I'm with you Ralph! These cameras are built with some of the absolute best materials any camera could be built with.
Buy a Hasselblad that doesn't look too abused. Give it a service first thing. Enjoy!Hasselblads are well made.
Hasselblads are designed to expect regular maintenance.
I never said they didn't need maintaining. Pretty much all my cameras do, but Hasselblad is certainly no more prone to failure than a Leica and maybe less so with later cameras. It makes my hair stand up when I hear a person on these forums say certain cameras are terrible, in one way or the other, just because they have had trouble with theirs. I don't mind them telling of their cameras problems, I have myself, but don't assume they are all not worth owning. It's like telling me I have a piece of junk camera just because they did. How many people are buying brand new Hasselblad film bodies? Exactly! Everything out there is used and some of these Hasselblads have really, really been used. Also, if the camera you're buying has been serviced by a someone's uncle Fred, the car mechanic, I wish you luck. It's exactly like buying used cars with some models and makes being better buys than others. Of course the price was usually a little higher on the cars that had a better used reputation. Same for cameras.You mean… metal?
Look I think they’re great (I own and use one regularly) but some of this talk about their durability is ridiculous. They need maintenance and lubrication just like other complicated mechanical cameras. (And they are worth maintaining.)
Ehhhhh, that's not very likely. I don't know what kind of miracle would need to occur to keep the grease from getting muddy over even ten years, let alone decades.
A Hasselblad is a camera that is worth servicing. It's not a Canon SureShot.
Sorry for the confusion there which is my fault, I was replying to your post but not meaning to imply that you’re making that case about maintenance and reliability. As you know first hand, they’re great cameras that will jam and have problems over the years of service, and need occasional CLAs. They’re worth the effort.I never said they didn't need maintaining.
Oh, and 'warden" these comments are not directed at you.
no miracle just keep using it
Thousands of V-series cameras have worked for decades without ever receiving service
I would love to try one of those one day. No mirror!Back to the original questions as to the choice of models, I prefer the SWC models with the viewfinder that has the balance bubble visible in the viewfinders such as the 905 SWC.
Warden......Sorry for the confusion there which is my fault, I was replying to your post but not meaning to imply that you’re making that case about maintenance and reliability. As you know first hand, they’re great cameras that will jam and have problems over the years of service, and need occasional CLAs. They’re worth the effort.
No worries, and I should probably put a capital W on Warden as it’s my given name rather than my job.
Hasselblads are well made.
Hasselblads are designed to expect regular maintenance.
Those two statements are not inconsistent.
The problem for someone intending to acquire a used piece of Hasselblad equipment is that it isn't always easy to tell whether that equipment has received the care it is due in years past.
In addition, if one hopes to obtain a low maintenance camera that just keeps running without future maintenance, a camera that is designed for regular maintenance might disappoint them.
As a general reply to your question, and this is an extreme generalization, but being mechanical the later cameras are likely to have less issues which require service because they are younger.
I spoke to David Odess about this before he passed, and he generally had really good things to say about all of these cameras regardless of age. He did say that the mirror system (called “Gliding”) on the later bodies was a bit more robust and less prone to go out of adjustment, but having said that he did not mean to impune the non-gliding system.
I would always advice that if one has a choice, choose from the later models.
go in and look at the prices for the gear and then adjust to today's dollars and be shocked
Exactly! That's why I bought a 553ELX whether I needed it or not. One of the greatest bargains I have run into. Mine was about $100 less than $378.00 when I bought it more than a few years back. It also didn't show hardly any wear in the area of where the back is coupled to the body. That is usually a very good sign of light use.You mean like this?
View attachment 393030
Recent working sold one, no back, viewfinder, or lens, went for $378.
It also didn't show hardly any wear in the area of where the back is coupled to the body. That is usually a very good sign of light use.
Yes, it would be the very first thing I would check after seeing if the body worked at all. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to use your eyes and see if the paint is wore or the raised light seal rib is dented to pieces.Or it only ever had one back that was never removed. But that in itself is a good indicator of fairly light use.
Thanks. Makes sense entirely.I just meant because more recent bodies are less likely to give troubles, not because of fancy features that barely show in the pictures, if they do at all. If you buy a camera with a complete CLA, things look different of course. Anyway, I would still recommend the 500CM over the 500C simply because of the interchangeable screen. The viewing screen on the 500C can be changed too, but it needs a calibration and cannot easily be done by the user.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?