The introduction of the Hasselblad 1600f in 1948 brought with it a new approach to flexibility which I will call the system SLR camera. The Hasselblad 1600f was modular, meaning that the camera could be customized to meet the photographer's specific needs. Besides interchangeable lenses, it featured interchangeable backs and viewfinders.

   The Hasselblad 1600f used a vertically traveling focal plane shutter running at a maximum speed of 1/1600th of a second, hence the model designation of 1600 and f for focal plane shutter. The original Hasselblad lens mount used a screw-thread based design with manual operation, as no autodiaphragm mechanism was provided. An 80mm f2.8 Tessar or Kodak Ektar design was the normal lens. Other Hasselblad lenses were limited to 60mm f5.6 Distagon, 135mm f3.5 Sonnar and 250mm f5.6 Sonnar. Some third party lenses were also made for these early Hasselblad 1600f and later 1000f bodies. As one example, the low cost Fujita 66 SLR 52mm f/3.5 screw-thread wide angle lens was often adapted for use on the Hasselblad 1000/1600f cameras. Flash synchronization was a slow 1/25th second. Both 12 and 16 exposure backs were available, but these backs will not fit the later model C cameras. Only some 3,627 Hasselblad 1600f cameras were made.

    The Hasselblad 1000f introduced in 1952 had a slower top shutter speed of 1/1000th of a second, but this redesign simplified and improved the overall camera reliability. A total of 10,400 model 1000f cameras were made.  The Hasselblad 1000f was widely copied, with the Japanese Zenza Bronica line (model Z, Deluxe, S..) being the most successful variant. The current Kiev 88 SLRs also are copies of the early Hasselblad focal plane SLR designs. With minor thread machining, the Kiev-88 screw thread lenses can often be remounted on the older Hasselblad 1000f/1600f screw thread lens mounts, pointing to their design's origin. These Hasselblad 1000f/1600f derivative focal plane Kiev 88 SLR models continue to be available today.

    Some forty years ago, Hasselblad introduced the model 500c (later 500cm), which was destined to become a classic medium format camera design. The Hasselblad 500c of 1957 used a Compur leaf shutter in each lens, with a top shutter speed of 1/500th of a second, hence the model 500c designation. This leaf shutter design provided a unique capability to provide flash synchronization at all shutter speeds, unlike its focal plane competitors. Naturally, individual leaf shutters in each lens cost more. There was some variation between shutter speeds with different lenses. The bayonet lens mount provided automatic diaphragm action with all lenses. After shooting, the 500c mirror did not return to position for focusing until after the film was manually advanced. The normal lens was an 80mm f2.8 planar design, which with updates continues to be popular today. The high quality of the Zeiss lens designs also provided a major advantage in marketing the new Hasselblad camera.

    Between the high quality optics and unique flash synchronization, the Hasselblad 500c quickly became the dominant 6x6 SLR by the mid 1960s. The competing Japanese Bronica model S and C offered Nikkor optics and a Hasselblad 1000f body design, but with a focal plane shutter. The Kalimar 660, Praktisix II, and Optika Professional all had focal plane shutters too. The Praktisix SLR was an overgrown 35mm SLR shape. The Optika Professional used a bellows and lens board design that emphasized manual rather than automatic operation, and a curious set of cut film backs. The Kalimar Six Sixty didn't have interchangeable backs (looking like a Kowa 6). The Kalimar Six Sixty was the last in a line that began with the Fujita 66 and Kalimar Reflex SLRs.

   The Rittreck 66 SLR was a great 6x6 focal plane shutter camera by the designer of the Nikon F 35mm camera, but it failed for lack of capitalization. Subassembly maker Norita acquired the tooling, relabeled its camera the Norita 66, but lacked aggressive promotion resources in the critical U.S. market. The final Warner 66 model was the last gasp effort that failed. A lineup of Zeiss prototype lenses were shown at Photokina but never mass produced. The existing optics for this over-grown 35mm SLR style design were also first-rate, but very hard to find today.

    Only the Bronica S offered interchangeable backs, but the price ($479) was rather close to the Hasselblads ($615 in 1965). The Bronica S flash synch of 1/50th second couldn't compete with the 1/500th up flash synch speed of the Hasselblad 500c's leaf shutter lenses. In addition, Hasselblad enjoyed an excellent and stable marketing organization in the major U.S. market, which contributed greatly to its ultimate success. 

    The first superwide Hasselblads were also introduced at this time, although only about 2,000 of the first models were produced. The original 38mm f4.5 Zeiss Biogon lens was mounted permanently to the camera body which was custom designed to mount this lens. The superwide was not an SLR, but used an optical viewfinder or ground glass back for critical focusing. The camera was essentially designed around the Zeiss lens, which provided a unique 90 degree wide angle capability in medium format photography. Hasselblad also innovated the first motor drive medium format SLR in the model EL. The later 500 ELM camera became famous as the Apollo moon camera.

    Again, competitors such as Bronica could not match this superwide optical capability until the introduction of a 40mm Nikkor with retrofocus design. Indeed, the original Bronica Z and Deluxe models adopted a falling mirror approach to accommodate the 50mm f3.5 wide angle Nikkor lens. This early 50mm wide angle lens  extended so far back into the camera body that a conventional upwardly moving mirror design was impossible. The result was a much more complicated body design, with an added secondary shutter to cover up and block light from the top-mounted waist-level finder.  Usually the mirror popped upward to block this light source in other SLR designs. This falling-mirror approach had its costs in camera complexity and breakdowns. But it also offered optical designers a higher degree of latitude than other cameras with upward moving reflex mirrors. Lenses could extend much farther back into the Bronica falling-mirror bodies, greatly simplifying wide angle lens design.

    Moreover, Bronica choose to mount the lenses and diaphragms in a body camera that included a helical focusing adapter. This approach further reduced the lens costs, since the focusing mount was part of the camera body. The helical mount could be switched for a larger mount, needed for long telephoto lenses, and for a unique 105mm leaf shutter Nikkor. This leaf shutter lens provided the extended flash synch speeds of the competing Hasselblad 500c, but only for that one portrait lens optic.

   The removable Bronica focusing mount also made it possible to use a tilt-and-shift bellows design that was unique in providing focusing from infinity to extreme closeups.  Most medium format SLR lenses have very limited close focusing limits relative to 35mm counterparts. This extended and continuous focusing range also explains why no macrolenses were made in the Bronica lineup. In effect, every lens could be used for macrowork using this unique infinity focusing bellows mount approach. Moreover, the tilts and shifts meant that the Bronica cameras could place the plane of focus where it was desired on closeup photographs.

    The Bronica cameras provided the major system camera competition to the Hasselblad 500c/cm cameras into the mid-1970s. I have argued elsewhere that several changes in U.S. marketing distributors and advertising campaigns contributed to Bronica's decline in the critical U.S. MF SLR market. Then Zenza Bronica dropped the S/S2/EC 6x6 line in favor of the 6x4.5cm ETR design. In short, Bronica shifted niches, leaving Hasselblad as the dominant 6x6 SLR camera manufacturer.

   The Bronica 6x6 S2/EC Nikkor lenses provided lower cost and excellent performance with a flexible interchangeable back and viewfinder system camera. But Hasselblad's 500c/cm models continued to enjoy a key advantage with its leaf shutter lenses in the increasingly important flash synch area. This competitive advantage forced focal plane body MF SLR camera makers to also adopt the idea of providing one or more leaf shutter lenses in their lens lineups. Usually these lenses were in the popular portrait lens focal length(s) such as the 105mm Nikkor leaf shutter lens for Bronica S2/EC. Even today, you can buy leaf shutter lenses for such focal plane equipped cameras as the Pentax 6x7. But having only one or two expensive leaf shutter lens options didn't provide the range of flash synch flexibility many photographers needed.

    The later Kowa 6 and Kowa 66 cameras were another Japanese competitor to the Hasselblad. On the one hand, the Kowa lenses used leaf shutter designs, thereby providing many of the same benefits of flash synchronization as the Hasselblad Zeiss leaf shutter lenses. Kowa was and is a high quality optical design and production house for many high end specialty optics. Kowa 6/66 lenses could and did mount a serious challenge to Zeiss optics. Kowa innovated a series of fisheye lenses such as the unique 19mm f4.5 Kowa 6x6 fisheye (see fisheye photo). Kowa 6/66 lenses included a number of wide angle and telephoto optics as well. The large opening in the Kowa 6/66 SLR lens mount and the breech lock lens mounting made it easier to produce and mount some of these exceptional leaf-shutter lens designs.

   But the Kowa cameras came along only after the Hasselblad market dominance was well established. Moreover, the prices for Kowa lenses was only marginally less than that for the Zeiss lenses. The original Kowa 6 used a non-interchangeable back design. The later Kowa 66 design featured a curiously L-shaped interchangeable back design, while retaining the original Kowa lens mount compatibility and interchangeable viewfinder/prism design.

    Unfortunately, the original Kowa 6 didn't even offer film inserts (as even the economy Bronica C did). Each roll had to be shot before the next could be loaded. This lack of flexibility marginalized the Kowa 6 models. The interesting later Kowa 66 with interchangeable backs didn't succeed in overcoming the Hasselblad marketing gap. While the Kowa SLRs were touted as the ''poor man's Hasselblad'', the Kowa leaf shutter lens costs were too close to the Hasselblad Zeiss lens costs to sway enough buyers. Had Kowa copied the Hasselblad body and interchangeable back system design from the first, things might have been different in the end. But they didn't. Kowa continues the business of producing high end specialty optics today, but has gotten out of the MF professional camera manufacturing business.

    The Kowa 6 and Kowa 66 remain excellent MF SLR cameras with great lenses. They deserve the title of the ''poor man's Hasselblad'' even more today. Hasselblad lens prices have tripled since the mid-1980s, while Kowa leaf shutter lens prices have remained stable. Many photographers suggest this divergence is explained by the high price of current Zeiss lenses for the Hasselblad. These higher prices raise the price of similarly useful older Zeiss lenses which fit the same 500c/cm camera mounts. So as current lens prices have skyrocketed upward, the prices of used Hasselblad lenses have followed those prices upward. By contrast, the used Kowa lenses that used to be 75% of the price of equivalent used Hasselblad lenses are now relative bargains at their current price points. You can buy four Kowa lenses plus a Kowa 6 body for less than most Hasselblad lenses. Conversely, the cost to get into a Hasselblad system has risen to the point where Hasselblad has had to come out with a new series of lower cost camera bodies and lenses.

   If you can't beat them, copy them. This approach was used in both the Soviet and mainland Chinese efforts to copy the popular Hasselblad cameras. The Chinese Hasselblad 500c/m copies were reportedly made at the demand of the wife of China's paramount leader - Mao Tse Tung. Unfortunately, only a half-dozen or so of these handcrafted cameras were made, reportedly as prototypes. But they never went into mass production.

   The Soviets had better luck copying the Hasselblad designs, starting with their early Salyut model which was mass produced in the Soviet era. The Salyut begot the Zenith 80 (with 80mm f/2.8 Industar lens), which became the Kiev 80 when the factory was moved to The Ukraine. The later, highly popular Kiev 88 series cameras are still being manufactured today. Unlike the Chinese Hasselblad clone cameras, the Soviets picked the easier to copy focal plane Hasselblad 1600/1000F series. They used the same lens to film plane distance, and even started out closely copying the Hasselblad 1000f lens mount. Unfortunately for Hasselblad owners, they dropped their interchangeable Hasselblad back and lens mount designs for non-interchangeable designs.

   Today, the Kiev 88 prisms are the last major interchangeable piece from these cameras for current Hasselblad owners. In other words, you can still take a $150US Kiev prism and mount it on many current Hasselblad bodies (saving circa $650+ US). But check first, as you may have problems with some polaroid backs and newer camera models. I am hopeful that the low cost Kiev 88 and Kiev 60 optics will be remounted to enable use on the focal plane Hasselblad and other medium format camera models in the future. [Ed. note: in April 1999, KievUSA announced a Hasselblad 2000 lens line using Kiev-88 lenses in Hasselblad 2000 focal plane mounts. There are also low cost ($35 US) adapters for Mamiya 645 users etc.]

   The low cost and easy availability of both lenses and Kiev 88 bodies tempt many medium format photographers to buy these cameras. Reportedly, the US imported cameras have more quality control and fewer problems than the grey market and older Soviet era models. While the lenses are somewhat lower rated than their Japanese or German counterparts, they are much lower in price. For example, a new 30mm f3.5 Zodiac fisheye for the Kiev 88 6x6 format or Kiev 60/Pentacon (see photo) is about 10% of the cost of a similar new Zeiss fisheye (e.g., circa $250 US). You can buy four or five Kiev 88 lenses and a new body for less than most other new MF cameras with just the normal lens. The Kiev lenses are often accused of having a lot of flare, when it is really the Kiev 88 unflocked bright metal internal bodies fault.

    The last major long-term MF SLR competitor to Hasselblad to consider is the Praktisix, Exakta 66, Pentacon 6, and Kiev 60 series cameras. These cameras were essentially overgrown 35mm SLR style cameras, without interchangeable backs and using focal plane shutters. The lenses were often quite good, representing many quality German lens makers such as Schneider and Zeiss (incuding East and West German entities). But these camera bodies never achieved the potential of their lenses in terms of quality and reliability. Even today, the post-Soviet optics from the Kiev factories are well regarded as good value for the money. But the quality of the camera bodies under professional use is considered to be much less reliable. Again, these MF SLR models offer some buyers the chance to get great lenses at the risk of less reliable bodies. You might luck out and get some of the better made ones, or maybe not. But the price looks very attractive relative to either current Japanese or West European optics prices. 

    This short and opinionated history of the medium format SLR explains some of the early history of today's medium format cameras. I have highlighted some historically interesting early MF SLR camera models such as the Exaktas and Reflex Korelle cameras. My focus on the Hasselblad lineage is partly an effort to explain why I believe that Hasselblad overcame its many early competitors to become one of the dominant MF SLRs by the mid-1970s. Hasselblad enjoyed a flexible system camera design, high quality optics, leaf-shutter lenses (500c/cm), and consistently great marketing support. By avoiding design changes that caused premature obsolescence, Hasselblad captured the loyalty and investments of generations of professional medium format photographers.

   I have tried to relate some of the weaknesses and strengths of Hasselblad's competitors such as Bronica and Kowa 6x6 cameras from this period too. Once Bronica switched from its innovative auto-aperture EC/TL 6x6 models to its mid-70s ETR(s) 6x4.5 design, Hasselblad was left as the dominant professional 6x6 MF SLR system camera.

   Not until Rollei's innovative 6x6 MF SLRs (e.g., Rollei SLX) did Hasselblad have a serious competitor with similar or higher optics and design quality - and even higher prices!

   At this point, we have entered the present time of current Medium Format Cameras. Bronica has expanded from 6x4.5 ETR(S) to re-enter the 6x6 (SQ) market and enter the popular 6x7 (GS-1) SLR formats. Pentax has entered the 6x4.5 market (645N) to compete with Mamiya's 6x4.5 and Bronica ETR(S). The smaller sized 6x4.5cm cameras are coming into their own as improvements in film and processing expand their potentials.

   Koni-Omega and Mamiya helped popularize the ''ideal format'' (6x7) in their press cameras, along with a variety of roll-film and other backs. Mamiya also produced a Mamiya 6(MF) 6x6 rangefinder, and now a Mamiya 7 (6x7) rangefinder. Fuji produces a variety of rangefinders (except in 6x6), including a panoramic 6x17cm rangefinder! Mamiya's RB67/RZ67 SLR series proved the utility of 6x7 for professional photographers. Pentax still makes a surprisingly low cost Pentax 67 SLR with focal plane shutter. Again, as films and optics have improved, these 6x7 format cameras are increasingly found doing jobs previously reserved for larger format 4x5 view cameras.

   Hasselblad has abandoned its decades long trilogy of camera models - 500cm, 500elm, 500swc. Now there is a diversity of 6x6 camera models to choose from in the Hasselblad lineup. You can stick with the upgraded classics, or get a focal plane shutter capable model, or even pick the curious flex- and arc-body models. The flex-body cameras provide a range of tilt/shift movements previously found only in the limited Rollei 66 SLR model bellows tilt movements and view cameras. More importantly, Hasselblad and others (e.g., Bronica SQ-B) are making an effort to develop lower cost models and options as entry level 6x6 cameras.

   Rollei continues to innovate, bringing leading edge designs from the realm of its mass-market Rollei 35mm cameras (such as autofocus) to the heights of medium format photography. Partnerships with Samsung (of Korean electronics fame) promise even more future electronic and optical innovations. As with Hasselblad, a wide variety of models is now available to respond to both the needs and pocketbooks of medium format professional photographers.

   There are indications that medium format is about to become a new hot growth market by overcoming the limitations of 35mm photography. As APS cannabilizes the low end of 35mm users, the rising cost of professional 35mm equipment has priced professional 35mm equipment into the range of current medium format systems. Studies suggest that medium format system prices are now similar to professional 35mm systems, sometimes even less. So why not get medium format capabilities if you have to pay medium format level prices?

   Finally, we can project that this rising interest and market for medium format SLR cameras will bring in new, third party lens makers and new medium format camera makers too. Third party lenses would greatly help reduce the high system costs of many medium format camera models today. New cameras designed by leading edge 35mm camera makers would help spur innovation and feature rich designs at low cost but high quality.

   In short, the future for medium format photographers looks brighter now, paradoxically due to the rising costs of 35mm professional cameras. This seems only fair, since it was the designs of the original medium format SLRs that provided the basis for today's 35mm cameras. The confluence of new films, microprocessors, and low cost but high quality manufacturing from 35mm electronic camera manufacturers is likely to re-invigorate medium format photography. Our past history is prologue to this exciting future...

Related Postings

Bob,

You redefine the meaning of the appelation POLYMATH - you must really be a team of 4-5 people.

Enjoyed your article on the history of the medium format SLR. While the Hasselblad is undoubtedly excellent, we see time and again how marketing and advertising support can "make or break" a product. The demise of Zeiss Ikon is partially due to poor marketing of its first series of competitive SLRS, etc.

I agree. This is a great time for medium format. From old folders and TLRs to the latest autofocus cameras from Pentax and Fuji. The paradox is as we become digitized, we still are seeing a slew of new conventional cameras and new films. Some tell me the rush (including large format) is being fueled by the baby boomers. Talk about a good thing, whatever the reason.

I'm not typically a bargain hunter but am throw off by the cost of ground glass from Shutterbug dealers. I am presently researching costs and supply possibilities here in Detroit. It seems like this could be cut at home to one's needs, such as for my Anniversary Graphic. I'll have to study a couple view cameras to see what thickness GG they take.

Sincerely,

David Stein

From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Kiev Cameras on E-Bay
Date: 29 Mar 1999

From: flexaret2@aol.com (Sam Sherman)
March 28, 1999

I must agree that there is no proof regarding the so-called German camera copied by Hasselblad for the US Military. However, the Hasselblad is a copy of a German camera, but not an exact copy. It is a derivative of the Primarflex, which was made by Bentzin in Gorlitz, Germany and then by the nationalized industries, from 1936 to 1954. The Primarflex has the general design of the Hasselblad, but without interchangeable backs and with a cloth focal plane shutter, not metal as in 1600F, 1000F, 2000F (series) and Kiev models, which are most likely copies of the Hasselblad 1600F and 1000F. We can show Primarflex cameras, but if there is any truth to there being a German wartime camera like the Hasselblad ..... let's see it!

To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
From: flexaret@sprynet.com
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Re: One last kalimar thing...korelle

Rick,

Actually the Korelle instant mirror return was copied from an earlier camera
the NOVIFLEX (1933) which looks something like it.

That camera is the earliest one I can find with that finger pressure instant
return mirror, then the Korelle,
and its copies AGIFLEX, BEAUTY REFLEX, MASTER REFLEX (and a rare Japanese
early Korelle copy).

The Kalimar Reflex, whether it uses the same linkage or not, copies this
feature and works in the same way.

The later model 660 has a true instant return mirror.

I remember many years ago going into a camera store in New York City wanting
to buy a new (old) camera.
Camera Barn had several Kamilar types and each one was $35 each. None of
them worked properly and the
shutter really dragged and I bought none (before my repair days). I wanted
one and so have had several
over the years plus the lenses, but have only kept the mintish black and
chrome version, which after my fixing it still
works perfectly with accurate speeds.

Maybe you have encouraged me to take some photos with it.

I think its screw thread is the same as a Miranda 35MM (internal) screw
thread. If you get a Miranda T mount
you can use it to mount weird lenses on the Kalimar.

Good luck.

Best,

Sam Sherman
----------
From: "Rick Oleson" rick_oleson@yahoo.com>
To: camera-fix@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: One last kalimar thing...korelle
Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001, 10:08 AM


hi sam - 

i've never operated one of those.  i had thought the release lever 
just lifted the mirror as you pressed it down.

:)=



--- In camera-fix@y..., flexaret@s... wrote:
> from: flexaret@s... (Sam Sherman) 10-15-01
> 
> to- camera-fix@y...
> 
> Rick,
> 
> Before the Kalimar (first sold in the US as "Soligor 66") the 
Korelle Reflex
> (1933-4),
> had this almost instant return mirror design.
> 
> - Sam Sherman
> 
> 
> ----------
> From: "Rick Oleson" rick_oleson@y...>
> To: camera-fix@y...
> Subject: [camera-fix] One last kalimar thing...
> Date: Mon, Oct 15, 2001, 8:05 AM
> 
> 
> I just worked on one of the older 'non-instant-mirror' Kalimars 
> yesterday (actually it's a Fujita 66).  Very clever design: the 
> shutter release is a plunger that charges a spring as you push it; 
> then the spring force snaps the mirror up at the end of the 
stroke.  
> As you let the button out, the mirror snaps back down.  Not the 
> instant return of the later models, but not a bad deal in the days 
> before Bronica (in a $75 camera, too).
> 
> This one is the 'SL' model, which I guess is because it has the 
slow-
> speed timer added.  Can anybody date this?
> 
* rick :)=



From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 31 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Origins of Lubitel - was Re: Seagull

One of the oldest camera designs still being made today is the standard Kiev 88
- which is the Hasselblad 1600, dating to around 1948.

The Chinese 6x6cm SLR "GREAT WALL" which was made until recent times (still
could be made) is a derivative of the 1930s Pilot Super.

The Kiev (303?) subminature is taken from a Minolta design of the 1950s.


From: flexaret2@aol.com (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: Origins of Lubitel - was Re: Seagull

A Little Bit of Camera History:

Nobody has ever seen the legendary German Prototype "copied" by
Hasseblad and Zavod Arsenal (Kiev). Most likely it does not exist.

The Hasselblad 1600F evolving into the Hasselblad 1000F was a unique design,
most likely sold or traded by Hasselblad to the former USSR for
goods, metals etc. The fact that Kiev backs could not work on the Hasselblad
500 series, and that these cameras should bear Russian names and be sold in the
USSR was probably part of the deal.

With Ukraine an independent nation that deal is long gone and the
Kiev 88 is a low cost competition for Hasselblad and the Kiev TTL and plain
prisms are now used by many Hassy owners, something not
imagined when the original (possible?) deal may have been made.

Victor Hasselblad did base his design in part of the similar German
PRIMARFLEX camera, of which he himself was an avid user.

The Kiev 60/Pentacon 6 designs are based on the earlier German
6x6 cm SLRs - NOVIFLEX (1933), EXAKTA B (1933), REFLEX KORELLE
(1934) and EXAKTA SQUARE (1938). The EXAKTA SQUARE is still 
a better, stronger design than all of the later derivatives.

- Sam Sherman


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay

tigerarm2000 at tigerarm2000@yahoo.com wrote:

> I was curious about who the orignial Salyut desingers are and if
> Salyut is a copy of Hasselblad 1600 F. There is a lengthy discussion
> on Kiev Report forum.Someone even translated an article written by a
> Taiwanese with many pictures of both camereas.Now I tend to believe
> that Salyut is a copy of Hasselblad. If you see those pictures of
> both cameras' insides you can see they are almost identical.
> Hasselblad might have developed the first 1600F based on a German
> camera.


Once more let me tell this story.  Some years ago I talked to an elderly
retired engineer from Zeiss-Ikon.  He said that he was the designer of the
shutter used on a prototype camera that Z-I was developing for the German
navy, primarily for use on U-boats.  He said that when the Russians took
the Contax works to Kiev they also took the prototypes and tooling for this
camera, which became the Salyut and Kiev 88 series.  His explanation of
Hasselblad was that one of the prototypes being tested on board a U-boat had
been captured by the British and sent to Sweden, a neutral country, for
research.

Now, of course, this is not the way Hasselblad tells the story, but when I
wrote a systems manual for them back in the 80s I was able to ask some old
timers at Hasselblad about this story.  What got to me was that none of them
denied it, as I would expect, and some said, off the record, that it might
be so.

Bob


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay

Bob Shell wrote:
>
>I've told my story and that's that.  The designer is now dead.  People who
>were at Hasselblad at the time have said it is possible, and no one at
>Hasselblad has ever been willing to flatly say it is not true.
>
>Personally, I think the story is true.

Bob

The story could not possibly be true, as Zeiss Ikon was NOT designing any
aerial recon cameras for the Germans during World War II.  Zeiss had
divested itself of this responsibility (after all, Kuppenbender was in
charge of the entire optical industry as well as of Zeiss) early on, and
had farmed out the job to other and much smaller companies, as the overall
market for this stuff was relatively minuscule.

I would think that the statements of the chief designer would count for
more than those of your anonymous dude, in any event.

Finally, given that we do know the heritage of the Hasselblad 1600F --
Volk HK 12.5 to Ross HK 7 to Hasselblad 1600F, the process would seem to
crystaline and transparent to need much more analysis.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net 



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay

Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote:

> The story could not possibly be true, as Zeiss Ikon was NOT designing any
> aerial recon cameras for the Germans during World War II.  Zeiss had
> divested itself of this responsibility (after all, Kuppenbender was in
> charge of the entire optical industry as well as of Zeiss) early on, and
> had farmed out the job to other and much smaller companies, as the overall
> market for this stuff was relatively minuscule.


Who said anything about an aerial recon camera.  I said a camera for use
by the German navy on board U-boats, which was stated as the reason for
using stainless steel for the shutter curtains.

I do not think the story is impossible at all.  It is no stranger than the
Contax 35mm becoming Kiev.

Bob



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small msmall@roanoke.infi.net
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay

Bob Shell wrote:
>Who said anything about an aerial recon camera.  I said a camera for use  by
>the German navy on board U-boats, which was stated as the reason for  using
>stainless steel for the shutter curtains.
>
>I do not think the story is impossible at all.  It is no stranger than  the
>Contax 35mm becoming Kiev.

Well, Bob, Zeiss Ikon wasn't designing a U-Boat camera, either.  They did
produce a Contax set for U-Boat periscope use, but had nothing in the
pipeline.  Times were REALLY tough for the German optical industry during
the War, and they just had no additional resources to dedicate to
designing ANYTHING.  Zeiss Ikon, the largest German camera company, did
not officially design ANYTHING from 1938 to 1945 -- the work on the Contax
S was done by Nerwin and his boys during their lunch breaks and, had they
been caught, they would have been told to cease and desist.

And all Zeiss Ikon design was conducted at the old ICA works in Dresden,
which was destroyed by the Fire Bombing in February, 1945 -- that is why,
Postwar, the Contax IIa and IIIa had to be redesigned from the ground up,
as only set of Prewar Contax II and III plans had survived, at the
corporate headquarters in Dresden at the Ernemann Tower, and the Soviets
did get these.

So, no, if the Soviets did, indeed, derive the Salyut from a German
prototype, it was the Volk HK 12.5.  But Occam's Razor compels us to
accept the far simpler solution that they just copied the Hasselblad
1000F.

Marc

msmall@roanoke.infi.net



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Re: Salut-C Hasselblad copy on Ebay

 Marc James Small at msmall@roanoke.infi.net wrote:

> Well, Bob, Zeiss Ikon wasn't designing a U-Boat camera, either.  They did
> produce a Contax set for U-Boat periscope use, but had nothing in the
> pipeline.


OK, Marc, you are now forcing me to delve back into memory from more than
ten years ago and look for notes.  The man is only anonymous at this point
because I don't remember his name. After the war he worked for Heinz
Kilfitt as a mechanical designer, and was the main designer of the very
advanced Kilfitt SLR with a super fast metal bladed shutter.  
Unfortunately that camera never was produced, and only a few prototypes
were built.  I don't think anyone knows what became of those.


I'll see if I can go back to my sources and notes and flesh out the details.

Bob



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: What is so good about leica?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 


Speedy2 wrote:
> [...]
> Hasselblad, their products were made irrespective of cost, and purely for their
> performance which, being German, was for the nearest possible to perfection
> attainable at any given time.

(As has been pointed out, Hasselblad is not German.)

Guess why Victor Hasselblad in 1952 decided not to use Kodak lenses anymore,
but decided to switch to Zeiss?

Indeed. Because they were cheaper! So much for "irrespective of cost".
Sorry!

He just couldn't afford those expensive US $ products anymore, but Germany
at the time was still in economic ruin, so the German Mark and Zeiss lenses
were cheap.


(Quite co‹ncidentally, the first cameras ever bearing the Hasselblad name,
the Hasselblad Svenska Express/Hasselblad Svea Express, had a Zeiss
Anastigmat lens. These cameras (initially a copy of a British made camera,
the Murer's Express) were produced by Hugo Svensson & Co., and sold by F.W.
Hasselblad & Co. from 1895 until 1920.)


Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen tjols@online.no
To: hasselblad@kelvin.net
Subject: [HUG] A LITTLE MORE HASSELBLAD-RELATED HISTORY

Fellas,

The origins of the Hasselblad camera should be well known.  Victor
Hasselblad was an engineer and his father ran a company that was agent
for Kodak in Sweden before WWII.  The Swedish Airforce came to him,
alledgedly in 1942 or 43 with a camera they had found in a German
airplane wreck. Some sources state that the Swedes shot down this
airplane which had offended the airspace of neutral Sweden.  This is
utterly untrue.  Sweden were afraid of being pulled into the war and
went to great lengths to 'please' the Germans.  They even allowed some 5
million soldiers being transported through Sweden to and from the Eastern
Front on Swedish railway, - a fact not know before long after the War,
and a major scandal when it was known. (This is very much the reason 
that Sweden has been an almost endless source for old German War Leicas,
among them the famous Luftwaffe Leica 'Eigentum Des Luftwaffe'.  German
soldiers traded them in for a kilo of butter back then...)

No, the plane, a Dornier 17, was shot down in Norway sometime in March
1940 just weeks or days before Norway was invaded by the Germans (9. of
April 1940).  Here is the story:

Imagine the situation back in the winter 1939/40 when the British and
French had declared war with Germany and the state of war was called
'The Phony War', because almost nothing happened.  - What did happen
happened at sea were German war ships, many camuflaged as traders, sank
a lot of British shipping in the Atlantic.  In this battle the harbours
of neutral Norway and Sweden were of great interest to the war parties;
What ships were lying in what harbours etc.  A vital shipping route ran
down the Norwegian coast.  Both for the iron ore shipped out of Narvik
and German maruders coming in from the North Atlantic and using the
coast of neutral Norway as a cover to get back to Germany.

This winter the airspace of both Norway and the west coast of Sweden
were bothered by spy planes overflying our neutral teritories by both
British and German planes.  The Norwegian pilots had orders only to
shoot down the Geman ones.  But that was easier said than done.  Anyone
with the slightest knowledge of American Football know how difficult it
it to intercept a guy who have the advantage of speed and distance.  Add
then height. It was an almost impossible task with the technically
outdated equipment of the Norwegian Airforce at the time.

The Norwegian Airforce had ordered new equipment in USA and a few
planes, some Curtis fighters had arrived in crates, but were not
assembled yet (they ended up in German hands and were used by the Fins
against the Russians later in the war). The most formidable 'intercetor
fighter' that the Norwegian airforce could show was the already
outdated Gloster Gladiator, an old and slow double decker.  And a few
daredevil fighter pilots who had not seen what 'war was all about' and
what a dangerous game it would be to try to shoot one of these spy
planes down.

Norway had no radar.  The early warning system was organized by the use
of personnel from the railway to all the light houses up along the
coast.  Means of communication was the ordinary telephone, a slow thing
in those days.  They had to wait for a non-occupied line!

With dull regularity, the German spy planes would come in from the North
sea, hit our West coast just south of Stavanger, fly up to Bergen, then
go directly east towards Oslo and fly the Oslo Fjord south back to
Germany. By the time the fighter pilots got the warning the planes were
already over the city at 15.000 feet at a speed of 370 km/h - close to
the max speed of the Gladiator. By the time they managed to get into the
air the Germans were far down the fjord.  This repeated itself with
dull regularity.

Typical was that they came on sunny days with no or little cloud cover.
In late March, the pilots at Fornebu Airport, Oslo tried to lie in the
air 'waiting for them', taking patrol turns as long as the fuel
allowed.  On one such occation Flight Seargent Per Waage (he later flew
both Spitfires and Mosquitos in the war and was eventually shot down
over Berlin in 1944) spotted a Do 17 when it was about to make the turn
over the city and go southwards.  For once he had a slight height
advantage, pushed the trottle to the end and picked up the chase, putting
the old Gladiator to the limit of what it could go.  He managed to fly
so close that 'the German plane all filled my sight and my plane danced
about in the German's slip steam', he later told the newspapers.

Having never fired in anger before he was uncertain upon what to expect
so he lay first a short burst of fire with his four 0,303 machine guns.
Nothing happened except for that the German speeded up and tried to make
a run for it.  Then he gave it 'all he had', a long burst until there
was no ammunition left.  A great fireball?  No.  Just a tiny tail of
white smoke, most probably fuel, leaking out of the starboard wing and
the fact that the German adopted a less agile way of flying and veard
off to a more easterly cource.  The cause; most probably a wounded or
killed crew member.  With no more ammunition and dramatically low on
fuel, flt.sgt. Per Waage had to break off the engagement.

A few days later, the 9th of April 1940, Norway was attacked by the
Germans and the Norwegians got more to worry about than just a few
German spy planes.  What happened to the Dornier?  It never made it back
to Germany, but crashed, or made a sort of crash landing in a field in
Sm†land, Sweden, some 500 km farther south-east.  The Swedes tried to
cover it all up to please the Gemans and not arise their anger.  By now,
the battle in Norway was raging and not given up before two months later
when the Germans attacked France.  The surving two airmen and another
two in coffins, even the code book, maps and briefing/order of battle
documents were duly returned to the Germans.

But not the wreck and not the camera...

Tom of Oslo



From: w-buechsenschuetz@web.de (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The first SLR
Date: 15 May 2002 

flotsam flotsam@optonline.net wrote
> Over the years I've heard the credit for the first SLR camera attributed
> to both Contax and to Exakta.

Zeiss (the manufacturer of the Contax rangefinders) had plans to make
a SLR. It was manufactured post-war in East Germany (Contax D).

The Exaktas were introduced in the 1930s. Historians still argue
whether this one or the russian Sport was the first 35mm SLR.

The principle of operation of SLRs was known long before and used for
rollfilm and plate cameras. I recently saw a large-format SLR built in
1903 on a camera show, and the dealer told me that he has heard that
SLRs were built since 1880.

Winfried



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: First SLR
From: John Bateson noname@verizon.net
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002


Exacta has been credited with the first 35mm SLR - the Kine Exacta of 1936.
Don't know much about the Russian camera, except that while it may have
been introduced at the same time, it was not generally available in Western
Europe.  The post war Zeiss Contax D was the first eye level SLR, using a
pentaprism to reverse the reversed image of the waist level finders used in
previous SLR's. However, it did not have an instant return mirror or
automatic diaphram, features introduced by the Japanese makers. So, it all
depends on just whom one is crediting for what.  But the other posters who
list cameras like the Graflex and ICA, or the Reflex Korelle are just as
correct. In fact the reflex principal goes even back to the 15th century
when artists used the camera obscura to draw difficult subjects, even to
the extent of rendering the out of focus areas of the picture out of focus.

Regards to all,
John Bateson



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: First SLR
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 

John Bateson wrote:
> Exacta has been credited with the first 35mm SLR - the Kine Exacta of 1936.
> Don't know much about the Russian camera, except that while it may have
> been introduced at the same time, it was not generally available in Western
> Europe.

You're forgetting Leitz's 1933 Astroflex reflex housing. A rangefinder Leica
(of all cameras!) fitted with this thing will have been the first 35 mm SLR...

But you're right, the Russian Sport and the Kine-Exacta were the first 35 mm
cameras having the reflex part built-in.

> The post war Zeiss Contax D was the first eye level SLR, using a
> pentaprism to reverse the reversed image of the waist level finders used in
> previous SLR's.

Indeed. And the Alpa was the second 35 mm SLR with pentaprism. Pentax was
third.

> However, it did not have an instant return mirror or
> automatic diaphram, features introduced by the Japanese makers.

The Hungarian Gamma Duflex was the first to have an instant return mirror in
1947. It had an automatic diaphragm too. Sorry! ;-)

> So, it all
> depends on just whom one is crediting for what.  But the other posters who
> list cameras like the Graflex and ICA, or the Reflex Korelle are just as
> correct. In fact the reflex principal goes even back to the 15th century
> when artists used the camera obscura to draw difficult subjects, even to
> the extent of rendering the out of focus areas of the picture out of focus



From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: First SLR
Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 


"JCOhlsen" jcohlsen@aol.com wrote...
> Actually, one of the first slr cameras was the Premo reflecting camera from
> 1890.

Actually the entire concept originated *much* earlier in "camera obscura" used
as an "aid" in drawings.   It often had one lens ("S"ingle "L"ens) and a mirror
placed at 45 degrees ("R"eflex)  and it most definitely it was a "camera" -
hence "SLR camera..." ;-)

Michael


From: "eMeL" badbatz99@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: First SLR
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002

"flotsam" flotsam@optonline.net wrote...
> After a bit more research I found that while Contax started to develop a crude
> SLR in 1936,  the war intervened and the Contax S was introduced by Zeiss
> Dresden in '49, the D then succeeded it in '52.

Well... Not that fast...Before Contax there was Rectaflex and - soon after
Contax, practically simultaneously - there was Alpa Prisma Reflex...

> In the West, Zeiss introduced
> the Contaflex in '51 and the Contarex in '58.  It is clear that the
> Kine-Exakta beat the Contax by well over a decade. . .

Right - Kine-Exakta was first shown at 1936 Leipzig  Fair (in March.)   Look here
http://home.t-online.de/home/exaklaus/kine.htm
to see an interesting tidbit - an envelope used to mail the catalogue for
Kine-Exakta posted by Ihagee (the maker of Exakta) 19-08-1937 (August 19,
1937.)

Also...There is no definitive answer, but a 24x36mm SLR Gomz Sport, was
reportedly produced by the Soviets in the year 1935 or 36 Link (in Italian)
http://www.fotografianegliannitrenta.com/primaref.htm

No comments on this one, but it certainly may be worth researching...

> unless you consider
> the penta prism as an integral part of an SLR (I don't).

Well...Exakta Varex (1950, thus before Contaflex or Contarex) had
interchangeable viewfinders, including a pentaprism...

Good shooting!
Michael


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 
From: LEO WOLK bigleo@worldnet.att.net
Subject: [HUG] Re: "Hasselblad Historical Society"?

Good Point Bradley!

And the fact that Leicas had a reputation for reliability, right from the
start.  The first Hasselblads, the 1600F's, were (by those standards) BAD
cameras!  The 1000F (which is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT animal) was a little
better.  But it wasn't untill the 500C, and the final standardization on
Zeiss lenses, that Hasselblad became know as the SOLID, OUTSTANDING
performers we know them as today.

My $.02,   Leo.
...


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2003 
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: Re: Are Kievs fairly decent camera?

This is a common misconception that I have tried to correct. Both the
Kiev 88 series and the Hasselblad 1000/1600F series are derived from a
common ancestor, a Zeiss-Ikon prototype developed during the war.

Current Kiev 88 cameras have done away with the corrugated stainless
steel shutter curtains (not titanium foil as sometimes stated) and use
a much more reliable cloth shutter.

Bob

Rick Oleson wrote:
> I have to preface this by saying that I don't use Kiev medium format
> cameras. I have, however, worked on the shutter of a Hasselblad
> 1000F, which is the camera the Kiev 88 was derived from.


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad negs
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 

Stacey wrote:

> I think kiev intentionally made the back gearing different so the backs
> wouldn't interchange. God only knows why they do some of the things they
> do!

I think there is an interesting story in the Hasselblad - Kiev relationship,
and the reasons why, and posing what conditions Victor Hasselblad
allowed/tolerated the then-Soviet copies of his cameras.

He apparently even let them have the surplus of metal shutter foils (Thanks
to Hasselblad History expert Charles Chernof for this bit of info!) when he
temporarily suspended the focal plane shutter design and switched to central
shutter, starting a search for a better, more reliable and more durable
focal plane shutter design. (Reminiscent of the Hasselblad "anti-Bronica"
advertising, in which they belittle Bronica's focal plane shutter design,
that old fashioned not-good-enough contraption they then already had
abandoned as not good enough (though secretely trying to build better focal
plane shutters).)



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@tiscali.nl
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Ektars for Hassy - do they really exist?
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2004 

Lassi Hippel„inen wrote:
> Coca-cola Germany had to develop a replacement for Coke, because they
> couldn't get the original dark goo from America. So they made their own
> yellow soup using oranges, and Fanta was born...

More to the point: German made products were sold all over the world even
during WW2. So a neutral country like Sweden would not have had any problems
obtaining German made lenses.
As long as German Zeiss could produce any, of course.

> [...]
> At some point in time Ektars were Tessars. Zeiss had sold a license to
> B&L;, who shipped them to Kodak. The name wasn't part of the deal.

Kodak did have a very fine, "cutting edge" lens design department. I doubt
that they felt the need to use "foreign" designs. Do you have a source for
your "Ektars were licensed Tessars" statement?
And a source showing what other make lenses (Kodak, Bausch & Lomb?) were
used on the "military Hasselblads"?

In fact, the Ektars produced for Hasselblad were Heliar designs, designed by
Kodak's Fred E. Altman.

> ...
> > And as a manufacturer of photographic goods, you do want the
> > things you offer to be affordable to a reasonable amount of customers, don't
> > you? ;-)
>
> We're discussing Hasselbld, aren't we? ;-)

Indeed. That's why the bit you snipped was saying that even "the less
expensive Zeiss lenses were not quite cheap".
;-)



End of Page