Related Local Links:
Hasselblad Lenses
Hasselblad Related Notes

Related Links:
Hasselblad Mailing List Archives (Dan Cardish)

FEATURES:

• 500 C/M body
• standard focusing screen
• winding knob
• Waistlevel finder
• black Zeiss 80 CT* Planar f2.8
• A12 magazine

Related Postings

From: [email protected] (NYCFoto)
[1] Re: Hasselblad Heresy!
Date: Thu Feb 19

My work is routinely used for billboards, trade show display prints etc. so sharpness does matter to me. In addition the price difference between hasselblad and mamiya is not all that much so in my opinion you have to go with any difference in quality as well as features that are more applicable to your type of work. For me the hasselblad is mostly a location camera and it is far lighter than a comparable mamiya system. in my own tests, and tests done by people that I respect, the hasselblad lenses tend to be on average, superior. However that superiority is offset by the larger negative of the mamiya, so ultimately it all comes down to a personal preference. One thing that I must commend hasselblad for is the fact that they post the MTF curves for all of their lenses so you can tell which lens is a great design or not.

For more information, see Medium Format Camera List Page

Date: Thu Feb 19From: [email protected] (Zane)
[1] Re: Hasselblad Heresy!
Date: Thu Feb 19

commend hasselblad for is the fact that they post the MTF curves for all of their lenses so you can tell which lens is a great design or not.

(snip)

I was waiting in a camera repair place the other day and looked through a nifty Hasselblad book with a set of curves for a lot of their lenses---sort of like the Canon Lens Work Book. The curves were pretty impressive and would be really helpful for picking lenses and knowing the limitations in using each lens.

But, I use a Pentax 67. Do you know if Pentax makes a similar publication?

Zane

rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected] (Ann Hutson)
[1] Re: help with older Hasselbald
Date: Fri Feb 20 1998

The older Hasselblad systems will give you the same image quality as the more ''modern'' systems. My advice to you would be to have the back checked out for light leaks, this can and does occur. If the back or backs you purchase do leak, they can be fixed, and should be checked out once a year or so ( new backs should also be checked once a year, depending on use). As far as lens flare, you should be useing a lens hood everytime you shoot. The newer lens that have the multi coating to ''help'' reduce flare, but it can still happen. If then lens you are purchasing don't have hoods, you can find some for them at a lot of camers shops that deal with used Hasselblad equipment.The Zeiss lens are some of the finest, if not the finest glass you will ever shoot through. It Looks as though you are on your way to shooting with one of the best camera's ever made, Good Luck and as Bret Weston always said when giving a toast '' Here is to Good Negatives''

From: ''PH'' [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 500CM - any good?
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 1998

watch out for the following bugs

1 The mirror is to small so that you get cut off with lenses longer than 80mm

2 There are no interlocks on the back, so you can make multi exposures and shoot with no film

3 The lenses are so stiff as to make focusing difficult

4 watch out for the dreaded shutter collapse

5 The focusing screens are very bright but have no contrast again making focusing difficult

None of the above is sour grapes, I have owned 5 of the damn things

Regards

Paul

Derek Caiden wrote in message ...
I am getting ready to purchase a 500CM kit from a local supplier. All the trade reports look good. Are there any 'bugs' that I should know about before purchasing?

From: [email protected] (Jaybell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Heresy!
Date: 2 Mar 1998

I owned a Hasselblad system for 12 years and found it's limitations regarding my kind of work increasingly irritating. I am a lifestyle and interiors photographer working mainly with agencies on Hotel, Cruise and Resort accounts.

I found the 1 sec max exposures limiting, the square format annoying as I was effectively always shooting 6x4.5, and the range of filter sizes bewildering. Also having to remove the magazine to remove the prism was a pain as I like to put a level on the ground glass from time to time. I traded the whole lot - 3 bodies 6 lenses, 6 magazines, Polaroid backs and endless accessories for a comprehensive RZ outfit 6 years ago (I added a Pro body a year ago) and it was the best thing I ever did. The lenses may or may not be as sharp in lines per millemeter - I neither know or care, they all look tack sharp to me! All my work is screened in magazines anyway - The lenses are however a tad more contrasty, which gives the appearence of more sharpness. The fact that I could have bought a nice used car with the difference in cost was not unappreciated either.

If my profession was camera collecting as opposed to photography and image making, I would have stuck with my 'blads... The only real advantage to theHasselblads was an increased ruggedness and the lack of a battery - neither of these has become an issue for me .

John Bellenis Photography

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998 
From: Charles Petzold 
Reply to: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Manuals (?) or Books

The only two books about Hasselblad currently in print in the US are "The
Hasselblad Manual" by Ernst Wildl (currently in the 4th edition) and "The
Hasselblad System" (a Hove Pro-Guide) by Bob Shell. Wildl is essential
(particularly for information about older models), Shell less essential but
with more details about current accessories.  A book entitled "The
Hasselblad Compendium" is supposed to be coming out this year.

        -- Charles Petzold      

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (DaveHodge)
[1] Re: buying 1st Hassie
Date: Sat Jan 01 2000

differences between 500c, 500cm and 501's?

500C was first model that had Compur (leaf) shutters in each lens. 500C body focusing screen can be changed only by a technician.

500CM is essentially identical to C except screens are use-changeable.

501C and CM had a slightly different mirror to avoid image cut-off with long lenses.

Backs, finders, lenses, etc., etc., are all compatible with all these models.

Earliest lenses were C lenses, with coating on internal surfaces only. CT* lenses are multi-coated and have a slightly blue apperance. According to Wildi and other authorities, the C lenses perform perfectly well if you use a hood. I have 150mm C lens and I have no problems with it.

Hope this helps.

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000
From: "Phil Wynn Photography" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Hasselblad

the difference is basically age, most of the accessories are interchangeable, but watch out! things like extension tubes are different the older ones won't fit the newer camera.

and the focusing screens are different, having said that the backs and lenses are the same,

Oh! the quick fit mount is different between the 500 and the 501s

--
Phil Wynn Photography
http://www.f16.co.uk

Gareth Walters [email protected] wrote

> Hi
> I am considering purchasing a second hand medium format camera.
> What are the differences between the Hasselblad 500c, 500cm and newer 501cm.
> Are the lenses / accessories interchangeable?
> Gareth

Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad 501 quality?

Beanpole wrote:

> I shoot 35mm manual mechanical cameras and a Graflex 4x5 but have yet to
> purchase a medium format.  I like non-electronic, basic, functional cameras
> (odd, as I'm an electronics technician by trade).  The 500 has been around
> and loved by many for many years.  How does the 501 compare?  Is it good
> quality or is it *plastic*, living on the Hassy reputation?

The 501 CM basically is the 'good old' 500 C/M, with a few changes.

Most important of these changes is the fact that the 501 CM has the non-vignetting mirror. A major improvement, yet (as you mention) the 500 C/M, lacking this, has been loved by many for many years. Minor changes include the new style tripod quickmount and camera support ridges. The 501 CM further lacks the shutter release T-lock (as does the 503 CW: you will have to keep the release depressed or use a locking cable release), and the wind crank is no longer detachable (no great loss, since there is (virtually) nothing to take its place). And the camera-ready signal has disappeared (no loss). The 501 CM Kit comes with the CB version of the 80 mm Planar lens. Though this apparently is a good lens, it is not quite as good as the C, CF, CFE version.

But instead of comparing this camera to the old 500 C/M, one should compare it to the 503 CW, or even to the older 503 CX or 503 CXi (which you might find used in good condition and reasonably priced). These cameras offer TTL-flash control, the 501 CM does not. And both the 503 CXi and 503 CW accept the motorwinder CW, the 501 CM (and the 503 CX) does not. However, of these three, only the 503 CW has the the non-vignetting mirror, the 503 CX and CXi do not, so they basically are a 500 C/M with TTL-flash control. An improvement even so.

All these cameras live up to Hasselblad's reputation.

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (Jerry Gardner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Difference between Hasselblad 500CM and 501CM?

Keith said:

>Can someone tell me the difference between the 500CM and the 501CM? I

Here are the ones I know about:

1) The 501CM has the gliding mirror system to prevent light cutoff in the finder when using long lenses.

2) The 501CM has the Acute Matte screen, which is much brighter than the old screens.

3) The 501CM has the new-style bottom plate (tripod mounting plate).

4) The 500CM has a body cocked indicator, which is missing on the 501CM.

5) The 500CM has a removable film crank. The crank on the 501CM is fixed.

--
Jerry Gardner
email: [email protected]

Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Difference between Hasselblad 500CM and 501CM?

Keith wrote:

> Can someone tell me the difference between the 500CM and the 501CM? I
> can save a few hundred clams by going with the older model but would
> like to know
> what features I would be missing out on...

The 501 CM

1) does not have the little indicator window showing whether or not the camera is cocked,

2) has a non-detachable wind crank,

3) has the new style release button, without the B-lock feature (needs a lockable cable release),

4) has the new style tripod coupling plate, and support ridges,

5) has the larger, non-vignetting mirror.

Of these differences, having a better, "Gliding Mirror System" mirror is most important. The 500 C/M had a mirror that showed viewfinder vignetting when using lenses longer than 120 mm, and when using extension (tubes or bellows) in close-up photography. Very annoying, though you do get used to it: it did not stop the 500 C/M from becoming the popular camera it is.

From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: First impressions of MF / 501CM
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002


Yesterday I shot my first two rolls of 120 film in the new MF camera I
got (501CM kit).  I thought I'd list my first impressions (on the format
and camera, not on the film results, since the film hasn't been
developed yet) here.  I've previously shot 35mm exclusively, so this I
know photography, just not MF (until now).

Things I like:

1. Having a large screen to watch image composition is great.  I worried
that it would be hard to see in bright light, but it works fine.  I like
being able to stroll around with the camera and glance down at the
screen to instantly see what sorts of compositions are possible, instead
of having to lift a camera to my eye and peer through a tiny viewfinder
opening.

2. Not having to care about batteries is great.  The 501CM is the only
camera I have that does not require some sort of battery--even my old FG
and the Leica M require a battery for the meter (but the 501CM has no
meter).


3. Being able to shoot without holding the camera to my eye is an
advantage for candid shots.  A lot of people seem to think that I have a
video camera and I'm watching playback on a monitor, instead of actually
looking at the live scene in front of me.

4. Being photographed by a Hasseblad doesn't seem to make people as
apprehensive as being photographed by a Nikon SLR.  It seems that 35mm
SLRs really make people nervous, perhaps because they are the stereotype
"pro" cameras, ostensibly used by paparazzi, Web porn kings, pedophiles,
and so on.  The 'blad is pretty conspicuous, and those who recognize it
really that it is a "pro" camera, but it seems that they assume that
anyone using this camera is more bent on art than intrusion, or
something.  Just a first impression, though, so we'll see as time
passes.


5. The camera is surprisingly light for the large format.  My Nikon SLR
is significantly heavier.

6. I consider 12 shots per roll to be an advantage, from a practical use
standpoint, because I'm more likely to divide shots into groups of a
dozen or less than I am to shoot 36 shots at a time in 135.  I only have
one back, so I haven't tried the convenience of multiple backs, but even
with one back it works out nice.  I can use several different types of
film in one day without wasting a lot of shots.

7. Despite the fact that it is just a box, the 501CM is easy to hold.
Not as ergonomic as my 35mm SLR, but about the same as my 35mm
rangefinder.

8. The size of the viewfinder makes composition very comfortable and
easy.  Since I don't have to put my eye against anything, I can compose
with sunglasses, too.


9. Even when focusing without the magnifying loupe, I can get pretty
close to correct focus by just watching the screen, for scenes that
include details that favor focusing.

10. The square image format invites compositions that are not suited to
rectangular formats, which is good for getting me to think.  I didn't
see any fewer opportunities with the square format than I would have
seen with a rectangular format.

11. I'm able to put more in an image without worrying as much about
small details being blurred and lost within film grain and the like.

12. Having an easy way to lock up the mirror (with the prerelease thing)
is very nice for tripod work (I shot about half of my first two rolls on
a tripod, and the rest handheld).


13. The standard 80mm in the kit is comfortably generic in its utility.
It _looks_ wider than a 50mm on a 35mm camera, even though careful
measurement of the frame reveals that it has actually about the same
coverage.

14. Being able to hold and shoot the camera without constantly raising
it and lowering it is nice.

Things I don't like:

1. The camera makes a lot of noise when it fires, unless you prerelease
the mirror.  I guess this is inevitable with MF, of course.

2. The lens cap is really slippery and hard to lock in place--a problem
for me because I like to replace the lens cap whenever I'm not actually
shooting.



3. Loading the camera (or rather the back) with film is awkward.  The
record may be 14 seconds, but it took me several minutes.  It wasn't as
complicated as I had thought, however.

4. There seems to be a lot of tiny black flecks of paint dropping onto
the viewing screen.  I just blow them out of the way with some canned
air, but it's annoying.  This isn't the only camera I've had that does
this while new, however.  I guess the paint has to work itself away from
hinges and other flexing parts before it stops flaking.

5. The microprisms and rangefinder prism in the viewing screen don't
seem to be installed very precisely in the screen; that is, the seams
between them and the rest of the screen are not super regular.  Doesn't
affect the use of the screen, but it is surprising in something that is
so expensive.


6. The need to use a separate meter makes fast shooting impossible;
however, I never intended to use MF for fast shooting, anyway, so this
isn't a big deal.

7. The chrome trim attracts more attention than I'd like.  (I found out
after buying this camera that a truly all-black version really does
exist, but it's a bit late for that now.)

8. The straps tend to rotate and get stuck in odd positions, so I have
to keep "fixing" them so that they don't twist around and around.

9. The lack of a truly custom-fitted plate for the 501CM that can made
with the B1 ballhead I got is kind of annoying.

10. Not having any way to mechanically protect exposed film (I've looked
for cans to protect 120, or something similar, without success) is a bit
worrisome.  The same is true for rolls of unexposed film.  I worry about
dust getting to them, too.


Overall impression:

Very positive.  It is an enjoyable way to take pictures, although speed
is definitely out of the question with this camera, and you have to
accept that some pictures you just cannot get in consequence.  This is
compensated by the better ergonomy for composing complex images that
will withstand great enlargement.  It is simultaneously awkward and
relaxing.  The combination of awkwardness in setting up a shot
(metering, focusing), plus the small number of exposures per roll and
the high cost of processing, plus the knowledge that careless shooting
may waste a lot of the quality advantage of the MF format, inspires one
to do things more slowly and carefully.

I haven't had the film developed yet, so I don't know how well I did on
exposure and focus.  I used a small incident meter for all the shots,
metering generally close to the subject, or in the same light (it was
overcast all day yesterday, unfortunately, so the circumstances were
easier than I would have liked).  I tried focusing both with and without
the magnifying loupe.  I also tried both high and low shutter speeds, to
see just how much of a problem camera shake might be.  I shot on a
tripod with prerelease and a cable release, for maximum stability, and
also handheld without prerelease, to see how it performs just in the
hand, like a 35mm camera.  I'll know the results when I get the film
back.



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First impressions of MF / 501CM
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002


Mxsmanic wrote:

> > It's a thing inherent with camera that have
> > "open" viewing screens. If not paint from inside
> > the hood, than a lot of dust an debris from
> > outside will be landing on the viewing screen
> > all the time.
>
> I assume that just blowing the dust and stuff out from time to time is
> sufficient?

Yes.

> > There always is the Hasselblad tripod
> > coupling-S. You can't get more "custom-fitted"
> > than that.
>
> How exactly does it work?  I'd like something that I can mount more or
> less permanently to the camera, and that has rails compatible with the
> rapid mount on the B1 ballhead I got.  It doesn't actually have to be
> quick release or anything--untightening the release for the plate on the
> ballhead is already fast enough.

The camera already has the part needed to fit the tripod quick coupling. The
quick coupling is screwed onto the tripod head, and can stay there for ever,
unless you want to use another camera not equiped with the same coupling
plate on it, of course (However, the design of the quick coupling has
changed a couple of years ago, and Hasselblad sell adapter plates to fit
older cameras into the new style quick coupling, and these adapter plates
can be used to adapt non-Hasselblad cameras).

You slide the camera into the coupling, and a spring loaded catch wil snap,
immediately preventing it from sliding back out again. Next, a lever is
thrown to lock the camera firmly into place. Rock solid!


There are quite a few heads having the counter part for the Hasselblad's
camera quick coupling plate as a permanent feature as well (the Arca Swiss
B1 too can be bought with a quick coupling directly fitting the Hasselblad
cameras. How about the mount on the B1 you have?). They work more or less
the same.

Conversely, if the head already has a quick coupling that is not compatible
with Hasselblad's own, you will have to attach another adapter to the
camera. It will then have two.

By the way, these contraptions being called "quick" couplings (or "rapid"
mount) doesn't mean they are only good when you're in a hurry ;-) The name
only signifies that you don't have to use a screw to attach and release the
camera (which does speed up the process, but hey!... ;-))

> I'll report on results.  I don't have a way to scan them, so I don't
> know if I'll be able to put results on the Web.  It won't be anything
> artistic, of course, just test shots trying different shooting
> situations.

Scans need to be scaled down to make viewing on the web possible anyway,
reducing them to nothing even approaching the original image's full quality.



From: [email protected] (John Stafford)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid 501CM questions
Date: 17 Mar 2002 


"Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected] wrote 
> That, by the way, is a thing you really must buy, a lens hood!

And the old square hoods are a huge rip-off. (He says smugly, having
them all already.) BUT you might be better served to get the adapter
so that you can use 67mm/Series VIII shades and filters.  You can use
the old Kodak and Vivitar and Universal shades which are just as good
and cost maybe $12 each. (I have even cut one down to use on a SWC).



From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002 
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What is the diff between the 503 CX and CW?

Gary Gallaher wrote:

> Could someone tell me what the difference is between the 503 models? There
> is a 503 CW (modern), a 503 CX and maybe a 503 CXi? Is this correct?
>
> Is the CX -> CW what the 501C -> 501CM? No gliding mirror system? No
> interchangeable focusing screen? What are the major differences between
> the 503 models?


The 503 CX was the successor of the 500 C/M. It differs from the 500 C/M in
that it has a TTL-flash sensor.

The 503 CXi is only slightly different from the 503 CX, in that it takes
format masks in between the body and film magazine.
Later (when the 503 CW was introduced) it became clear that another major
difference was that it too can take the winder CW that came as an accessory
to the 503 CW. (Must be because they originally intended the winder as an
accessory to the 503 CXi?)

The 503 CW model is the latest in the line. It has all the features of the
503 CXi, plus the Gliding Mirror System (only one of the three 503 models
with the GMS).

All of the models you mention have interchangeable focussing screens.
Only the 503 CW and 501 CM have the GMS.


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblads
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002


Brian Aderer wrote:

> What is the difference between the 500c and a newer model like the
> 501cm?

The 500 series started with the introduction of the 500 C in 1957. It is a
full mechanical camera.

The 500 C was replaced by the 500 C/M in 1970, the difference being the
interchangeable focussing screen in the new C/M(odified) version. It is
fixed in the 500 C, but can be replaced by a service center.
The change to the C/M designation happened a little while after they started
making the new 500 cameras, so some 500 C/M are still labeled 500 C.
Later minor changes to the 500 C/M that did not result in a new product
designation included the deletion of the PC flash synch socket on the body
in 1973, and the cable hook hole next to it disappearing in 1982, co�nciding
with the introduction of CF lenses.

In 1989 the 500 C/M was upgraded and became known as the 503 CX. Major
change was the introduction of TTL-flash metering electronics in the camera.

In 1994 the CX model was changed again and was now called 503 XCi. There
were only minor changes, or so we thought at the time. Later it became clear
that one major change was made too: the 503 CXi will accept the Winder CW,
introduced in 1996.


Although superseded by the 503 CX, the 500 C/M was still available, renamed
in 1990 "Classic".

The Classic (which was an unchanged 500 C/M) was replaced by the 501 C in
1994. Changes made included the rewind crank, that was exchangeable on the
500 C and later models, but fixed on the 501 C), and the omission of the
body cocked signal.

In 1996 the 503 CW was introduced, replacing the 503 CXi. It offered the
ability to attach the new winder CW, plus it has a better, i.e. larger and
thus non-vignetting, mirror.

In 1997 the 501 C was upgraded to include the better mirror arrangement used
in the 503 CW, and was renamed 501 CM.



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: difference between Hasselblad 500c & 500c/m question.
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2002


ephman wrote:

> i've tried to find some information on the differences between the
> Hasselblad 500c and the 500c/m, but to no avail.  i'm trying to make a
> decision on which one to buy.  any help would be greatly appreciated.

User changeable focussing screens. That's the big difference between the 500
C and C/M. The focussing screen in a 500 C can only be changed by dis- and
reassembling the thing, plus (most important) realignment afterwards. In
fact, before the 500 C/M was introduced, there even weren't alternative
screens available, so you had to have one made up to meassure as well.
The screen in a 500 C/M is a drop in thing.

There were about 15,000 bodies produced that already incorporated the change
to user changeable screens, but were still labeled 500 C. So there is a
chance of finding one of these 'transitional' 500 C bodies, that really are
500 C/M. Should you find one of these, the only difference between it and a
500 C/M is the name tag.

Another difference is age, of course. The last 500 C was made in 1970. The
last 500 C/M in 1994. So there could be a 24 years age difference between a
500 C and 500 C/M, 24 years of wear and tear...



[Ed. note: great tips from a noted Hasselblad repair tech and author of 
DIY Back Repair Manuals..]
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1692

> > The reason this has to be done by a tecnician is that there are shims under
> > each corner of the screen,

Wrong. There are no corner shims :)

and they have to be aligned by someone who has the
> > correct gages.

Wrong. If you have ever seen a screen for the C that is new, you would
see included instructions for doing it yourself. :)

If you tried to do it yourself you might get it right by
> > accident, but you would probably have no way of checking the alignment if it
> > were wrong.

This is a very simple job :)  Remove the old screen and put in the new.
Run the 4 screws down until they are snug. With your lens set at
infinity, put a lupe on the screen (any corner), and run the screw
either up, or down, until you have a sharp focus. Do this on each of the
4 corners. When done, do it again. YOU ARE FINISHED AND HAVE SAVED
YOURSELF SOME MONEY! :)

Dick

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1692

...


Dick,

Just be sure not to tighten the screws TOO much, as you will snap the corner
of the screen off.  I find MANY of these cameras with the corners of the
screens snapped off...and it stinks, because the screens for the earlier
cameras (1000 and 1600) are VERY hard to fine.

A word of caution...

Austin


End of Page

Broken Links:

Determining the Age of Hasselblad pages were at:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/support/tech1.htm


Hasselblad Camera Features Chart pages were at:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/support/tech3.htm


Which Lenses Fit which Hasselblad? pages were at:

http://www.hasselbladusa.com/support/tech2.htm