orsetto

Yes, I had heard of Mr Chen's work as well. He is very inventive: I've seem him post a variety of interesting adapters and other contraptions (most of them design studies or solutions for his own needs). The kind of thing SK Grimes was famous for. It is hard to say whether you would get enough use from your Contax 645 lenses on a Nikon D610 to make the (pricey) adapter worthwhile. I was not always happy with my Zeiss Hasselblad lenses on a D600, D750, and D800: there is something about that generation of Sony sensor that makes it a mediocre marriage. The same lenses were stunning on a 12MP D700 and D3, and the 45MP D850 I recently borrowed came very close to them (with a nice boost in resolution). I was also pleased with these lenses on a Canon 6D. But on the D600 they seem a little drab and dead: this is one of those subjective experiments you would need to test for yourself. Also consider your shooting needs. DSLRs with medium-format lenses work best on a tripod: handheld, they tend to be clumsy and of course your ultimate quality will be more limited. The dramatic crop factor of the smaller sensor increases effective focal length enough to be significant: the Contax 35mm isn't very wide on a Nikon, the 45 is a normal, the 80 is a portrait tele, the 120 more tele-macro than normal-macro, etc. So Contax lenses shorter than the 80mm become less useful (the longer lenses are more practical). Wider Contax lenses would have more application if a tilt/shift adapter was available.

I wasn't referring only to lab tests (though perhaps Lloyd Chambers or Jim Kasson did them): subjective impressions are also of interest. When the Fuji GX50S was announced, much of the initial enthusiasm reflected expectations it might be the Sony A7R of medium format (i.e., a large number of prospective buyers wanted a platform for adapted MF lenses). There was a corollary disappointment that the handier Hasselblad X1D could not be that platform, due to its leaf shutter requirement. But the trend of user reviews I've seen over time indicates the GX50 doesn't do all that great with adapted lenses: the system seems more optimized for the native Fuji lenses than hoped. As with smaller formats, there are differences in how various brands and cameras implement what seem to be identical Sony CMOS MF sensors. The baseline file output of the little Hasselblad is different enough from the Fuji that it might skew better with adapted CF lenses. OTOH, the electronic shutter may introduce enough drawbacks to negate the whole attempt, just one of several questions. Interesting times. The Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad V offer a distinct imaging character that many of us enjoy. If you don't like the term "rendering", call it whatever you wish, these lenses were/are the primary reason any of us were drawn to the Hasselblad square to begin with. But just as some legendary Leica and Zeiss rangefinder glass is mediocre on the Sony A7 series, and some AIS Nikkors work better on Canon DSLRs than Nikon, the Hasselblad lenses that were predictable with film and CCD are not so predictable on various recent-tech MF cameras/sensors. Some of the best on film, like the CB 60mm and FLE 50mm Distagons, are oddly disappointing on some sensors: the "Zeiss Look" evaporates and results are somewhat dull (or borderline poor). If the Hasselblad X1D can keep a wider range of my CF lenses in play on a modern, near-affordable MF sensor, that would be great news.

It will be interesting to hear from users how well the combination of V lenses on the X1D body actually works. I've always found the V lenses to render beautifully when mounted on Nikon DSLRs, with the much-maligned older 50mm Distagon CT* being the biggest pleasant surprise. Of course drawbacks do limit the use envelope with DSLR considerably. The weight/clumsiness of the package, slow operation, and significant crop factor trade off against the value of the unique rendering quality. The larger sensor, EVF and different body style of the X1D could make the whole idea far more practical, at least for those who already own/need an X1D for its native lenses and abilities. Although reports indicate Hassy V lenses used on the Fuji GX50 (same sensor as X1D) lose some of their luster: I hope that isn't an across-the-board incompatibility with the size/pitch of this sensor. It would be a shame if all that beautiful Zeiss Hassy glass gets banished to the film-only graveyard.

Wouter Willemse made a good point about Capture One software, Jean Claude: it isn't only for medium format. While the primary aim of the developer is supporting Phase One medium format backs, and exploiting the deeper image data those backs record, it also works extremely well with Nikon files. Indeed many photographers cannot stand D800 or D810 color unless the raw files are processed thru Capture One (one reason the improved colors of the D850 are so significant). The drawback is you must buy this software separately if you want to use it with Nikon, Canon, Sony, etc cameras (owners of any Phase or Leaf backs may use it for free). Current cost is approx $300 US, well worth it if you shoot Nikon in raw format. However if you usually prefer the in-camera JPEGs instead, it wouldn't be applicable. The Contax 645 system was top-notch, with lenses that improved upon prior Zeiss Hasselblad versions (esp the superb Contax 120mm Makro Planar, still one of the finest lenses ever made). Unfortunately it was never as popular as Hasselblad in the studio, which is where digital first took over. So the percentage of backs made with Contax mount is very very small and more expensive vs Hasselblad 500cm or Hasselblad H. The difficulty in obtaining digital backs for the Contax has reduced its value considerably, but this varies from country to country and year to year. Recently, there has been a resurgence of pro wedding photographers returning to film as a "luxury" offering to clients, and they have been snapping up good Contax kits at higher prices than they were willing to pay a couple years ago. Also, Leica S2 owners began seeking Contax 645 lenses to supplement the crazy-expensive Leica lens lineup (despite the pricey adapter). So timing and venue is everything: with luck, it is still possible to sell Contax 645 gear for reasonable prices. Zeiss has expanded its offerings for smaller format cameras considerably over the last few years: if you want rendering similar to your Contax 645 lenses, you should be able achieve it with glass in the Zeiss Milvus/ZF.2 or Otus collections for Nikon mount. The drawback (and its a big one for some people) is lack of autofocus: it can be rather difficult to fully extract the performance of these lenses with manual focus. Zeiss really needs to get its act together and pay a company like Sigma to license their generic AF knockoff technology: with high res DSLRs, AF is no longer an option but a necessity. Mirrorless full-frame cameras with live-view magnified viewfinders make manual focus more practical, but right now this is limited to the Sony A7 series (whose color output leaves a lot to be desired: Nikon implements the Sony sensor far better in the D850). Of course there are alternatives: some of the newest (and alas most expensive) Nikon AF designs offer rendering and performance that either matches Zeiss (105mm f/1.4) or is interesting in its own right (the controversial 58mm f/1.4). Old standbys like 85mm f/1.4 are still good, as are the exotic or fast teles. The Achilles Heel of all DSLR systems remains affordable mid-speed wide angle lens performance: you can get some excellent pro zooms, but they're bulky heavy and slow. Nikon also makes an excellent line of high-speed f/1.4 primes, but prices are very high and again, bulky/heavy. The current midrange collection of f/1.8 Nikkors is a mixed bag, unfortunately: very good overall performance let down by excruciatingly cheap-feeling plastic construction, and avoidable optical flaws that are an embarrassment in lenses designed today (i.e. huge focus shift when stopping down). Admittedly, some of the pricey Zeiss alternatives also suffer focus shifts- but theres really no excuse for it. Which is why some of us are still using old manual Nikkor lenses from the distant past. I'll never give up my 20mm f/3.5 AI, 24mm f/2.8 NC, 28mm f/2.0 NC, 35mm f/2.0 "O", 85mm f/1.8 HC, 105mm f/2.5 AIS and 135mm f/2.8 QC. The 35/2 NikkorO is my mainstay: I have tried everything to replace or update it, but nothing comes close to its combination of size, speed, build quality and optical rendering. Like any fast prime, it isn't perfect at f/2.0, but from 2.8 on theres little to complain of and lots to like. My only grief with it is internal reflection that makes it unpredictable for night time street shooting: street lights duplicate themselves randomly in frame. This was a nightmare with film, but a bit more manageable with digital since I can check results immediately and reframe to minimize the issue.

My remarks suggesting the D850 were meant as an alternative to a digital back for the Contax, but only in the context of someone who was considering an older medium-format digital back specifically hoping just for better colors and higher resolution than the D610. Given comparable pricing between a new D850 and much older used MF back, the D850 is the more logical, practical solution here (esp if the person already has a nice set of Nikkor lenses). The original "lower resolution" Nikon full-frame cameras like D700, D3 and D3S had color that could be tweaked to look "natural" across the frame without too much effort. But the followup "higher resolution" D600, D800, D750, D810 are known to frustrate those with a critical eye for color: the files can be difficult to balance when you need both natural skin tones and good color in other areas. So if a D610 user feels something is "missing" from their pictures, which seems apparent in medium format examples, they should absolutely audition a D850 before jumping into the minefield of second-hand medium format. Between the 46MP resolution and significantly better colors, the D850 gives results very very close to older 40MP medium format backs. The only remaining differentiation being focal length: for any given shot, the medium format lens will be longer, creating a more rapid focus dropoff with alternative bokeh. This can be emulated to some degree by using faster or longer lenses on the D850, but CCD medium format will always have a specific "deeper" look to it that can't be exactly copied by smaller CMOS formats. The gap is narrowing, however, as the newest medium format CMOS technology increasingly moves toward smaller denser 33x44 sensors. These Sony "mini-MF" sensors aren't nearly as distinct from Nikon "FX" sensors as the older larger CCD MF sensors were. The main reasons today to use medium format involve greater flexibility in raw file processing via Capture One, and/or personal preference for the particular lens rendering or camera body handling of the Contax 645, Hasselblad V, or Hasselblad H systems. Nobody ever develops an emotional preference for the current Mamiya/Phase bodies or lenses: they're strictly utilitarian and hideously, insanely overpriced for anyone not doing paid institutional work like museum archiving (which Phase One specializes in as "cultural heritage workflow"). The Zeiss lenses for the Contax 645 and Hasselblad V + H cameras offer rendering quality that many photographers still feel is unique enough to be worth the trouble and expense of MF digital backs. But there is a huge cost/usability gap between "old school CCD" backs and modern current CMOS backs. The older backs are "affordable", they offer beautiful colors and imaging that is highly compatible with older Zeiss lenses, but they kill much of the pleasure these camera systems had when using film. The old backs are ridiculously slow ISO, almost unusable handheld. Their display screens are dreadful: the Phase P series screens are near-worthless for evaluating exposure or focus, live view is crude or non-existent. The typical crop of digital formats messes up your lens habits: all focal lengths will be tighter than on film. Their only advantage over film is the immediacy and economic utility of digital imaging, which was a boon for professional studio photographers twelve years ago but doesn't do much for MF casual shooters at all. In many respects, continuing to shoot film with your MF system and having your best frames scanned to digital remains the best choice today vs older digital backs. Newer CMOS backs provide an experience vastly more familiar to Nikon/Canon DSLR users. Their usable ISO range is much greater, their display screens more usable for live view and accurate for review. But they use smaller-than-film 33x44 sensors, and are frighteningly expensive for any but the wealthiest amateur to purchase (minimum $10K US for 50MP 33x44, rapidly escalating to $40K US for 100MP 41x54 sensor). This is a LOT of money: even the cheapest CMOS back is worth more than a complete Contax 645 kit with many Zeiss lenses. Hard to justify, and too many compromises unless you REALLY love using the old cameras and REALLY know how to reliably nail focus with the lenses. And really REALLY hard to justify if you aren't going to print at all: even if you can afford the costs, why deal with the usability compromises and fear of walking around with such expensive gear if you won't be fully exploiting the performance? Those who don't expect to make many huge prints can achieve very similar results with a D850 and select, premium lenses like the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 and Nikon-mount Zeiss Otus apo series. Jean-Claude, all of the lenses you asked about would work just fine with the D850. It is a myth that higher resolution sensors always make older lenses look bad: actually, they often make older lenses look surprisingly good. Much depends on the specific combination of sensor, camera body and lens, and it can change as camera bodies evolve. Many who upgraded from the D800 to the D850 were surprised to find lenses that did not work well with the 36MP D800 work beautifully with the 46MP D850. Of your lenses, the only one universally considered "weak" is the 35mm f/2.0 AFD. But one man's "weak" is another man's "paintbrush" - a number of photographers seem to enjoy making the flaws of the 35 AFD work to their advantage. Its biggest flaw is soft corners, but if you don't care about that in your compositions (or don't see it on your screen or in prints), so what? My favorite lens is an ancient 35mm f/2.0 Nikkor-O my father bought in 1969. In lab tests, of course it would be inferior to a new $5000 Zeiss Otus. But I get great pics from that handy old lens, while I would never dream of dragging the huge heavy Otus out with me every day. Horses for courses. BTW, there is one more uncommon (but interesting) option for using your lovely Contax 645 lenses digitally. One professional whose work I very much admire has made excellent use of his Contax 645 lenses on a medium format Leica S2 digital body. Leica offers a mount adapter that permits full electronic communication and AF with Contax Zeiss lenses! The Leica S2 (older CCD version) is not much bigger than a D850, handles the same, but has a medium-format 30x45, 38MP sensor. The S2 is available used at prices comparable to a Phase P45 back, but would be MUCH more pleasant and familiar to use. Worth exploring if you enjoy the rendering of the Zeiss 645 lenses: examples I've seen with them used on the Leica are very, very nice indeed.

Good model digital backs (even not-so-good models) with Contax 645 mount are in very high demand but very limited supply. Unless you get lucky and find exactly the back you want when ready to purchase, you'll probably need to "settle" for whatever back becomes available to you in Contax mount at a reasonable price. Backs for Hasselblad V, Hasselblad H and Mamiya/Phase mount are far more common in much greater variety to choose from. The Phase P45 recommended by coronawithlime is excellent, if you can find it and afford it. Other models in that Phase lineup are also good, with the P30 being especially popular with Contax users. P25 and P25+ are the cheapest "full frame" models, with sensors closer to 6x4.5 film frame. But they have the larger "fat pixels" which are good in some ways and bad in others. Many prefer the "fat pixel" colors and tones over other sensor designs, but they are very prone to moire issues when shooting fashion or portraiture. If you see a nice Leaf back in Contax mount, consider that as well. Leaf and Phase both use the excellent Capture One raw file software to maximum benefit. Note that older digital backs made for medium format cameras like your Contax were never intended for "consumer" or "amateur" use. These backs originally sold new for the price of a Mercedes Benz automobile, and were marketed to professional photographers who could afford to buy or lease from a franchised specialty dealer who would support and maintain the backs. Buying one of these orphaned older backs used on eBay is a risk: you might get a good deal, but if the slightest thing goes wrong with the back it will be incredibly expensive to fix. Repairs can cost as much as the entire back itself, and require shipping to the country where the back was first made. Also, they are limited almost exclusively to ISO 50 or 100: not ideal for the handheld shooting most Contax owners prefer. If you set ISO to a modest 200, picture quality degrades noticeably, with ISO 400 being even worse. Beyond 400, you're wasting your time: these old CCD backs were meant for bright sunshine or studio flash, not available light shooting. For the amount of money you might risk on an old used Contax-compatible digital back, you could buy a new Nikon D850 to replace your D610 and achieve similar (if not completely identical) results. The D850 is a dramatic upgrade from the D610: Nikon finally got their color issues sorted, and the 46 MP sensor resolution equals or betters any affordable used back for medium format. You don't get to enjoy the experience of your wonderful Contax or its Zeiss lenses, but the world of digital changes quickly and 645 just isn't practical unless you're a professional who can afford one of the newer Phase CMOS backs in the IQ series. These sell used for at least $10,000 (US). If you CAN afford the cost, and feel it is worth it to use your Contax digitally, I'd strongly recommend speaking to an official Phase dealer near you in Europe. Prices will be higher than eBay, but selection of used backs in Contax will be better and the dealer will offer some warranty protection against defects. But consider carefully before investing: if you only make occasional prints, keeping the Contax as a film system may be more sensible. Paying a good lab to make high resolution scans of your favorite film frames for printing might be a better short-term option, since the more modern, more usable CMOS backs in Contax mount are so difficult to find (and expensive when you do).

BTW, the official parts "kit" was basically just the new foot with some new replacement screws i(n case your old screws were worn). All you probably need is the foot itself, which pops up on eBay every now and then as Hasselblad 30763. If you have an eBay account, run a search for the foot and save it with notification option. eBay will then send you an email when somebody lists one. Note the limitations re only fits 500cm bodies mfd post-1982 (NG for 500c at all).

Yes, it is possible, but you would need a long-discontinued $30 parts kit Hasselblad sold back in the '90s for this exact purpose. Chances of finding such kits today are very slim. Also, the update was not possible for all Hasselblads. Assuming you could lay hands on the parts kit, you can only retrofit the new shoe to 500cm bodies with serial #RH1271268 or later. The older 500c bodies and earlier 500cm could not accept the new parts. The modification was available as Part No. ZZ 95, which could also be used to update the 503cx, 2000FCW and 2003FCW.

David Odess is great, but as you noted he has a backlog and his rates are pretty high unless you truly want/need a a soup-to-nuts overhaul. There are plenty of techs still around in big cities (Precision Camera, KEH, Samys, etc.) experienced with most of the routine Hasselblad glitches like light leaks: such simple repairs don't require a complete teardown/rebuild, and shouldn't be horrifically expensive or time consuming (if you'd rather not DIY). Odess is the go-to guy for overhauling the ancient metal-barrel C lenses, esp tricky aperture issues and stubborn shutter problems. He also handles arcane body issues with aplomb that can stymie other techs. Hasselblad film backs are perhaps the Achilles Heel of the system: it pays to own at least two or three as insurance against sudden failure. Swapping backs is also the quickest way to determine if any particular back has developed a leak or spacing problem. Second-hand prices on A12 backs have shot up again recently, but A24s are plentiful and still cheap. You can use 120 film in the A24 backs pretty much the same as you would in an A12: you simply need to line up the start arrow somewhat differently, and remember your frames run out after 11 or 12, not 24. Careful loading will get you the full 12 exposures, but its best to limit important shots to 11 and consider the 12th a "bonus". See older threads on the topic of "120 film in A24 back".

It can be tricky sometimes to figure out what exactly is ruining films from a Hasselblad. Increasing reports of late indicate sloppy labs are contaminating 120 film is such a way that it looks very similar to a Hasselblad light leak, which can drive some owners in frustrating circles until they rule out the camera itself. The above suggestion to orient the processed film against the camera back, to track down the direction of a possible leak, is a good place to begin. Make a mental note of which point the light appears to be coming from (dark slide slot, overhaed, opposite side). Counterintuitively, light leaks from the dark slide slot often manifest on the edge of the film opposite the darkslide slot. Next, examine the camera for any blatantly obvious leaks from that direction. Do this by attaching the suspicious (unloaded) film back to your Hasselblad (finder closed, no lens on the camera). Remove the dark slide, and wind the camera. If your Hasselblad is a 500c or 500cm, press and hold the shutter button, while turning the handle around the button from "o" to "T". This will lock open the camera in time exposure mode so you can check for leaks. (Later models require you attach a locking cable release, the motorized models like EL have a an electric T switch on the motor housing near the power connector.) Bring the camera and a small bright LED flashlight into a darkened room at night. With one hand, bring the front of the camera up to your face and press your eye into the lens mount (blocking out any extraneous light). Using your other hand, press the flashlight against the bottom of the darkslide slot and slowly move it toward the top of the camera, then over the top, then down the other side, then underneath (rotate the camera as necessary, following the seam between camera body and film back). The inside of the camera should remain dead black the entire time. If at any point you see light fanning in, the leak is wherever the flashlight is positioned. Usually it will be from the dark slide seal: this is a common, simple thing you can fix yourself with a steady hand, a jewelers screwdriver, and a strip of camera foam or black velvet ribbon. If the leak is coming from the top, other side, or bottom of the magazine, that indicates poor fit of the back against the camera: this requires a good repair tech to evaluate. Sometimes this is easily repaired, sometimes not. This flashlight examination is only a rough test, of course. If you have a very important shoot coming up, it would be worth paying a qualified tech to check your Haselblad professionally and perform preventative maintenance like replacing the dark slide seal and adjusting the fit of your back(s).

I didn't mean to imply there was anything intrinsically wrong with a camera becoming a "cult object" beyond the fact that it drives prices to a point that keeps them out of the hands of many "real" photographers who would enjoy using them as intended: to make pictures (good, bad or indifferent). Rolleiflex is the poster child for the negative aspects of this phenomenon, and has been for over forty years. Once the appeal of a particular camera escapes the bounds of photographers, and permeates the larger culture, that camera gets wiped off the table of practical options for any but the most well-heeled or obsessed photographers. Hasselblad may have a "cult" but it is entirely confined to photographers. When digital killed the value of most film cameras, Hasselblad was hit nearly as badly as all other brands: the drop just wasn't as noticeable at first because Hasselblads were so insanely expensive to begin with (also, availability of digital backs kept Hasselblads professionally viable awhile longer). In the last decade or so, as small-format digital has finally caught up to medium format for professional purposes, and old used digital backs remain stubbornly expensive, Hasselblad values sank like a lead brick. Yes, they're still double or triple the price of Bronica, but thats as proportionate as it always was (and some of vintage Hasselblad's remaining premium is tied up in its still being repairable: once David Odess retires, prices will collapse further). That sort of reality check has never (and will never) impact vintage Leica or Rollei. Whatever specific value they once had as photography tools has long since been eclipsed by their value as status symbols and iconic objects for collectors and hipsters. Most of all, they are touchstones in media and advertising. When was the last time you saw a vintage Hasselblad in a cognac ad, if ever? OTOH, there is no shortage of fashion layouts, billboards or "lifestyle features" populated by dead-eyed models brandishing Rolleiflexes and Leicas as hip cool jewelry. This stokes high demand from the aping public, most of whom couldn't load their Rolleiflex if you paid them (and would drop their Leica baseplate down a sewer grate if they ever actually attempted street photography). Given the limited supply of touchstone Leica and Rollei gear, this evergreen advertising tick has wiped those brands off the table for the average photographer. Hasselblads are fetish objects to a much diminished pool of admirers by comparison: if you want the Zeiss Planar 6x6 experience, you can pick up a 'blad for half or a third the cost of a Rolleiflex 2.8E or 2.8F.

Oops, caught my mistake: Rolleicords had the Schneider Xenar lens, not Zeiss Tessar. A distinction without a difference once the print is made: they are clones of each other. My opinion remains, if you want a Rollei TLR and would be satisfied with Tessar/Xenar instead of Planar/Xenotar, a Rolleiflex with Tessar is well worth the slightly higher cost over a Rolleicord with similar Xenar. The 'flex is just more pleasant to use overall.

You ask "Rolleicord vs Yashicamat", but then follow that with the definite statement "budget is not an issue". These two factors, in my mind, negate each other. If money is truly not an issue, and you are seeking a nice compact supplement to your Mamiya C system, just go for a restored, lower-end Rolleiflex. While the Rolleicords have their defenders and adherents today, like all old cameras made by venerable German brands, very few people can honestly say they "love" theirs. When they were first made and sold, their only reason for existence was to trick budget-conscious customers into giving their money to Rollei for an inferior camera (instead of spending that money on a more-usable other-brand Rolleiflex knockoff). The Rolleicords don't even have the glamour factor to recommend them: take off the rose colored glasses, look at them objectively, and they're an ugly mess compared to the far-superior Rolleiflex. If Rolleicords did not have the Rollei nameplate on them, their "desirability" would drop like a stone. They continue to be sought after simply because famous German makes are considered gotta-have-it cult objects. The Rolleiflex is an icon that costs a fortune: second hand prices have been absurd since the late 1970s when they joined Leica in the rarefied "rich man's jewelry" camera pantheon. Most people today are buying them for the cool retro look first, and performance second. Those are as good reasons as any, and the Rolleiflex at least backs up its gorgeous appearance with unique handling and lens performance. The Rolleicord? Not so much. Butt ugly, terrible handling, way less appealing to use than nearly any other TLR short of a Seagull. The Tessar lenses are nice enough, but far more enjoyable when attached to a Rolleiflex body. Tessar-equipped Rolleiflexes are much less popular with collectors and the "it crowd" than Planar or Xenotar: with careful shopping, you can pick up a Rolleiflex Tessar almost as affordably as a late-model Rolleicord. The Yashicamats can be great alternatives, if you don't have an emotional attachment to Rollei. Unfortunately late-model Yashicas have skyrocketed on the used market: the final Yashicamat 124G in particular is now way too overpriced for what it offers. Go just slightly older, and choices abound at reasonable cost. Most are dependable, with lens performance akin to Rollei Tessar, but one needs to look out for certain "gotchas" with some Yashica bodies/lenses (check the dedicated Yashica threads for complete info). You might also consider the Minolta Autocords, which were about as close as any rival ever came to equaling the Rolleiflex (Rokkor lenses were stellar). The trouble with any Rollei (or its rivals) is the likely need to have it serviced and new screen installed, at a cost than can equal or exceed what you pay for the camera. As good technicians age out and retire, restoration availability is dwindling and wait times increasing. This was the biggest factor in my opting for the Mamiya C system: nothing ever breaks or requires exotic servicing. With rare exceptions, the bodies can go decades without a problem. The lenses are completely removable/replaceable, with shutters that are easily accessible for maintenance. That is positive trade-off for their larger size and weight. The final circa-1992 Mamiya C220f body was the smallest and lightest, with a bright contrasty screen that beats anything short of a Hasselblad Acute Matte. No romantic appeal at all: its a utilitarian black brick. But handles like a dream: worth a look unless one absolutely needs the tiny size of fixed-lens TLRs. One glance thru the gorgeous bright viewscreen and I was hooked (astounding that a complete Mamiya 220f with 80mm f/2.8 is less expensive than an Acute Matte screen alone for my Hasselblad 500cm).

If your EL is the original version with fixed (not drop out) focus screen, its quite old now and may have been heavily used in a studio. While the motorized Hasselblads are remarkably rugged, ancient examples that were "rode hard and put up wet" (then perhaps sat unused for a decade) can develop problems that resist DIY repair. Given their unpopularity today vs the cult for manual-wind bodies, it isn't cost-effective to repair the original EL cameras anymore. Fixing a dead solenoid or seized barn door actuator is not cheap. Return this EL and get a refund (or resell it yourself). For the money you'd spend on a proper overhaul, you could pick up a functional, later ELM with changeable screens, or perhaps even newer ELX with larger non-vignetting mirror. The bad news is the motorized bodies aren't worth repairing, the good news is you can easily find functional replacements for less than the cost of repair.

Note the excruciatingly stiff focus feel of the 50mm, 60mm and 80mm C lenses is inherent to the original design: believe it or not, Zeiss made them that way on purpose and it cannot be adjusted. David Odess was kind enough to warn me of this: he cannot make the focus helicoid feel any smoother or turn with less effort. It isn't just the awful lube Zeiss used, its the helicoid itself. Mr Odess is indeed the premier Haaselblad tech in USA: his communication is top notch. One of the very few specialist techs with genuine social skills (he actually enjoys discussing things). While he is the best known tech working on Hasselblad V gear, he is certainly not the only decent or respectable option available. Certain very common repairs, like CLA of sticky lens shutter speeds, can be done by competent local repair techs. Hasselblads are complex beasts, yes, but they were also the standard camera system of working professionals for four decades: repair techs in many major cities performed lens shutter CLA on a regular basis as their bread and butter job. Hasselblads are not hysterical pearl-clutching Rube Goldberg contraptions like vintage Leica or Rolleiflex (that can only be touched by three cultish techs in all of North America). They occupy an odd niche: exotic and expensive in their heyday, yet far more common than one would imagine given the cost of ownership. So leaf shutter CLA of the C lenses was one of the life-blood jobs of many camera repair shops: many have closed down or retired, but enough remain that its worth looking for one nearby. That said, certain types of malfunction I would ship straight to Odess or another well-known Hasselblad-centric tech. The lens shutter CLA is a simple thing for your average tech, but the diaphragm mechanism is not. Issues like slow or nonexistent aperture stopdown require intuitive troubleshooting borne of long experience. Some body repairs require Hasselblad tools and jigs to truly perform properly. Knowing which malfunctions are "ordinary" and which absolutely need a guru is something one learns after some years using their Hasselblad.

Congrats on the "new to you" Hasselblad 500EL!! Re battery adapters: I've tried them all, and IMO the most cost effective, reliable, convenient type is the newer version single-piece 9v version with no loose wires (the entire thing fits neatly inside just one of the EL battery chambers). These adapters usually look like a gold-labeled black plastic cylinder with a removable metal battery bracket in the center. You pull out the bracket, snap in the 9v battery, then snap the bracket back into the cylinder. The 6v lithium adapters seem nice at first, but tend to be overpriced, plus the two required lithium batteries are themselves more expensive than 9v batteries. And as coronawithlime noted, the lithium batteries can move in the adapter, causing issues. The very common cheap two-piece 9v adapters work OK, but installation is fiddly and the frail wires will fail at some point from friction against the compartment cover. Two-piece adapters were half the price of the other types until very recently ($19.95 vs $39.95), but lately I've seen the one-piece 9v selling between $20-$30. The lithium adapter still hovers closer to $40 on average. Motorized Hasselblads are greatly undervalued and unappreciated due to mythical battery issues, and assumptions about weight and noise. The battery problems evaporate if you avoid the truly dismal NiCads. The original power system was a rare complete fail by Hasselblad: they should have used AAs right from the start. Instead, they got caught up in their own "Moon Camera" PR, carrying over the NiCads required by NASA (but not yet refined enough for earthbound use, as betrayed by the fuse which never fails with 9v alkaline batteries or AAs). The weight difference compared to the 500CM can be deceptive. If both cameras have the old tiny 80mm Planar "C" lens mounted, the ELs do seem much heavier. But the minute you swap that for a 50mm Distagon or 150mm Sonnar, or add a prism finder, all bets are off. The 500CM is suddenly not the graceful featherweight anymore: its front-heavy and clumsy. The added motor weight of the EL becomes proportionately less. The motor noise vs handcranked noise is also subjective, depending how, where and when you tend to shoot. People often forget the mechanical marvel manual-wind 500cm isn't exactly an Olympus OM-1 in stealth or smoothness. The initial shutter release is relatively quiet, but when you let go of the button those barn doors snap closed with a loud "thwack" amplified by the hollow mirror-up body. In fast moving situations where you'll be taking several shots in a row, the repeated cranking of a 500CM is a grinding sound, and as each frame locks into place the film back mechanism emits an irritatingly loud "zip-swock" noise. If two photographers stand next to each other in a quiet room, one equipped with a CM and the other with an EL, the noise from the CM release-wind cycle lasts longer than the EL motor noise: the motor even helps conceal some of the film back clattering. Strictly speaking, the motor is indeed louder, but it doesn't always matter. Other EL advantages include a somewhat sturdier build and less fussy mechanism (I've had 500CMs jam on me several times for no apparent reason other than "lens allergy" but never once suffered a jam with an EL). Mirror up mode is easier to engage and less prone to mechanical interference. Shutter button feel is very smooth and soft. The added weight and different mechanical configuration impart extra damping that allows some users to get away with slower handheld shutter speeds than they can manage with the CM. Last (but not least), a cheap EL makes a fantastic "gym" for your lenses! The best insurance against expensive lens repairs is to keep them exercised: an EL body makes it super-easy to fire several shots at every shutter speed /aperture with each of your lenses once per month. Doing the same with a manual wind body gets very tiresome very quickly (tho the exercise is just as good for the camera body as your lenses). Prices have dropped like a stone on all the EL variations. The original EL is a steal if you can tolerate the fixed, blah focusing screen. The ELM is worth paying a little more, so you can change screens easily. The sweet spot is the 500ELX: this was the first Hasselblad to get the larger gliding mirror (no vignetting with tele and macro, no worries about crumbling under-mirror alignment foam). The 553ELX is the 500ELX with AA battery chamber, usually at a significant jump in price. Shop carefully: a number of 500ELM and 500ELX were retrofitted by Hasselblad with the 553ELX AA modification (these are cheaper than a 553ELX). The final glorious 555ELD is still hugely more expensive, not justified unless you also own one of the uncommon digital backs that fully exploit its electronics and NASA-spec mirror (used with film, it has zero advantages over a 500ELX or 553ELX). If for no other reason, some ELs are worth considering as backup bodies if you have any need whatsoever for the GMS (gliding mirror system). This non-vignetting, non-drifting mirror upgrade is still obscenely expensive to obtain in a manual-wind body, being limited to the rare-ish 501CM and 503CW models only. Simply because "nobody wants a motor body", you can pick up the GMS-equipped 500ELX or 553ELX for one-fourth to one-fifth the price of a 501CM. A 500ELX in nice shape typically runs $200-$300 without back or finder. The 501CM averages closer to $1000, the 503CW even more. Food for thought.