How Hasselblads ended up on the moon

dourbalistar

dourbalistar

Buy more film
Local time
3:00 PM
Joined
Aug 11, 2016
Messages
8,451
Great link Dourbalister!

I was too young to remember the moon landings, but I recall my father talking reverently about Hasselblads as the great cameras that went to the moon. The images are just iconic - I didn't know about the cross hair screen, so that was wonderful to learn.

I'm assuming the film was Kodachrome? 18,000 sounds a lot, but nowadays it would be millions.
 
CharlesDAMorgan said:
Great link Dourbalister!

I was too young to remember the moon landings, but I recall my father talking reverently about Hasselblads as the great cameras that went to the moon. The images are just iconic - I didn't know about the cross hair screen, so that was wonderful to learn.

I'm assuming the film was Kodachrome? 18,000 sounds a lot, but nowadays it would be millions.
Click to expand...

According to this NASA article, it was a mix of Kodak film, including Ektachrome on the Apollo missions:

Each film magazine would typically yield 160 color and 200 black and white pictures on special film. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions. On Apollo 8, three magazines were loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-168, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film. There were 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs returned from the Apollo 8 mission.
Click to expand...

EDIT: I mistakenly mentioned Kodachrome in my original post, now corrected above.
 
Last edited:
It was not a standard Hasselblad 500c.
It was severely modified, larger film advance lever and bigger knobs.
A small fact the entire mirror mechanism was amputated..

Nikon on later missions became main camera system..
Strangely Leica NEVER made it!
I guess bottom loading was the termination..

The images of those Zeiss Lenses so wonderful.
Stephen Bulger Gallery here in Toronto has show to the Moon.
Great image making by the Astronauts.
 
Wow, free Hasselblads on the moon! All ya got to do is go pick them up.

….Might as well grab a moon buggy while your there.
 
Interesting read. Schirra had a special place in NASA history, being the only one of the Mercury Seven who would go on to fly in both Gemini and Apollo craft. Alan Shepard walked the moon during Apollo 14 but partly due to longstanding ear problems did not fly during the Gemini program.

The article failed to mention that the Electric Data Camera used during the Apollo 11 EVA featured a special low production volume 60mm f/5.6 version of the Zeiss Biogon (not the 38mm type which had long been fitted to Hasselblad's production Supreme Wide Angle and its subsequent Super Wide descendants). The lens was later also available with the Hasselblad Mark 70, an interesting camera in its own right.
 
At least you can be secure knowing, when you get to the Moon, that if your camera breaks there are at least six places where you can borrow one to use...

:D

Great stories, thanks for posting the links!

G
 
Filter Factor said:
I came here just to see if we should also be thanking Leica for the moon program...
Click to expand...

Leica might have been content with selling bunches of binoculars to the various scientific teams associated with the Apollo program. I used to see a number of them lying about in several of the labs and ready rooms at NASA when I was there. :)

G
 
zuiko85 said:
Wow, free Hasselblads on the moon! All ya got to do is go pick them up.

….Might as well grab a moon buggy while your there.
Click to expand...

No film backs, though!

I have always wanted one of those. I'd love to have it with that special 60mm Biogon! They didn't need the Distagon, since no mirror clearance is needed (no mirror). So they took advantage of the superior quality possible when the lens doesn't have to be retrofocus.

I wonder if I'd like my shots of Colorado to have those precision crosses in the picture . . .

There is, of course, a civilian version available. Pricey!
 
It's a mystery to me why they took blads there in the first place. Those things will jam, you know, and they're heavy and big to bring to the moon and back. I myself would have brought a Rollei TLR or a 35mm camera like an AE-1 or something.
 
Godfrey said:
Leica might have been content with selling bunches of binoculars to the various scientific teams associated with the Apollo program. I used to see a number of them lying about in several of the labs and ready rooms at NASA when I was there. :)

G
Click to expand...


In their advertising in the 60's Bushnell used to say that their small (?8 x 20) binoculars were the ones chosen by NASA.


Regards, David
 
I wonder why NASA engineers didn't cobble together some brilliant finders like on old folders, but larger and viewable at an angle. Would have beat blind aiming.
 
Steve M. said:
It's a mystery to me why they took blads there in the first place. Those things will jam, you know, and they're heavy and big to bring to the moon and back. I myself would have brought a Rollei TLR or a 35mm camera like an AE-1 or something.
Click to expand...
I think the quality of some of the images recorded on and around the Moon validates NASA's wilingness to use medium format equipment over 35mm. As to why Hasselblad: the use of easily replaced magazines facilitating a choice of large volumes of colour or black and white—don't forget, the Hassys were fitted with special 70mm magazines and thin base film—sidestepped the challenges of reloading film correctly in flight not to mention the difficulties involved in this whilst wearing their suits and gloves. I believe these would have been compelling reasons why the Hasselblads were favoured.

As a Hasselblad (and Rolleiflex) user I think the risks of a body jamming are overstated in practice. But note that removing reflex viewing from the EL potentially eliminated a bunch of parts. The rear capping plates would have been redundant for starters (in the EDC at least) as well, obviously as the mirror. It would not even have been necessary to fit a reflex version of the lens shutters. They did not have to be capable of remaining open for viewing because they were incapable of TTL focusing. I am not asserting that all the cameras lacked all these parts. I would actually love to see some blueprints or images of them stripped down. I'm merely pointing out that they were simplified in certain ways (and more complicated in certain others, Ie the Reseau plates fitted to some of them).
Cheers
Brett
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Are you sure you don't mean Ektachrome? The linked article has no mention of Kodachrome that I could find, and all references to colour imaging made during Apollo flights that I have ever seen, mention Ektachrome.
Cheers
Brett
Click to expand...

Perhaps they used Ektachrome on other missions, but I cut and pasted directly from the article that I linked. The details about the film are about halfway down the page, right above the Apollo 11 section.

EDIT: Brett is correct, I meant to say Ektachrome.

Steve M. said:
It's a mystery to me why they took blads there in the first place. Those things will jam, you know, and they're heavy and big to bring to the moon and back. I myself would have brought a Rollei TLR or a 35mm camera like an AE-1 or something.
Click to expand...

The Canon AE-1 wasn't released until 1976, and I believe by that time, the Apollo Program had ended.
 
Great article. I would like to see how anyone changes Hassy film backs with those massive gloves those guys are wearing. :).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom