What's new
Medium Format Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Opinions on EL/M "20 years in space" edition

R

rod

New Member
Hi all,
I am curious to know members opinion on this particular camera. On a Christmas whim, I saw that KEH had 2 of them and I took the plunge...for both. My thinking was that I could sell one to finance the other. They do pop up once in while with a high price tag but I am not sure they eventually sell. I shoot 500s mostly and have never tried an EL/M. I am afraid that they will be quite bulky for my usual habits. It certainly stands out compared to the basic black ones.http://collectiblend.com/Cameras/Hasselblad/500-EL-M-'20-Years-in-Space'.html
 
Rod

I used an ELM for decades but it was very heavy and each time I used it when the temperature was down around 0 F it failed to work even with new fully charged batteries. I don't see how that thing worked on the Moon.

It is my backup now. I switched to the 503CW in 2000.

BC
 
New lubricants do wonders for the bronze gears used in older EL(M) bodies.

Later models like the 500 ELX and the 553 ELX are noticably quieter and less noisy.

Just used my oldest EL (1966) in temperatures around 0° C.
No problem at all with the later Lion batteries.
 
bcphoto said:
I used an ELM for decades but it was very heavy and each time I used it when the temperature was down around 0 F it failed to work even with new fully charged batteries. I don't see how that thing worked on the Moon.

It is my backup now. I switched to the 503CW in 2000.

BC
Click to expand...

The HEDC were considerably modified of course. First of all: no grease, as that evaporates in vacuum, which is quite unpleasant for the optics :)
And no mirror, and no simplistic NiCd batteries etc etc. Nothing but the finest for the moon cameras with the nearest camera tech one planet away.

For the curious: check out the HB website here
 
wbulte

wbulte said:
The HEDC were considerably modified of course. First of all: no grease, as that evaporates in vacuum, which is quite unpleasant for the optics :)
And no mirror, and no simplistic NiCd batteries etc etc. Nothing but the finest for the moon cameras with the nearest camera tech one planet away.

For the curious: check out the HB website here
Click to expand...


Wbulte,

Wonder how they worked that polarizer when they couldn't see through the camera. I used to eyeball the polas for view camera and then tape them on the lens in the same position. Not sure what they were doing on the Moon though.

I was also curious about the film freezing solid up there. Gelatin emulsion contains water and would it evaporate away (no air pressure) or just freeze like a brick?

BC
 
bcphoto said:
Wbulte,

Wonder how they worked that polarizer when they couldn't see through the camera. I used to eyeball the polas for view camera and then tape them on the lens in the same position. Not sure what they were doing on the Moon though.

I was also curious about the film freezing solid up there. Gelatin emulsion contains water and would it evaporate away (no air pressure) or just freeze like a brick?

BC
Click to expand...

Well, the polariser was to the best of my knowledge fixed in orientation.

I once read on a NASA website that Kodak produced special thin-base film for NASA. But that had more to do with getting as much frames as possible into a cassette. I do not recall something about special emulsion techniques.

Wilko
 
wbulte

wbulte said:
Well, the polariser was to the best of my knowledge fixed in orientation.

I once read on a NASA website that Kodak produced special thin-base film for NASA. But that had more to do with getting as much frames as possible into a cassette. I do not recall something about special emulsion techniques.

Wilko
Click to expand...


wbulte,

So what exactly were they "polarizing" up there on the Moon? Trying to darken the sky?

I doubt that there were very many shiny reflections up -- not any stray light from the "atmosphere" either. Dull, dusty rocks don't require a pola. Maybe it cancelled the reflections off the black visqueen background?

BC
 
bcphoto said:
wbulte,

So what exactly were they "polarizing" up there on the Moon? Trying to darken the sky?

I doubt that there were very many shiny reflections up -- not any stray light from the "atmosphere" either. Dull, dusty rocks don't require a pola. Maybe it cancelled the reflections off the black visqueen background?

BC
Click to expand...

There is no sky to darken in space, it is all pitch black to start with.

My guess is that it still the reflecting thing they wanted to fix with the polariser.

There is plenty of documentation that lists the presence of the polarising filter, like here.

Explanations are much harder to come by it seems. Maybe reading this document
helps. Unfortunately it is a scan, and not text-searchable.

Wilko
 
And we worry about a drop of rain and dropping a camera from 10 cm height. Or some sub 0-centigrade temperature... :)

text.jpg
 

Attachments

  • text.jpg
    EXIF
    text.jpg
    83.2 KB · Views: 40
Answering the original question: I like this 500 EL/M version and I happen to have one (converted to AA batteries) in perfect technical condition. Only downside is that the grey leatherette can become dirty and I have not had big success in removing that, neither with polar nor with unpolar solvents.

Ulrik
 
How about the film?

wbulte said:
And we worry about a drop of rain and dropping a camera from 10 cm height. Or some sub 0-centigrade temperature... :)

View attachment 3193
Click to expand...

Wbulte,

The camera may survive -186C (-303F) and 114C (237F) but there isn't any film that I know of that will come close to those. At the high end I can see the emulsion just sloughing off the film base. At the cold end, the base would be as brittle as a saltine cracker and would crumble going through the transport. -320F is the temp of liquid nitrogen. The permanently shadowed craters of the Moon's south pole are the lowest temps recorded in the solar system, -240C (-400F) and colder than Pluto.

600RAD of solar radiation is the total that an astronaut can be exposed to for life -- not one trip. So I don't know why the camera has to withstand more than the person shooting with it.

I can see how a machine can survive those temps but not film.


BC
 
bcphoto said:
Wbulte,

The camera may survive -186C (-303F) and 114C (237F) but there isn't any film that I know of that will come close to those. At the high end I can see the emulsion just sloughing off the film base. At the cold end, the base would be as brittle as a saltine cracker and would crumble going through the transport. -320F is the temp of liquid nitrogen. The permanently shadowed craters of the Moon's south pole are the lowest temps recorded in the solar system, -240C (-400F) and colder than Pluto.

600RAD of solar radiation is the total that an astronaut can be exposed to for life -- not one trip. So I don't know why the camera has to withstand more than the person shooting with it.

I can see how a machine can survive those temps but not film.


BC
Click to expand...

So what are you trying to say? NASA took moon photos without film?

Wilko
 
Ulrik,

I have found that using a Mr Clean Magic Eraser is perfect for cleaning and brightening the gray leatherette. Almost like new.


ulrik said:
Answering the original question: I like this 500 EL/M version and I happen to have one (converted to AA batteries) in perfect technical condition. Only downside is that the grey leatherette can become dirty and I have not had big success in removing that, neither with polar nor with unpolar solvents.

Ulrik
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top