Hassy's Lunar gets real

Started May 23, 2013 | Discussions
Barrie Davis
Forum ProPosts: 21,460
Like?
500C, and CM
In reply to dmanthree, May 25, 2013

dmanthree wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

Dheorl wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

Yeah, sure, I'm ready to spend over $5K for a NEX 7.

Not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fT3BYH6YkIg#!

It's not worse than what Leica do to panasonic cameras, if anything they might have even put more effort in.

What really gets me is that Hassy was not  "luxury" camera company. Their reputation was for building highly functional, reliable, and modular cameras that produced excellent images. They weren't cheap, but selling this PoS as  luxury item is, well, brain dead to me. Sure, they'd offer the occasional collector's kit, but by and large Hassys were shooters cameras, not toys for the rich.

I dispute the suggestion that Hasselblad's cameras were EVER reliable. They were hopelessly under-engineered....

The metal was soft, and the paint would scrape off if you lightly drew your thumbnail across it.

Mine must have been the lone exception, I guess. I pounded on my 500 C/M for years, shooting thousands of rolls, and never experienced anything but reliable behaviour. It showed wear, but nothing like you describe. It was a brick, and produced excellent images from start to finish.

Oh, really?

Didn't you find you were constantly sending away the 120 magazines to have the FRAME SPACING readjusted?

This was a regular occurrence with the 11 magazines with which our studio operated. The spacing between all frames gradually increases, roll by roll, day by day, until the last (12) frame is sufficiently displaced it starts to occur under the processing clip marks. That is when it, the magazine, had to be sent away, typically every 6 or 7 months, at our rate of shooting. Indeed, the only merit of this particular Hasselblad "feature" (ha!) was that it happened to all magazines equally and at the same rate...

... so we could almost always tell how long it was from the last service by a brief glance at a recent roll to come through the magazine in question. Was the gap between its frames 1/4", or already heading for 3/4" and therefore the roll was an 11½-framer, instead of a 12?

I could go on....

Do you want to hear about the special little trick the internal (back) shutter performs to produce massive image flare with any subject backlighting that comes from electronic flash, but ONLY electronic flash... continuous light is immune.  Oh yes. That one is a real lu-lu.

Or how about the whole batch of lenses we had where the newly developed focusing grip was made of a black plastic that lost adhesion with the barrel of the lens and broke right through ... after only 2 DAYS of use?!

Or would you like to hear how Hasselblad simply "designed away" a whole means for fastening the camera to a tripod... (the 3/8" pro size thread socket).... [I went to use it...it wasn't THERE. Gone!]

Yes. Hasselblad was one of those special camera marques that "updated" its latest models by removing features the previous ones had been famous for having...

.... like the internal (back) flap type shutter's separate 'X' syncro connection, previously available from a standard 3-mm co-ax PC socket on the side of the body above the mirror lift, but sent into oblivion on a latter model.... another thing we went to use that just wasn't there.....

..... I am not kidding. The first time this kind of thing happens you doubt you own abilty to recall correctly... "or it is somewhere else, now?" So you look around the body to find where it has been MOVED to. And then you remember that it is Hasselblad, and the company is a law unto itself.

All this is separate to the fact that the 500CM body was made of dreadfully soft metal, very prone to dints, with certain painted areas so weak the coating could quite literally be pushed off by gripping the component slightly too tightly.... flakes of dried paint comes off in your hand...no etch-primer underneath it, that's why.

But hey, we all have different standards. It wasn't until I actually started using Hasselblads that I realised how amazing LOW their standards were!

Zeiss lenses were nice, optically, but the rest of it you can keep. (Yeeaech!)

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Baz
:
"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear list
Like?
Re: 500C, and CM
In reply to Barrie Davis, May 25, 2013

Barrie Davis wrote:

Mine must have been the lone exception, I guess. I pounded on my 500 C/M for years, shooting thousands of rolls, and never experienced anything but reliable behaviour. It showed wear, but nothing like you describe. It was a brick, and produced excellent images from start to finish.

Oh, really?

Didn't you find you were constantly sending away the 120 magazines to have the FRAME SPACING readjusted?

Nope. Never happened to any of my three magazines. All A12 variety.

This was a regular occurrence with the 11 magazines with which our studio operated. The spacing between all frames gradually increases, roll by roll, day by day, until the last (12) frame is sufficiently displaced it starts to occur under the processing clip marks. That is when it, the magazine, had to be sent away, typically every 6 or 7 months, at our rate of shooting. Indeed, the only merit of this particular Hasselblad "feature" (ha!) was that it happened to all magazines equally and at the same rate...

... so we could almost always tell how long it was from the last service by a brief glance at a recent roll to come through the magazine in question. Was the gap between its frames 1/4", or already heading for 3/4" and therefore the roll was an 11½-framer, instead of a 12?

I could go on....

Do you want to hear about the special little trick the internal (back) shutter performs to produce massive image flare with any subject backlighting that comes from electronic flash, but ONLY electronic flash... continuous light is immune.  Oh yes. That one is a real lu-lu.

I missed that one, too. Never saw it.

Or how about the whole batch of lenses we had where the newly developed focusing grip was made of a black plastic that lost adhesion with the barrel of the lens and broke right through ... after only 2 DAYS of use?!

Or would you like to hear how Hasselblad simply "designed away" a whole means for fastening the camera to a tripod... (the 3/8" pro size thread socket).... [I went to use it...it wasn't THERE. Gone!]

Yes. Hasselblad was one of those special camera marques that "updated" its latest models by removing features the previous ones had been famous for having...

.... like the internal (back) flap type shutter's separate 'X' syncro connection, previously available from a standard 3-mm co-ax PC socket on the side of the body above the mirror lift, but sent into oblivion on a latter model.... another thing we went to use that just wasn't there.....

..... I am not kidding. The first time this kind of thing happens you doubt you own abilty to recall correctly... "or it is somewhere else, now?" So you look around the body to find where it has been MOVED to. And then you remember that it is Hasselblad, and the company is a law unto itself.

All this is separate to the fact that the 500CM body was made of dreadfully soft metal, very prone to dints, with certain painted areas so weak the coating could quite literally be pushed off by gripping the component slightly too tightly.... flakes of dried paint comes off in your hand...no etch-primer underneath it, that's why.

Again, I never saw any of this stuff you're describing.

But hey, we all have different standards. It wasn't until I actually started using Hasselblads that I realised how amazing LOW their standards were!

Zeiss lenses were nice, optically, but the rest of it you can keep. (Yeeaech!)

When I eventually sold off my Hassy gear, it was still in nice shape, worked perfectly, and I got about 75% of my money back on it. Can't complain about that. I know at least five other shooters with experiences similar to mine. Can't explain your troubles, honestly.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
depscribe
Senior MemberPosts: 1,104Gear list
Like?
Re: Hassy's Lunar gets real
In reply to dmanthree, May 25, 2013

I agree with you. I used a Superwide C for years and never had an issue at all, including in some pretty miserable conditions (the minefield at Guantanamo, for instance). Quality was never a problem with Hasselblad; later, the fact that there was no 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 digital back was, though. Alas.

-- hide signature --

depscribe
some pictures: http://www.ipernity.com/depscribe/

 depscribe's gear list:depscribe's gear list
Fujifilm X100S Nikon D7100
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: Stupid things for people with too much money.
In reply to Lumixdude, May 25, 2013

Lumixdude wrote:

So bacially you (and others like you) do not have too much money. Thats the crux of your statement.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
zxaar
Veteran MemberPosts: 3,248
Like?
Re: They didn't design it for you.
In reply to dmanthree, May 25, 2013

dmanthree wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

If you aren't the kind of person to which $1000 and $5000 are both pocket change, they didn't design this for you.  It's for people that want something precisely because it is expensive.

I wouldn't buy it even if I had millions burning a whole in my pocket. Fact is, I could afford one, but I find the whole thing insulting.

You are very correct, however, I buy cameras to actually use. Not become shelf queens.

Whether you use camera or not is not clear from what you write, but one thing is clear that you do spend time moaning about them.

You clearly are interested enough in this thing that you had time to start a thread on it.

-- hide signature --

::> I make spelling mistakes. May Dog forgive me for this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Barrie Davis
Forum ProPosts: 21,460
Like?
Re: 500C, and CM
In reply to dmanthree, May 25, 2013

dmanthree wrote:

Barrie Davis wrote:

Mine must have been the lone exception, I guess. I pounded on my 500 C/M for years, shooting thousands of rolls, and never experienced anything but reliable behaviour. It showed wear, but nothing like you describe. It was a brick, and produced excellent images from start to finish.

Oh, really?

Didn't you find you were constantly sending away the 120 magazines to have the FRAME SPACING readjusted?

Nope. Never happened to any of my three magazines. All A12 variety.

This was a regular occurrence with the 11 magazines with which our studio operated. The spacing between all frames gradually increases, roll by roll, day by day, until the last (12) frame is sufficiently displaced it starts to occur under the processing clip marks. That is when it, the magazine, had to be sent away, typically every 6 or 7 months, at our rate of shooting. Indeed, the only merit of this particular Hasselblad "feature" (ha!) was that it happened to all magazines equally and at the same rate...

... so we could almost always tell how long it was from the last service by a brief glance at a recent roll to come through the magazine in question. Was the gap between its frames 1/4", or already heading for 3/4" and therefore the roll was an 11½-framer, instead of a 12?

I could go on....

Do you want to hear about the special little trick the internal (back) shutter performs to produce massive image flare with any subject backlighting that comes from electronic flash, but ONLY electronic flash... continuous light is immune.  Oh yes. That one is a real lu-lu.

I missed that one, too. Never saw it.

Or how about the whole batch of lenses we had where the newly developed focusing grip was made of a black plastic that lost adhesion with the barrel of the lens and broke right through ... after only 2 DAYS of use?!

Or would you like to hear how Hasselblad simply "designed away" a whole means for fastening the camera to a tripod... (the 3/8" pro size thread socket).... [I went to use it...it wasn't THERE. Gone!]

Yes. Hasselblad was one of those special camera marques that "updated" its latest models by removing features the previous ones had been famous for having...

.... like the internal (back) flap type shutter's separate 'X' syncro connection, previously available from a standard 3-mm co-ax PC socket on the side of the body above the mirror lift, but sent into oblivion on a latter model.... another thing we went to use that just wasn't there.....

..... I am not kidding. The first time this kind of thing happens you doubt you own abilty to recall correctly... "or it is somewhere else, now?" So you look around the body to find where it has been MOVED to. And then you remember that it is Hasselblad, and the company is a law unto itself.

All this is separate to the fact that the 500CM body was made of dreadfully soft metal, very prone to dints, with certain painted areas so weak the coating could quite literally be pushed off by gripping the component slightly too tightly.... flakes of dried paint comes off in your hand...no etch-primer underneath it, that's why.

Again, I never saw any of this stuff you're describing.

But hey, we all have different standards. It wasn't until I actually started using Hasselblads that I realised how amazing LOW their standards were!

Zeiss lenses were nice, optically, but the rest of it you can keep. (Yeeaech!)

When I eventually sold off my Hassy gear, it was still in nice shape, worked perfectly, and I got about 75% of my money back on it. Can't complain about that. I know at least five other shooters with experiences similar to mine. Can't explain your troubles, honestly

I think I can explain it. My experience of Hasselblad was probably on a more intimate level than yours. Perhaps that's because I used them professionaly.

-- hide signature --

Regards,
Baz
:
"Ahh... But the thing is, these guys were no ORDINARY time travellers!"

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear list
Like?
Re: They didn't design it for you.
In reply to zxaar, May 26, 2013

;-)zxaar wrote:

dmanthree wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

If you aren't the kind of person to which $1000 and $5000 are both pocket change, they didn't design this for you.  It's for people that want something precisely because it is expensive.

I wouldn't buy it even if I had millions burning a whole in my pocket. Fact is, I could afford one, but I find the whole thing insulting.

You are very correct, however, I buy cameras to actually use. Not become shelf queens.

Whether you use camera or not is not clear from what you write, but one thing is clear that you do spend time moaning about them.

You clearly are interested enough in this thing that you had time to start a thread on it.

As were you, for participating. Hell, it's always nice to have company.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
dmanthree
Veteran MemberPosts: 4,422Gear list
Like?
Re: 500C, and CM
In reply to Barrie Davis, May 26, 2013

Barrie Davis wrote:

I think I can explain it. My experience of Hasselblad was probably on a more intimate level than yours. Perhaps that's because I used them professionaly.

As did I. One year I shot over 100 weddings alone using the Hassys. You may have been harder on the gear than me, though. Anyway, my memories of the gear are very positive. Experiences vary, of course.

-- hide signature --

No Signature.

 dmanthree's gear list:dmanthree's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS4 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX30V Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH3 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
RichRMA
Contributing MemberPosts: 743Gear list
Like?
Nothing wrong with their offering
In reply to dmanthree, May 26, 2013

Anyone remember expensive European sports cars of the 60's that used Chrysler big-block engines?

Digital cameras all produce similar images now, the differences are nuanced from the cheapest Nikon DSLR to the most expensive so what's wrong with doing a better body and perhaps (like with Leica's re-badged Panasonics) better internal software (maybe)?

 RichRMA's gear list:RichRMA's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D200 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Pentax K-01 Olympus OM-D E-M5
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads