better than many competing brands/models of the same era: it was a proven design well made, and most of them still work just fine after 30+ years. The majority of popular film cameras are at least as old as the FE2 or older: at this point, film shooters must expect sudden camera repair or replacement to bite them eventually. Put in perspective, those of us buying and shooting the "pro" Nikon F, F2, F3 and F4 bodies are far more likely to encounter a shutter issue than the average FE2 owner. Those of us shooting Hasselblad have our wallets plucked for way more than the cost of an FE2 each time one of our lens shutters croaks (and croak they do, on the regular). Rolleiflex and Leica users could tell you a few stories about bankruptcy...

The medium format carriers for the Nikon 8000/9000 scanners top many an owner's list of irritating design flaws (running a close second to the self-destructing Firewire circuit board). The trays are a half-baked concept that work consistently well for some, consistently troublesome for others, and intermittently maddening for most of us. The goofy mask system with stick-um frame border strips is beyond frustrating: sometimes you don't need any of the mask accessories, sometimes just the mask, sometimes just the strips, sometimes everything. If the size of your 120 film strip allows, you can fiddle with positioning within the carrier (as tom_chow recommended above) to minimize light spill contamination. But if that isn't possible or doesn't work well enough, you'll need to play with the masks and/or frame border strips. Unfortunately these masking accessories are often missing when these scanners are resold second hand, so you may not have gotten them with your 869G glass tray (the rotating 869GR requires them to function at all). Replacement sets periodically turn up on eBay, or you could cut a piece of black unexposed film or construction paper to mask out any large gaps in the tray aperture at either side of your film strip.

Glad to hear it turned out to be a simple hood incompatibility as predicted, and nothing more serious. Hasselblad purists may clutch their pearls at the mere suggestion Hasselblad could "make a mistake" like marketing the CF 80mm hood as compatible with the CF 60mm lens, but perhaps some 60mm Distagon lenses have no vignetting issue with the 80/60 hood while others such as yours do: likely caused by minor internal build differences between lens batches. Point of interest, Hasselblad offered only the shallower round 38-50-60 hood for the earlier C-barreled 60mm Distagon. Tho that might have been more of a practical matter, since the 38, 50 and 60 C lenses all shared the same screw-in Series 8 hood/filter mount while the 80 C lens used the B50 bayonet mount. When shopping for the shallow hood for the 38/50/60 CF lens, you may run up against shifting market trends. The genuine Hasselblad 38-60 hood has little or no availability during periods of high demand, when you either can't find one or asking prices are a bit steep for such a simple piece of plastic. You may want to consider the much cheaper and more available generic knockoff hood, which is a pretty faithful copy of the genuine Hasselblad. See comparison pics of my two hoods below: Chinese knockoff on the left, genuine Hasselblad on the right. Only detectable differences are the copy is just very slightly thicker and generically branded "For Haselblad", while the genuine 'blad hood has the usual Hasselblad trademarked logo and "Sweden" printed on it along with "38-60". The reflection on the street sign looks like just a faithful image of the bright sun shining off it, not an artifact created by the lens. Easy to overlook in the viewfinder while composing. The 60mm is among the best lenses Zeiss ever designed for Hasselblad, you're unlikely to encounter any significant optical issues with it.

Most Hasselblad users standardize on either the original C or more modern CF/CB/CFi lens version, to have consistent operational feel across all their lenses. But if you already own a mx of C plus later lenses, and/or don't particularly mind having a significant difference in operational feel between several of your Hasselblad lenses, theres no reason not to continue buying additional C lenses if you prefer their vintage barrel design. It is true that some of the aging specialist repair gurus have begun to shy away from offering C repairs, but that is mostly down to them being excessively perfectionist: they charge a premium service fee based on their special capabilities like having all spare parts on hand, etc. But there are still plenty of multi-brand camera techs skilled in typical Hasselblad repairs who will gladly work on C lenses. Eventually you may indeed run up against lack of an arcane new replacement part, but most common C lens repairs only entail a clean lube adjust and perhaps replacing the mainspring. Substitutes for original mainsprings are available: frowned upon by purists but if you can't get an original and the substitute works, why not? One could also supply a second donor lens to the tech to harvest parts from if absolutely necessary. Not ideal, but this is the path now required for many decades-old classic cameras: if you want to use the really old gear, compromises sometimes must be made to keep them running. Eventually, parts will run dry for the CF lenses as well, so we all must be prepared for additional repair hassles someday. Aside from the different operational feel of C vs later lenses (default locked EV setting, incredibly stiff and nasty serrated metal focus ring, oddball Series 8 filter size for the 50 and 60 Distagons), there are are a couple considerations to bear in mind for specific use cases. The silver C 60mm lens is fairly hard to find in the faster f/4 version, most I've seen are the very slow f/5.6 which makes for dim viewing (and all I've come across required a complete shutter/diaphragm overhaul). The common single-coated 50mm silver C lens can have wild sample variation from mediocre to quite good, depending on age and how well the glass was maintained. While rather scarce nowadays, patient hunting can net you a silver 50 C lens with T* multicoating, which benefits the 40mm and 50mm more than the other C lenses. I owned a silver 50 T* for eight years, it made beautiful images, while a single-coated backup was just "OK". On the off chance you're interested in using a digital back on your Hasselblad, be aware some of the popular older Phase/Leaf backs have a known incompatibility issue with the Compur shutter in C lenses. There is something inherent in the Compur flash sync mechanism that fails to trigger exposure with some digital backs. The later CF, CB, CFi and CFe lenses with Prontor shutter have no issue triggering digital backs.

Put it this way: it depends on how much you paid for it and whether you can afford to lose that entire amount if you render the camera inoperative, making it unreturnable for refund. Sure, eBay is a buyers market these days, so you could basically shatter it with a sledgehammer and still get an undeserved refund. But thats really unethical and damaging to the used camera marketplace, so I'm gonna assume you're not "that guy". If you paid very little and are willing to risk it in pursuit of knowledge, go ahead and poke around, but be aware you'll likely make things worse. The little wires can be brittle and easily break internally if moved (or simply snap right off the board). Ditto traces in the board etched circuits. Also note if the meter is pegged on overexposure due to (common) hidden impact damage to the ASA/compensation assembly located under the rewind knob, the camera is toast and nothing you can do will restore it (requires replacement of the cracked gold resistor ring buried in the assembly). The "adjustment nerve center" of the F3 is under the front plate to the left of the lens mount, where you'll find multiple trim pots to fiddle with. You need to refer to the F3 service manual for details on which trim pot adjusts what function (they aren't marked). Simply cleaning the meter eye won't help much: it should vary the display response even if dirty, but yours seems permanently locked and loaded at 2000+. If it were me, I'd just return it cleanly and move on to another specimen from a seller capable of proper testing and function guarantee. Its rarely worth the effort to tinker with a defective electronic camera unless you know for certain the defect is mechanical and you have info on how to remedy the specific issue.

Just repeated the viewfinder test, this time with the old ground glass focus screen which is more accurate and realistic in bright daylight than the fussier acute matte I usually have installed. Same results: with my 60mm CB I don't see any appreciable vignetting in the corners wide open or stopped down, regardless of filter + hood combination. You must use the WLF for full corner coverage (the prism finder proved inadequate for this type of evaluation, as its round masked viewing corners completely crop out the area subject to vignetting). Once OP gets his film processed, we'll know for certain if it was a hood issue for his particular lens example. If the vignetting remained the same for all test frames with and without hood/filter, I'd move on to investigating potential mechanical vignetting in the lens or camera body.

Agree 100!%. Of all the things one can choose to waste money and time on, a three-quarters-dead Nikon F3 would be last on my list. You generally cannot DIY repair a badly malfunctioning F3 due to its electronics, and the F3 is pretty much a "deal or no deal" camera model to begin with. Nikon went to great effort to make their first electronic F body as rugged and robust as possible, so a great many of them have held up quite well, but the ones with major problems aren't worth the trouble and expense of repair when you can instead just choose another of the thousands of fully operational F3 bodies. IOW, there are very few "bargain" F3 bodies in circulation today. There is no such thing as buying a funky cheap F3 and nursing it back to health with DIY: either spend the going rate for a guaranteed fully working F3, or don't get an F3. Repair costs for a defective F3 will equal or exceed the cost of a replacement fully functional F3 body. BTW, corrosion on electronic cameras is very bad omen: any corrosion on an electronic camera is an instant no for me.

Note the shutter on my F2 is set to 1/4 sec in above photo, you would need to set your F2 to the same speed to match that top cap position. Ditto if you try to match with the photo in Nikon instruction manual: note the shutter speed indicated in their photo, and set your shutter knob to the same prior to tinkering with your ASA dial position..

Try not to over-think it: thats how I tripped over myself in my earlier reply to you, despite having done this procedure to several of my own F2 meter prisms. Its easier to do than describe. if going on the assumption that the base ASA response of your newly-acquired F2 meter prism was misaligned to begin with, and following my corrected post above, the actual "true" ASA is a floating target that you will first align with a reference meter, then second loosen and reposition the ASA cap/collar so its pointer is aimed at the new reference ASA, then third tighten the collar screws to officially lock down the new "home" position. From then on, any change to the prism ASA setting should track accurately. The priority is to get the prism meter ASA baseline to match your reference meter ASA baseline (the rest is mostly cosmetic). This might be easier if you do the alignment at ASA 100, if you want to try make the cap "home" position match how the camera is shown in Nikon's instruction manual. Whenever I have performed this baseline ASA correction on my own F2 prisms, I never removed the cap/collar: I simply loosened the grub screws, repositioned the red pointer to the corrected ASA, and re-tightened the screws. So I'm not quite certain how one would position the cap/collar if it had been removed without noting its initial position. When I loosen my collars, they rotate around the ASA number cap without the cap itself moving. It shouldn't really matter exactly how the ASA numbers display, as long as the red pointer is pointing at the correct ASA number (after you adjust the mechanism beneath to match an accurate reference meter). You should be able to get the whole assembly positioned close to how it is shown in the instruction manual. Some years back, I standardized on the DP-12 (F2AS) meter prism for all my F2 bodies, so I no longer have a DP1/DP11 available to take picture of the dial home position. If it helps, attached is a photo of my last F2A (DP11), set at ASA 400.

Full open at f/3.5, then 5.6, 11, and 16. It occurs to me an acute matte screen wasn't an ideal platform for this VF eyeball test, so I'm gonna hunt down my old plain ground glass screen and try it again. Tho its just casual cross reference for OP, on-film results with his specific lens example is what matters. I've never personally experienced such vignetting on film with my current 60mm Distagon CB, or my previous CF and C versions.

Initially, I also agreed this vignetting is most likely hood and/or filter related. Then this morning, I "viewfinder tested" the various possibilities with my own 60mm CB Distagon on my 553 ELX (same gliding mirror design as 501cm). Aimed at a white garage wall in full sunlight, I see no darkened corners in the VF using any combination of my 60mm with or without a filter, with the CF 38-60 hood or CF 60-80 hood alone, or either hood combined with a filter. I don't recall encountering any vignetting when I previously owned the older type C version, but that lens was always used with recessed drop-in series filters and the shallow round 38/50/60 type C hood. Perhaps the vignetting is too subtle to be seen in the VF, or the VF crops just enough to conceal it. Or, the lens in question might have a sneaky mechanical issue in the shutter/diaphragm action that causes it. The pending results of OP's latest on-film test exposures should help to identify the culprit.