Hassy's Lunar gets real

Started May 23, 2013 | Discussions thread
OP dmanthree Veteran Member • Posts: 7,607
Re: 500C, and CM

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... "orĀ 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.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow