Say "Green Cheese"
March 27, 2014 5:00 AM Subscribe
Camera Used by Astronauts on Moon "Pulls $940 Gs" at Auction — The history of Hasselblad cameras used (and perhaps abused) during the Apollo moon missions.
There are a lot of questions about if this camera actually made it to the moon like the auction said, and why it's now slightly different looking than when it was previously auctioned. See here and here.
posted by themadthinker at 6:21 AM on March 27, 2014
posted by themadthinker at 6:21 AM on March 27, 2014
Considering that a brand new, high end Hasselblad - without a lens - will cost you upwards of $36,000, a 1960s antique is worth a bit of that auction price without any having been anywhere near the moon.
posted by three blind mice at 7:04 AM on March 27, 2014
posted by three blind mice at 7:04 AM on March 27, 2014
Eh, you can get used Hasselblads of that vintage for hundreds to thousands. They're pretty common. I paid $800 for a 500CM in 2002 or so with a lens, for example. Their wide spread use in the advertising and fashion industries for 40+ years, compared with only relatively minor model changes in that time frame, means they're reasonably common used cameras.
Edit: here's a 500EL for $250.
posted by atbash at 7:11 AM on March 27, 2014
Edit: here's a 500EL for $250.
posted by atbash at 7:11 AM on March 27, 2014
There's nothing quite like the feel of a 500 Hasselblad and it had the best viewfinder ever to grace a film camera.
I can believe the jamming though, I used to have a couple of pieces of bent wire in my kitbag purposefully for clearing the notorious Hassy jam
posted by brilliantmistake at 9:03 AM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
I can believe the jamming though, I used to have a couple of pieces of bent wire in my kitbag purposefully for clearing the notorious Hassy jam
posted by brilliantmistake at 9:03 AM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
You want Apollo artifacts? Andy Griffith will get you Apollo artifacts.
posted by ckape at 9:56 AM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by ckape at 9:56 AM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
Here's how NASA chose the Hasselblad as the Apollo moon camera.
posted by Chinese Jet Pilot at 10:42 AM on March 27, 2014
posted by Chinese Jet Pilot at 10:42 AM on March 27, 2014
Looking at the images of the camera in OG link it's clear that Hasselblad made some significant external modifications to prevent the two common causes of accidental jamming:
1) They removed the lens release switch, i guess once a lens was attached to the body it was going to be a life long relationship! This would remove the possibility that the jam could be caused by a mismatch in the lens and body cocking state.
2) The mechanism to lock the film back to the camera was changed radically - normally the film back is removed by moving a small switch that is on the the magazine. This is intentionally a little finicky so you don't accidentally do it, it would be very difficult in padded gloves. It is also not possible to remove a magazine when the dark-slide is not present. On the NASA versions there is a large lever on the *body* that appears to lock the film back in place and there is a big sticker that states "remove darkslide before installing magazine" so clearly the magazine locking mechanism had been modified.
It's certainly possible the camera(s) did sporadically jam as it was a motorized version and relied on a battery. There doesn't appear to be a manual film advance knob, so perhaps the battery or the electronics misbehaved in the conditions of space. I know from experience with my own camera that when the battery power is low the camera will continue to function but sometimes exhibit strange behaviour that can give the impression of a mechanical jam.
The other common causes of Hasselblads jamming are down to general wear and tear. They're remarkable little boxes but have many many parts. The later 200 series had over 400 parts, not including the individual electronic components, all inside something not much bigger than a Rubik's Cube. They take hours to repair for even the most trivial issue like replacing a worn spring or refreshing lubrication, and because only a few people are able to do this it can be expensive. Regular service is a must, but with that they will last for decades. Here's a picture showing the guts of my old backup body, one of the basic models.
posted by lawrencium at 12:50 PM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
1) They removed the lens release switch, i guess once a lens was attached to the body it was going to be a life long relationship! This would remove the possibility that the jam could be caused by a mismatch in the lens and body cocking state.
2) The mechanism to lock the film back to the camera was changed radically - normally the film back is removed by moving a small switch that is on the the magazine. This is intentionally a little finicky so you don't accidentally do it, it would be very difficult in padded gloves. It is also not possible to remove a magazine when the dark-slide is not present. On the NASA versions there is a large lever on the *body* that appears to lock the film back in place and there is a big sticker that states "remove darkslide before installing magazine" so clearly the magazine locking mechanism had been modified.
It's certainly possible the camera(s) did sporadically jam as it was a motorized version and relied on a battery. There doesn't appear to be a manual film advance knob, so perhaps the battery or the electronics misbehaved in the conditions of space. I know from experience with my own camera that when the battery power is low the camera will continue to function but sometimes exhibit strange behaviour that can give the impression of a mechanical jam.
The other common causes of Hasselblads jamming are down to general wear and tear. They're remarkable little boxes but have many many parts. The later 200 series had over 400 parts, not including the individual electronic components, all inside something not much bigger than a Rubik's Cube. They take hours to repair for even the most trivial issue like replacing a worn spring or refreshing lubrication, and because only a few people are able to do this it can be expensive. Regular service is a must, but with that they will last for decades. Here's a picture showing the guts of my old backup body, one of the basic models.
posted by lawrencium at 12:50 PM on March 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older Rugs of War | The $780,100 Homepage Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Apollo 15 was launched on July 26, 1971.
Cool camera, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:45 AM on March 27, 2014