How one photographer 3D printed this beautiful medium format camera

That Large Format lens has built-in aperture and shutter speed controls, but like all LF cameras it is attached to a bellows for focusing. There is no processor. As this camera has no bellows focus must be determined by spacers placed behind the lens. LF camera images are focused on a ground glass screen located at the film plane. BTW the image is upside down. The only mechanism in this body is for the film advance. The shutter release is in the lens.

Hasselblad only make camera bodies. Not lenses or sensors. They shouldn't be called a camera company.

The word camera, comes from the Latin camera (vaulted room), which is a transliteration of the Greek word camara (a vault, arched roof or ceiling, vaulted chamber; room).

Could we move on?

@ZeBebito Hasselblad also builds excellent lenses.

No, they don't. The V-series lenses were made by Zeiss and the H-series by Nitto.

"If clowns like you were responsible for innovation" -- Do you have a stake in it? No? Then why the aggression?

'Why the aggression?' Sign of the times. Everybody feels free to insult each other on the internet, under the protection of their anonymity and invisibility. Let's just keep them anonymous and invisible by not feeding them.

Yeah.. but $500 vs $50000 - its still pretty darn amazing what those cheap chinese 3d printers can put out once you tweak the electronics and tables.

Lousy surfaces, poor accuracy, very, very expensive plastic material. Apart from the ability to encase voids in material that regular machining can't, they don't offer much superior.

Well duh. It's additive manufacturing. Of course it won't look like die cast or machined products.

What a load of rubbish.

So you're complaining about the "very, very expensive plastic" (which usually ends up coming out at under a dollar a print).

And your solution is regular machining and die-casting....

Have you ever got a machine shop to price up small batches of products? Ever asked a die-cast manufacturer to develop a custom die for your bespoke needs?

I think a smack with the reality stick is needed here.

Tie the reality stick to a baseball bat and we might have a solution.

You were complaining about the filament based printers.
Filament costs around $30 a kilo (plus or minus quite a bit). Depending on what you're printing, you usually get over 30 prints from a roll. That's less than a dollar a print.
And, up until recently, our local community fablab, charged $1 per print. They have since gone up in price, but they also have more overhead than just printers and filament.

It's the bellows and back of my Kodak bellows camera from the 1940s; that's the 3D "printed" part. But my Kodak collapses for transport.

And there are Polaroid bellows cameras from the 1970s that also collapse.

This substitution of "3D printed" for the verb to make is getting tiresome.

There are all sorts of things 3D printing can do that machine tools can't possibly cut--but this kind of thing is a distraction.

I have nothing against 3D printing but it's the answer to a nonexistent problem. It's a catch phase to imply something innovative and otherwise impossible. It's a standard 4x5 lens, I bought a 90mm f/8 Fujinon a while back for les than $200, the image circle is more than big enough even at infinity. But you can also buy a used Cambo SC for about $200 and focus on the ground glass. Maybe a little less portable but you have to suffer for your hobby. Buy an old Crown Graphic if you need portability, also cheap. Anyway, it's creative but more trouble than it's worth.

I sense a distinct lack of imagination in this thread.

Just some of the comments along the lines of:
"I have nothing against 3D printing but it's the answer to a nonexistent problem. It's a catch phase to imply something innovative and otherwise impossible".
"This substitution of "3D printed" for the verb to make is getting tiresome."

Maybe this device isn't interesting enough, or complex enough for your approval, but without 3D printing, it wouldn't exist.
Partly where 3D printing excels is "parts with complex internal curved spaces that could never be machined for a mold, or machined directly into the final metal product."
However, where 3D printing also excels is in making things that are never going to be manufactured because conventional manufacturing techniques require volume to offset cost.

The tone of this thread is bizarre. It would be like me griping that someone's cupboard that they made with their woodworking skills wasn't sufficiently complex, and on top of that, I don't like their chisels.

ZeBebito, my main point is that the "120" in 120 film is not a dimension in millimeters, or a dimension at all, and is VERY different from the actual dimensions of both the film itself and the exposed frames that it typically contains. In "6x6", that is a rounded figure; by standard mathematical conventions, 5.6cm may be rounded to 6 cm. On that basis I don't object to "6x6", but I would not object to "5.6x.5.6" either--longer to write but more precise.

On the other hand, technically-speaking, most "6x9" cameras have frames whose dimension should in fact be rounded to 6x8 (because the long sides are usually bout 83mm), so those are slightly misleading. And "645" is really 64 or 642 or 5642. But all that is mostly history heavily infused with marketing hype. I'm not worried about it.

That is similar to film every calls 35mm but Kodak called it 135 film since the 1930's that took an image 24x36mm on film that was 35mm wide

@RGBCMYK

Except that nobody has ever called 120 film "120mm" film. The "mm" is simply wrong; it's not the official name of the film format, and it's not the vernacular name of the format. Same for 220 (which is the same width as 120). It's just 220, not 220mm. See also the 127 and 110 film formats.

It's not the biggest deal in the world, for sure, but nawlinscontrarian is absolutely right.