500 CM or not...
Alan Browne
..so this evening at the phtotoclub I mention my desire to find a 500...
..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
fixed? I'll be using the camera for studio, still life and scenics. It
will be treated quite gently...
Cheers,
Alan.
--
e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
jjs
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:2bqLb.10691$1X2.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
> ..so this evening at the phtotoclub I mention my desire to find a 500...
>
> ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> they're always broken."
His brain is broken.
> Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed?
You want the MTBF (MeanTime Between Failures). Dunno.
Start surfing here: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
"0.132 repairs/year = 23 repairs/175 years - Failure Rate estimate"
Ed Margiewicz
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:2bqLb.10691$1X2.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
Nathan
bought it used and I'm pretty positive it was used before then. So mine
seems pretty reliable to me.
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:2bqLb.10691$1X2.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
>
Q.G. de Bakker
> ..so this evening at the phtotoclub I mention my desire to find a 500...
>
> ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed? I'll be using the camera for studio, still life and scenics. It
> will be treated quite gently...
I have one from 1979. I don't treat it gently. Can't count how many rolls
went "through" it. It has not yet even been "serviced" once. Still works
like new.
Should the worst happen, there is no hassle to get one fixed. Though being
the expensive things they are, repairs also cost a lot.
McLeod
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:2bqLb.10691$1X2.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
> they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed?
I have used at least 5 different medium format systems in the last 20 years
and by far Hasselblad is the strongest and most durable camera I have ever
used, bar none. The 500CM is built like a tank. If you don't believe me
pick one up and just try it. The only failures I have ever seen in 20 years
have usually been the backs, which is also the weak point in any medium
format system. It's not a catastrophe, the spacing usually just starts to
become erratic.
Other problems I have seen with the camera have always been caused by
operator error, usually putting an uncocked lens on a cocked body and vice
versa. Look inside the camera body from the back with the mirror up and
baffles open and look at the screw dead center just under the opening for
the lens. If it's all scratched up then it has been jammed a few times,
which doesn't necessarily mean bad news, just that the previous owner was a
hamfist.
Do you know who owned it before? In Canada, the 500 CM was used extensively
by government and military photographers and a lot of used ones on the
market were used very hard by a lot of people. Lisle-Kelco used to sell
these, but they recently went out of business or bankrupt, which is why I'm
asking.
If you are buying the 50mm wideangle shoot some film through it before
buying it. This lens quite often is unsharp at the edges. Every other lens
for this camera will take your breath away.
MikeWhy
two real soon now. Once every eight years or so, he said.
"Nathan" <nath...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:IFNLb.8008$sW7....@newssvr27.news.prodigy.com...
Steve Gombosi
Nathan <nath...@nospamsbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Seeing that I've had my 500c/m for 9 years and it hasn't been broken yet. I
I've had mine for almost 15, and I've used it pretty heavily in some fairly
hostile environments (deserts, tropical rain forests, high altitude,
Alaska in January). I bought it used, and it's 26 years old (although
I have no idea how much its former owner(s) used it).
I had one jam due to operator error about a month after I bought it (never,
ever accidentally trip the shutter on a Hasselblad *while* you're removing
a lens). This was resolved, for free, in about 3 minutes by a very nice
Hasselblad repair guy in Tokyo. That's the only problem in 15 years, and
it was purely my fault. The camera itself didn't fail.
They're built like tanks.
Steve
Alan Browne
>
> ..so this evening at the phtotoclub I mention my desire to find a 500...
>
> ..the president of the club is an 'ole feller and he says "don't do it,
> they're always broken." Now I know that Hasselblads break.... they're
> mechnical machines... but how bad is it... how many rolls per break, or
> how many months between breaks and how much of a hassle (!) to get
> fixed? I'll be using the camera for studio, still life and scenics. It
> will be treated quite gently...
Thanks to all that replied. Looks positive. Club Pres must be a friend
of Lourens...! ;-))
Cheers,
Alan.
Alan Browne
>
>
> You want the MTBF (MeanTime Between Failures). Dunno.
> Start surfing here: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
> "0.132 repairs/year = 23 repairs/175 years - Failure Rate estimate"
Thanks ... good link. I'll ask for the pedigree of the cameras I'm
looking at to reduce the 'Lemon' factor.
Cheers,
Alan
Q.G. de Bakker
> According to that 0.13 failures per year statistics, you're due for one or
> two real soon now. Once every eight years or so, he said.
Statistics... we simply must love'm, mustn't we?
Since the 500 C/M i mentioned in another post has not had a problem in
almost 25 years, and there certainly will be other ones with similar good
track record, it follows that other 500 C/Ms must fail far more frequently
then once per eight years. Else the statistic is completely wrong.
So since some 500 C/Ms do far better than the statistics suggest, and others
must do far worse, the only conclusion we can draw is that Hasselblad 500
C/M reliability is somewhat of a crap shoot. So the answer to "500 CM or
not..." is: only if you like a gamble.
Somehow, this doesn't sound right though. ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...] I have used many different Hasselblad bodies, and
> lenses from 24 (the ultra-rare one)
Interesting. Where did you get that 24 mm, and what did you use it for?
McLeod
"Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-198EB0.2...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> In article <tqZLb.85239$1X2.2...@wagner.videotron.net>,
> The "built like a tank" stuff really is a bit over the top, if you ask
> me; photo-club bar-talk....
I've used them on a daily basis for 18 years under a lot harsher conditions
than the studio. Studio usage makes up about 1% of what I do, the rest is
of the time the cameras are bouncing around in a camera bag all over the
world, in all kinds of climates. Even worse, they're all owned by my boss,
so they're not babied either. I've used them in the Arctic and I've used
them in the Everglades and even in the Arizona/Utah desert in the middle of
summer.
Compared to the Bronicas and Mamiyas I've owned the Hasselblads are built
like tanks.
I've never had time to join a photo-club, but I do like the occasional beer.
Maybe I can buy you one sometime in the Netherlands.
Bob Monaghan
Hi QGdeB;
quoting myself at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
14 = number of owners reporting problems (~ 1/3rd)
26 = number of owners with no problems to report (~ 2/3rds)
23 problems/14 owners ~ 2 problems per owner
0.132 repairs/year = 23 repairs/175 years - Failure Rate estimate
and
In the case of the Hasselblad 500c study above, only 1/3rd of the cameras
had any problems, but the problems concentrated in these "problem"
Hasselblads (2 repairs per camera in an average of 3.87 years of
ownership). Yet 2 out of 3 model 500c cameras were problem-free, per their
owners. So some cameras may well be "lemons", as this study suggests.
Personally, I think user problems are also a major factor, and long
periods of disuse can add to your problems too.
endquote:
The 500cm series are a later model, and presumably have fewer problems
(e.g., less dreaded jams ;-). Then again, 25 years is a long time, but
problems tend to arise from use and abuse more than from years, and
dis-use is a major problem for many cameras and esp. MF SLRs due to
lubricants gumming up and so on, esp. with leaf shutter lenses etc.
so you can't win ;-)
grins bobm
--
***********************************************************************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************
Steve Gombosi
Bob Monaghan <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
>
>Hi QGdeB;
>
>quoting myself at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/mtbf.html
>14 = number of owners reporting problems (~ 1/3rd)
>26 = number of owners with no problems to report (~ 2/3rds)
>23 problems/14 owners ~ 2 problems per owner
>0.132 repairs/year = 23 repairs/175 years - Failure Rate estimate
This is an extremely small sample and most likely not statistically
valid. The poll methodology itself is probably suspect, since the
respondants were no doubt self-selected - something that would induce a
bias towards those with an axe to grind (i.e., those who had severe
problems for whatever reason).
I realize that you're just quoting a published magazine poll, but I
doubt if those conducting said poll had the vaguest idea how to
conduct a valid survey.
Lastly, "time" isn't the issue - it's usage. My late mom's Nikon point
and shoot is over a decade old. It's never failed, but it probably
hasn't seen 1000 exposures. Does this make it more reliable than a
working photojournalist's F5 that needed a shutter repair after 4
100,000 exposure years of war coverage?
Of course it doesn't.
There's no indication in this poll regarding usage level, so
there's no way to figure out *real* reliability.
This poll is, frankly, worse than useless.
Steve
McLeod
MXP
and how much it has been used. It could have shoot many many rolls e.g.
20.000 is not a unrealistic no. of rolls. for a prof. photographer over some
years.
A good thing is to look at is the wheel which advances the film in the
magazine.
It is looks in good condition and has sharp edges on the tooths it is a good
sign. Also
try the mirror lockup a no. of times. You should not push the knop very hard
before the
mirror prefire.
The first 500C/M I got was a very old one. I paid USD 100 for it and after
have used it
in a couple of months without any problems I send it to be checked at
Hasselblad. It was just
before a journey to Australia and I wanted to be sure the camera was 100%
OK.
It costed me USD 200 and I got a nearly brand new 500 C/M. I could see the
tooths wheel has been replaced ect. The prefire worked much better too.
I asked Hasselblad how often I should send the 500C/M to service. The said
that I should do
it approx. every 2nd year if I shoot about 200-300 rolls every week. Thats
many.......
Max
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:2bqLb.10691$1X2.7...@wagner.videotron.net...
except
Yeah I have an offer from an elderly Surgeon who used to be an amateur
photographer...
Seriously...
"Lourens Smak" <sm...@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:smak-180012.1...@news.wanadoo.nl...
> In article <zKULb.113159$BA6.2...@news20.bellglobal.com>,
> "McLeod" <cerve...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > I have used at least 5 different medium format systems in the last 20
years
> > and by far Hasselblad is the strongest and most durable camera I have
ever
> > used, bar none.
>
> That's funny because my experience is exactly the opposite. In over 15
> years of professional photography I have used Bronica SQ, Fuji GX,
> Rollei 6000, Mamiya RB, and Hasselblad. The number of
> Hasselblad-failures I had is easily much larger than all other systems
> combined. I've had problems with absolutely anything that had a
> Hasselblad badge on it, from focusing screens to backs to bodies to
> flash-contacts, shutters and apertures.
>
> I would never recommend someone to spend their hard-earned life's
> savings on an older one. (But then again, much H'blad gear is hardly
> used over the years; make sure you buy from an elderly rich dentist
> amateur photographer or so, if it has to be an old camera.)
> ;-)
> Lourens
Bob Monaghan
Hi Steve,
I disagree re: utility of survey. The first thing it tells us is that
hasselblads are not immune to breakdowns, something which seems to
surprise some supporters. Second, 2/3rds of the folks who replied had no
problems, so this doesn't support the idea that only folks with problems
replied. It also matches the experience of a lot of owners of 500c models
who have NOT had any problems in years of use.
Third, it shows us some of the more common problems by reports,
which corresponds with other evidence (jams..). Fourth, it suggests that
problems are not isolated, but those owners with problems experience
multiple problems with the 'blads with problems. Again, many of us have
noted that cameras sometimes get worse after being repaired and messed
with ;-) And that some users are not reading the manuals etc. ;-)
I agree with you that high use and abuse - and disuse, oddly enough, as I
noted with gumming lubricants and need for CLAs after dis-use, are more
problematic to causing problems with cameras than continuous service at
moderate levels, as most amateurs might do. Cameras with little use may
still be on the "bathtub" curve of infant mortality levels, and so may be
candidates for early failures despite being "in use" at very low levels
for some years. This is more an issue with complex electromechanical
items.
Finally, it reflects much anecdotal evidence, in which the older 500c
bodies had more problems, but later models rather less, esp. with lens
jamming etc. I have had a number of jams with my 500C, but none with my
500elm with the same lenses.
I agree with you that the survey isn't perfect, nor as large as I might
like (but there is an entire field of small sample statistics, but at n=40
we are well above that threshhold here), but to say that only a perfect
survey is useful is to make the perfect the enemy of the good.
regards bobm
McLeod
> If you're overhere, send me a mail and I'll buy you a beer!
> ;-)
> Lourens
Thanks. I'd love to see a commercial shoot. Growing up on a farm I loved
the calf pulling shot on your website. I hope you did that on location and
not in your studio!
Q.G. de Bakker
> It was supplied by Hasselblad Holland, of which the representative
> stayed standing next to the camera the entire shoot....
> It was used trying to get a very wide view on a digital back (Leaf DCB1,
> 37x37mm). The studio where I worked then was a very good client of
> Hasselblad, who also marketed the DCB1 at that time. ($$$$$ equipment,
> even compared to the rest of the Hasselblad catalog; we had 3 of those.)
> In the end, we couldnt' remove the distortion easy enough to make using
> this lens practical, but it was a very interesting test indeed.
How about the coloured coating?
Q.G. de Bakker
> [...]
> The 500cm series are a later model, and presumably have fewer problems
> (e.g., less dreaded jams ;-). Then again, 25 years is a long time, but
> problems tend to arise from use and abuse more than from years, and
> dis-use is a major problem for many cameras and esp. MF SLRs due to
> lubricants gumming up and so on, esp. with leaf shutter lenses etc.
>
> so you can't win ;-)
Unless you happen to find the balance between too little and too much use.
So i guess we can forget about MTBF-statistics, and must find the Optimum
Amount of Exposures Per Annum for each camera brand and type.
jjs
"Q.G. de Bakker" <q...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:bu139t$cg0lt$1...@ID-206917.news.uni-berlin.de...
I quite seriously doubt that the most vociferous participants in this group
shoot enough to wear out a 500c/m in a significant period of time. They
spend most of their time posting to usenet instead.
Alan Browne
Thanks, good advice.
Alan Browne
<snipped>
>
> The 500cm series are a later model, and presumably have fewer problems
> (e.g., less dreaded jams ;-). Then again, 25 years is a long time, but
> problems tend to arise from use and abuse more than from years, and
> dis-use is a major problem for many cameras and esp. MF SLRs due to
> lubricants gumming up and so on, esp. with leaf shutter lenses etc.
>
> so you can't win ;-)
>
> grins bobm
I looked at the site that was linked in an earlier post in the thread.
MTBF for unspecified use is not terribly reliable as stats go. MTBF as
practiced in, for example aerospace, is operating hours. Most avioncs
systems have a clock built in for this purpose. For large aircraft, not
only flight-time and air-time are logged, but cycles (Take-offs/
landings) as well. Specific inspections and maintenance are tied to
each of these numbers.
For film cameras, "number of rolls (or frames) shot" would be a handy
reference. Canon touts 100,000+ frames for the EOS-1v, and Nikon brag
about some fellow in Germany with over 1,000,000 frames on their F5...
http://nikon.virtualpresscentre.co.uk/pressreleases/84.shtml although
this is probably on the right side of the bell curve, and the camera was
treated better than most.
So, the 1 fail per 7 years stat is interesting, but hard to judge for
relevancy.
Cheers,
Alan
David J. Littleboy
"jjs" <nos...@please.xxx> wrote:
>
> I quite seriously doubt that the most vociferous participants in this
group
> shoot enough to wear out a 500c/m in a significant period of time. They
> spend most of their time posting to usenet instead.
Ouch. The truth hurts.
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Bob Monaghan
Hi QGdeB ;-)
we can probably use the same "bathtub curve" for MTBF failure analysis;
instead of high "infant mortality" with new camera problems, followed by
years of use, followed by rising "old age" failures from wearing out (the
bathtub shaped curve), we have high failure rates from non-use (as from
gummed up lubricants) of cameras, even 'blads, followed by low failures
from modest frequent use, but rising failure rates at higher usage/abuse
rates by pros and ham-fisted non-manual reading users? ;-) Same curve,
yes? ;-)
As long as I only have to remember one curve for MTBF, I'll be okay ;-)
Bob Monaghan
Hi jjs,
but we were discussing a 25 year old 500c/m camera purchase (at least, I
was ;-)
and hassy's are projected by repairers to need replacement shutters and
repairs every 30,000 or so shutter cycles, which is 2,500 rolls of 120
film. And body wear out starts at 60,000 shutter cycles. I don't find it
impossible that a 25 year old hassy which hasn't seen a CLA, let alone new
shutter, has seen 2,500 rolls of film in 25 years. That's only a few rolls
per week. Certainly, pro use would be much higher. A fair number of nice
looking on the outside MF SLRs may be well worn internally by heavy pro
use.
Lots of serious amateurs, let alone pros, are shooting that much film, and
lots of 500c/m and other classic MF cameras are 25 years old, so it could
easily be a concern. And some of us have Chinese made Great Wall DF4 SLRs
as our most recently manufactured models, which I doubt will survive
another 50 rolls before the mirror return string wears out? ;-) ;-)
I agree that if you have purchased new, read the manuals, taken good care
of your gear, gotten annual CLAs (in pro use esp.), and otherwise not
abused your gear, you will probably have a hard time wearing out a new kit
at typical amateur usage rates. But the same can't be said for many of us
amateurs who have bought into used (pro as well as amateur) kits, yes? ;-)
regards bobm
Bob Monaghan
Hi alan,
yes, but other than fuji, who has counters for film rolls in their
cameras? ;-) And most of the fujis with counters I see for sale advertise
astonishing low usage numbers for a multi-kilobuck kit, yes?
there is an odd (as in funny/funky) statistical concept of "controlling
for something by not controlling for it", as in expecting the number of
blue eyed persons in a sample to reflect the overall population, provided
you didn't select based on eye-color or other related parameters ;-)
some related observations; some past ads for hassy IIRC noted that most
buyers (9 out of 10) were not professionals; here we note that only 5 of
40 owners had a backup camera body, something I'd expect from hassy owning
pros. So there are some internal consistency checks like that which
suggest to me more relevance to the overall population. Ditto the fact
that 2/3rds of the reports are of no problems, so again, this is not
reports only from P.O'ed owners ;-)
the final point may be more subtle, but following up on jjs' comments,
most amateurs don't wear out hassy 500 series cameras (not in under 4
years, anyway). We already know most pro and serious amateurs use less
than 120 rolls in MF per year (using shutterbug subscriber stats for MF
users), and the project shutter replacement level of 30,000 cycles
corresponds to circa 20 years of serious amateur/semipro/pro usage at
shutterbug's 2+ rolls/week levels. More likely, most amateurs are shooting
less than 40 rolls of MF from other studies, so that is more like 50 years
to wear out a shutter ;-) So it isn't a failure caused by wearing out, but
a real problem such as lens jams (which many claim don't exist, but I've
experienced multiple times on my own elderly 500c ;-). On the other hand,
some of the failures, such as lens jams, are not show-stoppers, and easily
fixed (as are back out of phase with body and so on "problems" ;-)
Given that typical mfger return rates have been reported around 5% for
brand new in-warranty bodies (and 2-3% for some lens lines - higher for
sigma per one irate dealer ;-), I don't find this rate of one failure
every 7 or so years to be excessive, esp. given some failures may be user
errors and not require repairs other than twisting a coin in the lens
mount? And I have noted that these older 500c bodies were the new design,
and had some to be expected teething problems, fixed in some cases in the
later 500c/m models (which is one reason I recently recommended the 500c/m
over a 500c in a posting ;-).
so there are reasons to suspect that we are in the ballpark for average
problems rates; they aren't 10 failures/yr/body, nor less than one failure
in 20 years (new in box return rates), but somewhere close to 7 years or
so ;-) And the failures are not caused by wearing out the 500c/cm series,
as jjs helpfully noted ;-) quite a few are user errors, depending on how
you interpret backs out of phase and lens jams etc. ;-) overall, not too
shabby, just not perfect as some seem to expect...
regards bobm
Steve Gombosi
Bob Monaghan <rmon...@engr.smu.edu> wrote:
>
>Hi Steve,
>
>I disagree re: utility of survey. The first thing it tells us is that
>hasselblads are not immune to breakdowns
Of course they're not, but you're not going to get useful information
about frequency and severity of failures from an unscientific survey
like this.
>, something which seems to
>surprise some supporters. Second, 2/3rds of the folks who replied had no
>problems, so this doesn't support the idea that only folks with problems
I didn't say "only". I said that it was more likely that folks with
an axe to grind would reply. "More likely" is not a synonym for "only".
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Steve
Q.G. de Bakker
> and hassy's are projected by repairers to need replacement shutters and
> repairs every 30,000 or so shutter cycles, which is 2,500 rolls of 120
> film. And body wear out starts at 60,000 shutter cycles. I don't find it
> impossible that a 25 year old hassy which hasn't seen a CLA, let alone new
> shutter, has seen 2,500 rolls of film in 25 years. That's only a few rolls
> per week. Certainly, pro use would be much higher. A fair number of nice
> looking on the outside MF SLRs may be well worn internally by heavy pro
> use.
>
> Lots of serious amateurs, let alone pros, are shooting that much film, and
> lots of 500c/m and other classic MF cameras are 25 years old, so it could
> easily be a concern. [...]
When doing the maths, you mustn't forget too, that lots of photographers,
amateur and pro alike, use more than one camera.
Those projections you mention again are statistics, aren't they? ;-)
Q.G. de Bakker
> we can probably use the same "bathtub curve" for MTBF failure analysis;
> instead of high "infant mortality" with new camera problems, followed by
> years of use, followed by rising "old age" failures from wearing out (the
> bathtub shaped curve), we have high failure rates from non-use (as from
> gummed up lubricants) of cameras, even 'blads, followed by low failures
> from modest frequent use, but rising failure rates at higher usage/abuse
> rates by pros and ham-fisted non-manual reading users? ;-) Same curve,
> yes? ;-)
Maybe.
We must then add the two curves to see the combined effect. That is, as soon
as we can find the "rules" to correctly add the two curves. "Non use" for
instance, will change "infant mortality" to what? "adolescent mortality"?
;-)
Finally, we must not forget that we are still talking numbers, arithmetics,
not real life camera wear... ;-)
> As long as I only have to remember one curve for MTBF, I'll be okay ;-)
If only things could be that simple... ;-)