My camera discontinued

My Hasselblad 500C/M that I've had since the early 70s is now discontinued tech. Not a bad run.

Is that one of those cameras that makes the obnoxiously loud CLACK you hear during press conferences? I find those very distracting, the sound frequency they generate appears to be picked up perfectly by the microphones.
If it was my call: I'd make anyone wanting to take pictures use digital cameras with an earbud for audio feedback if needed.

I had a Minolta 35mm SLR something or other for years (late 80's wedding present) until the shutter stopped working, had it fixed, and when it stopped working again I moved to digital with Olympus Ultrazoom 2500 (I think 2500, had 20X optical zoom, 2 MBit pics), thru the lens viewfiender and diopter adjuster. Now I have a smaller Canon Powershot something (SL170 maybe?), still with very good optical zoom and with more Mbits/pic, but lost the thru lens viewfinder, need to use my reading glasses to see what I'm shooting. Takes nice video too, my Olympus makes some annoying clicking when using internal mic for video.

CrossRoads:
Is that one of those cameras that makes the obnoxiously loud CLACK you hear during press conferences?

No.

Is that one of those cameras that makes the obnoxiously loud CLACK you hear during press conferences?

not many (if any!) journos would use a Hasselblad, or any other medium format camera.

I don't know what is being used. Why not just shoot hi-def video and pick out some stills from there? Would certainly be quieter.

Why not just shoot hi-def video and pick out some stills from there?

2 Mpixel images are sooo 1998 :wink:

So what is TV? 1080 x 525? 567,000. Those pictures are certainly clear.
Where do the still shots end up? De-resolutioned for websites, maybe original high resolution for print magazines.

AWOL:

Is that one of those cameras that makes the obnoxiously loud CLACK you hear during press conferences?

not many (if any!) journos would use a Hasselblad, or any other medium format camera.

Exactly. I use mine for architectural and portraiture mainly. It would be far too bulky/heavy to lug around for news photography. Most journos that I know who still shoot film use a motor-drive 35mm.

Twelve Hasselblads remain on the lunar surface.

I wonder if they are still under warranty?

My Hasselblad 500C/M that I've had since the early 70s is now discontinued tech. Not a bad run.

Can you still get film for it?

I still use a Pentax MX SLR given to me in 1979.
It's a lot lighter and more compact than my new K5, but the K5 can still use the same glass I've been collecting for the last thirty-odd years.
Good thinking, Pentax.

Can still get 120 roll film but not as good a variety as in the past. If you want to wind your own 70mm cassettes there are some movie films that are interesting.

AWOL:
I still use a Pentax MX SLR given to me in 1979.
It's a lot lighter and more compact than my new K5, but the K5 can still use the same glass I've been collecting for the last thirty-odd years.
Good thinking, Pentax.

It's good to be able to use old glass because in most cases it's better than the new stuff. That's certainly the case with the Zeiss lenses for my Hasselblad. I like the fact that a vintage $5000 lens is worth $0.10 on the dollar nowadays too. I just acquired a 250mm lens (about 3X optical) for $300 that would have cost as much as a good used car when new.

That looks like a plate camera, in which case, the leaf shutter will be almost inaudible.
The loud "clack" described earlier is not the shutter, but the mirror.

AWOL:
That looks like a plate camera, in which case, the leaf shutter will be almost inaudible.
The loud "clack" described earlier is not the shutter, but the mirror.

I would imagine the camera in question probably takes 4x6 or 5x7 film, and not glass plates, which declined in popularity once George Eastman developed film in 1885. One of the bellows cameras I bought was originally made for plates, but with a holder, you could use film. The general class of these cameras is called large format (as opposed to the medium format Hasselblad that the OP was mourning which just stopped production).

From the picture, it looks like it is a 'view' or 'press' camera, which is a portable camera. The Speed Graphic/Graflex cameras were the iconic cameras of this form, and were used by generations of newspaper photographers, most notably from the 1930's to the end of the 1950's. My steampunk camera (see my icon photo) is meant to pay homage to these cameras.

To the OP, while it was perhaps inevitable, I can feel your pain. I've never handled a Hasselblad, but they certainly were classic, iconic cameras.

MichaelMeissner:
To the OP, while it was perhaps inevitable, I can feel your pain. I've never handled a Hasselblad, but they certainly were classic, iconic cameras.

Yes, I'm a little surprised they stayed in production as long as they did. Fortunately, there seems to be plenty of used stock around which will probably outlast me. :slight_smile:

Well the supply of film for the camera and chemicals to develop it may be more of an issue than just the body and lenses. While medium format and large format still have toeholds and it has become a niche market, I would imagine the consumer 35mm film infrastructure to completely disappear within the next few years.

MichaelMeissner:

[quote author=Papa G link=topic=163734.msg1224009#msg1224009 date=1367417358]
Yes, I'm a little surprised they stayed in production as long as they did. Fortunately, there seems to be plenty of used stock around which will probably outlast me. :slight_smile:

Well the supply of film for the camera and chemicals to develop it may be more of an issue than just the body and lenses. While medium format and large format still have toeholds and it has become a niche market, I would imagine the consumer 35mm film infrastructure to completely disappear within the next few years.
[/quote]

There is a lab in Dallas that still processes different kinds of film and does drum scans of the negatives. There is not as good a selection of films now.

Yes, with the DSLRs available today, there is really no advantage to shoot 35mm anymore.

I read that news a few days ago too. I follow several Photography channels on Google Currents.

The advantage of this news for you is that this model of the Hasselblad will have their prices skyrocketed in a few months/years. They'll become a desired collectors item. If I were you I'd hold on to mine and keep it in working state. Who knows, maybe in a few years you might be able to sell it for a several thousand dollars.

About a year ago I sold a Canon EOS 500n (35mm, very basic, entry-level SLR camera) for about US$ 350. It was in practically New In box, with original manuals, box, lenses kit, 2 new unopened 35mm film rolls (FUJI), UV filter, etc. I inherited it from my uncle, who I believe didn't run more than 2 rolls of film through it.

I still have 4 very old 35mm cameras: an Olympus Trip 35, a very old Kodak, a Minolta (SLR) and a Pentax (SLR) [can't remember the models]. I know that my Pentax has seen a substantial raise in market value in the last few years.

My day-by-day cameras however are a Canon A620 (it stays in the car all the time) and a Nikon D7000.

I sincerely hope that the prices don't rise any time soon. I still use my Hasselblad and enjoy getting great deals on used equipment. Many of the lenses have been out of production for years and their prices haven't appreciated as a result. I think it will be quite some time before it becomes a collectable.