Vince Lupo
Whatever
Many thanks -- I'm not sure how much faraway traveling I'll be doing in the future (I possibly may only visit the West one more time), so much of what I've been doing lately has been either around the house/backyard garden or up at our property in Canada. It's a bit of a shift but that's okay - I work with what I'm able to work with. I'll likely be winding down the 'business' in the next year so it looks like this will represent a good chunk of my photographic future. I'd like to figure out what to do with it!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
A propos of nothing (and a slight divergence from the Hasselblad topic), I've been watching a number of this fellow's YouTube videos. He's a professional photographer out of Colorado and he talks about different subjects. Of course he does do a fair bit of 'gear' videos and they're fine, but I've been more drawn to videos such as this one. I think his words of advice/pep talk could be applicable to anyone, and maybe has validated/encouraged this thing I'm doing -- whatever that is!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
The modified 1600f has landed!
Digital 1600f by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
1951 (CV) version. Works exceptionally smoothly - just hope it stays that way!
Digital 1600f by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
1951 (CV) version. Works exceptionally smoothly - just hope it stays that way!
JeffS7444
Well-known
That looks terrific, and it reminds me that my 500c really needs new leatherette, because the original has shrunken badly, whereas yours looks fresh.The modified 1600f has landed!
Digital 1600f by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
1951 (CV) version. Works exceptionally smoothly - just hope it stays that way!
If anything like my Salyut-S, I can imagine how buttery-smooth your 1600F might be after a proper CLA! I used Molykote-G on both 500c and Salyut to great effect.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
The shutter is working incredibly well - I just have to remember to change the shutter speeds after the knob is wound, and only move the shutter dial clockwise. Apparently that was one of the problems with the 1600f’s, but was resolved with the 1000f. One thing I have discovered, unfortunately, is that the focus is out. So I’ll likely have to send it back to have the ground glass calibrated. This is a case in which my lenses are focusing beyond infinity!
JeffS7444
Well-known
To infinity and beyond!
Sorry, couldn't resist, very disappointing. But if you are feeling somewhat handy, you might try adjusting the focusing screen yourself. If it's like the 500c, where the screen floats on a spring, and there are 4 screws holding it down via metal frame, here's what I might do: Loosen each of those 4 screws (counterclockwise) by 1 turn and see if you're getting closer to correct focus. Repeat as needed. Screen ought to have a bit of springiness to it, but not to the point of being loose. As you have a digital back to aid you, you can probably really fine-tune it.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
That’s what I was thinking, thanks. It appears that it is front focusing - in other words, if I focus on the ground glass and the object is 24” away (per the indication on the lens), when I check the live view on the back I have to move that object closer to the camera for it to come into focus (and the lens is in the same spot). So would ‘raising’ the ground glass be the proper direction?To infinity and beyond!
JeffS7444
Well-known
Speaking of focusing screens, my new bright screen arrived from PRC, so I wasted no time in installing it into my 500c. Initial impression ... Hmm. Stock screen has raised spot in center of screen. New screen has a split-image center which I did not order, and a grid pattern, which I did. To look at the photos (identical camera settings and lighting), it sure looks as if the original actually is brighter and has better contrast! But is that really true?
The answer seems to be "kind of" but there's a big catch: It's only true for one specific area, whereas much of the rest of the frame is all but impossible to see. New screen is much more evenly-lit when viewed from the same angle. And when I point the camera at a sunlit scene, the new screen certainly looks bright enough.
The answer seems to be "kind of" but there's a big catch: It's only true for one specific area, whereas much of the rest of the frame is all but impossible to see. New screen is much more evenly-lit when viewed from the same angle. And when I point the camera at a sunlit scene, the new screen certainly looks bright enough.
JeffS7444
Well-known
The higher you raise the focusing screen, the more "nearsighted" it becomes. Assuming that someone screwed the screen all the way to the bottom (naughty!), you may have ~10 turns before the screws come out altogether.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I’ll ask my repair fellow if it’s something I can adjust myself or if he’d prefer to do it. If it’s something I can do without wrecking things, I’m willing to try it. Thanks for your info!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
I just corresponded with Jim, and I'm going to send everything to him (back, camera, lens). There aren't any adjustments possible with those screws - they just hold the screen down. Adjustments come from either adding shims either under the screen or behind the lens mount, so I'm going to let him handle it. Better that than him having to fix something that a customer (me!) messed up.
Vince Lupo
Whatever
My repair guru now has the 1600f, 80mm lens and the digital back for him to calibrate the focus on the ground glass. Since I have a bit of time I decided to do a bit of research - turns out this 1600f body (CV11019) is a ‘Series 2’ body but with a ‘Series 1’ shutter mechanism. According to Richard Nordin’s excellent ‘Hasselblad Compendium’, there were only about 550 of these ones made. Unfortunately “the early Series 2 cameras with Mechanism 1 had a low rate of survival - (again) likely due to the problematic shutter Mechanism 1 design.” How I discovered my camera had a Mechanism 1 was the direction of the shutter speeds on the dial. The camera seems to function very well, with the exception of a bit of shutter capping at 1/800 and 1/1600, but hopefully Jim can tweak those to make them not cap. Other than that, the shutter and mirror action exhibits very little vibration - I’m sure I could hand-hold it at 1/10th of a second. I’m just hoping that the fact that this camera is a ‘survivor’ bodes well for its future longevity. Fingers crossed!
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
I think that the stories about "problematic" assemblies in cameras are a bit of a distraction for most current film shooters who, while possibly professionals like yourself, are certainly not using their film cameras in the way professionals once did. We're more like casual hobbyists, if you'll forgive the phrase. Pros, back in the day, absolutely hammered their cameras, and some assemblies failed before others or just wore out. Your 1600 is in beautiful shape, and was probably used by a well-heeled amateur. It reminds me of the Bronica S2 vs. S2A horror stories about stripped brass winding gears. There are plenty of S2 cameras chugging along just fine, since they weren't hammered, and like your 1600, will probably continue to do so if treated with the respect they deserve. Isn't your Bronica the S2?
You've already given the 1600 a CLA and the pampering it should have. Just use it and enjoy! Now, if I could just follow my own advice and stop worrying about every potential failure that my old cameras might see...
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Yes mine is the S2 - just a minor point, they didn’t have brass gears. Just another one of those internet rumours!
Fortunately I purchased the 1600f from my Hasselblad guru, so if there is any issue he should hopefully be able to rectify it. I’m just hoping he’s going to be around for a good long time
Vince Lupo
Whatever
First 'good' shot with the 1600f, 135/3.5 Ektar and the CFV II 50C digital back. Definitely different than the 1000f.
Headphone Riley 1600f by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
Headphone Riley 1600f by Vince Lupo, on Flickr
pixie79
Established
I was a pro! I steered away from Hasselblad! I simply could not focus the beast! They needed annual services, lenses, magazines and body.Not only purchase price but upkeep. Pros don't hammer their equipment! Nonsense! It makes their money! Cameras that failed were simply lousy! I cannot say the Br-----a word without the shakes. They were a crap as their lighters, before Nikon walked in and took over! Modern film users are all crazy! No straps, no filters, clean lenses with any cloth! Leitz lenses were soft! Only when the Japanese photo industry arrived was their better equipment. Some were as crappy as the Germans.. Use out of date film! Why! You eat out of date food? I enjoy Lupo's photos! They are great!
Vince Lupo
Whatever
Many thanks!
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Vince, one of my mentors in the '70s was a Boston photographer by the name of John Brook.
John had a 2nd floor portrait studio/apartment overlooking tony Newbury Street. One living room wall was painted grey and served as his"backdrop" for mostly B&W portraits lit by the bank of north facing windows.
He had one camera, a 1000 or 1600 Hasselblad, I forget which, and one lens, the 180mm f 2.8 Zeiss Olympic Sonnar.
John had a 2nd floor portrait studio/apartment overlooking tony Newbury Street. One living room wall was painted grey and served as his"backdrop" for mostly B&W portraits lit by the bank of north facing windows.
He had one camera, a 1000 or 1600 Hasselblad, I forget which, and one lens, the 180mm f 2.8 Zeiss Olympic Sonnar.
Last edited:
Retro-Grouch
Veteran
It was nothing for a busy pro to put ten or fifteen rolls of film through a camera in a day. No, most didn't hammer their cameras, if by that you mean abuse. By "hammering", I meant that kind of heavy use on a daily basis. Anything would need (and should get) annual service when used that much!
My Hassy Distagon 50mm was owned by the San Jose Mercury News, and is crudely engraved with their name. It looks like hell, and probably saw a lot of use. It was hammered. But focus is smooth, the shutter is accurate, and the glass flawless. It no doubt was used by pros, but treated with the respect and regular servicing it deserved. Had it not gotten that servicing, I'm sure it would have failed long ago.
f.hayek
Well-known
Who do you use?