"User" 501CM or newly serviced 500CM? $1200-1500 budget
Ok, the budget kid is back
I've had a couple of Hasselblad kits over the last couple of years, but they all ended up needing serious service, and I sold them on. These were 500C/M and 500C. I loved them while I had them, so this time around I'm aiming for a keeper. I also have a 500C/M that I inherited, but that completely broke down, and sits on my shelf for sentimental reasons.
Question is, apart for the gliding mirror - is there anything wrong going for a recently serviced 500C/M from mid-eighties (I'm talking about a proper kind of service here, Hasselblad or David Odess) instead of a, say, ten year old 501C/M? The lens will probably be a 80mm CF, and I will make sure Acute Matte D is installed at some point.
Price isn't the big issue really, but I'm hoping to keep it within $1200-1500. Is this realistic?
Any input is appreciated
I would think that is realistic. My 500 C/M dates back to 1977, and I suspect it had never been serviced. I paid about $300 a couple of years ago for a service and it is better than ever. The best service you can give Hasselblads is to use them regularly. Good luck.
Fully agree with Kevin. Outside of that - a few specialty (and very expensive) hassy lenses (incl. using a bellows) won't show you 100% of the field of view with the 500C/M where the 501C/W with the gliding mirror is designed with a workaround for this (that's the raison d'etre of the gliding mirror I think).
Thank you both for those replies!
I think you meant to write "CM" where you wrote "C/W", but for the benefit of others, for whom the thing might not be fully clear:
Originally Posted by Sparky
There are two 501s, the 501 C - which does not have the better mirror - and the 501 CM - which does.
(The "W" belongs to the 503 CW, which also has the better mirror.)
The mirror in the old Hasselblads is too short, because else it would hit the rear of some lenses (80 mm), that protrude too far into the camera. So with this too-short mirror, when the exit pupil of a lens is too far away from the mirror (longer lenses, and/or lenses on tubes or bellows), the cone of light partly goes underneath the mirror, and as a consequence you miss a bit on the focussing screen.
The 'gliding mirror' is long enough, and manages to miss the rear of those lenses by moving back before/while it moves up.
It's quite nice to call it a workaround. Others would gladly say that it took Hasselblad far, far too long to correct their shortcomings and do it properly.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
A 500 c/m setup sold locally (Denton, TX) for $550 not too long ago and even when you add $500 for an overhaul you're still under your $1200/1500 budget so I'd say it's an easy goal to meet.
Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!
Yeah - that's it. I was thinking of the 503 C/W. Sorry for the confusion. I thought that the 501C had the smaller CM mirror... no?
Originally Posted by Q.G.
They picked a confusing nomenclature.
Originally Posted by Sparky
The 503 CW is CW without "/". The 500 C/M has the "/", the 501 CM does not.
The mirror in the 501 C (without "M") is the same (too small) as in the 500 C/M.
The mirror in the 501 CM (with "M" but without "/") is larger, the same as in the 503 CW (and other models).
So yes... uhm... no: the 501 C has the smaller C/M mirror, not the larger CM mirror.
Personally, I'd opt for the 500c/m simply because of the gliding mirror mechanism in the 501. The more stuff moving around is all that much more to get out of kilter or break leaving you with an expensive paperweight until it's repaired.
Originally Posted by patashnik
With my 500, it's habit to not crop too tight while shooting and crop later - I do this because of the square format and not really knowing what exactly I want to see until processed and scanned or proofed.
I never felt the small bit gained was worth having the extra machinery inside.
"Beer is proof that God wants us to be happy."
Originally Posted by Frank Szabo
I'd opt for the 501 CM.
It's rather a case of something moving differently, than of more things moving. Well... not quite 100% true, but still close enough. Absolutely no need to worry about reliability.