$300 and the medium format "itch"

max_ebb said:

Really? What lens do you have on your 4x5? My 4x5 negs blow away any MF camera that I've ever used when enlarged to a fairly large size (like 20x24).

Hasselblads are clunky and cumbersome?

Rolleiflex images hold their own against 4x5?

Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

Click to expand...

Really. I have a number of lenses, including a Sironar and a Commercial Ektar, as well as a raft of older glass. you say your 4x5s "blow away" "any MF camera that [you've] ever used." Have you used a good Rolleiflex?

Hasselblads are clunky and cumbersome. (1) Their mirrors slap loudly and with vibration. (2) Their shutters jam. (They even sell an unjamming tool for that.) (3) Their film holders leak light and develop spacing issues, requiring service at regular intervals. (4) They are awkward to shoot handheld because of their shape and balance. (5) The viewscreen goes dark the moment you take the picture, leaving you blind for a followup shot.

If you really need the whole family of lens lengths, then maybe -- maybe -- a Hasselblad is worth the hassle. Otherwise, the Rolleiflex is by far the superior camera. Do this: Compile a list of great photographers of the past century who used a Rolleiflex. Then compile another list of those who used a Hasselblad. Compare them. What do you find?

Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.

Sanders

Sanders McNew said:

...to clunky cumbersome beasts like the Hasselblads.

Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

Sanders

Click to expand...

Have you ever handled a Hasselblad? Did you know that Victor Hasselblad had small hands and purposely designed it so that it was not clunky?[See Hasselblad website under History]

If you want to talk about clunky how about starting the the Mamiyaflex C through C-330 and then taking on all the view cameras?

Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

Steve

Stever said:

Have you ever handled a Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Sure have. Shot one for a couple of years and then sold it. The short lens on a conventional Rolleiflex was too short for what I do. My first attempt at a fix was to buy a Hasselblad and a 120mm macro-Planar. It gave me the focal length I needed, but I hated the way the camera handled. My 3 film backs had to be rebuilt, one twice, and I never got consistent fram spacing with them. I twice jammed the shutter. I desperately wanted to like the camera. But it felt like a brick in my hands, Victor Hasselblad's good efforts notwithstanding.

So I gave up on roll film and went to a view camera. Which, of course, presents its own awkwardness, but also its own rewards. And I shot the view camera pretty much exclusively for 3-4 years. But I always yearned for the simplicity of the Rolleiflex.

Last December I finally shelled out for a Tele Rolleiflex. I should've done that years ago. It gives me the focal length I need, with the form factor that works best for me.

So, yes, I do speak from extensive experience with the cameras.

EDIT: FWIW, I intended the "Sheesh" remark to respond to the notion that a Rolleiflex was a budget camera for MF work, for those who couldn't afford Hasselblads.

Sanders.

Sanders McNew said:

If you really need the whole family of lens lengths, then maybe -- maybe -- a Hasselblad is worth the hassle. Otherwise, the Rolleiflex is by far the superior camera.

Click to expand...

Rolleiflex is by far superior to Hasselblad? LOL, you are one funny dude. You have every right to your opinion, but I already said that I will just agree to disagree, so peddle your tripe to someone else, I'm not buying it.

TLR's might not have started out as 'budget' MF cameras, but that's what they became once MF SLR's hit the market.

Sanders McNew said:

Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.

Click to expand...

So you're saying that anybody who shoots anything but a Rollei is NOT an artists, or just the Hasselblad shooters who are not artists? So I guess that Ansel Adams did all his art on a Rolleiflex, and lied about using large format?

max_ebb said:

TLR's might not have started out as 'budget' MF cameras, but that's what they became once MF SLR's hit the market.

Click to expand...

Hasselblads "hit the market" in the early 1950s but -- whaddayaknow?! -- Avedon and Penn and Arbus and Doisneau and Ronis and Capa and many others all kept on shooting their Rolleiflexes!

And Rolleiflexes were wildly expensive. That's why they made Rolleicords -- so normal human beings could afford them. Eudora Welty, the writer, was also an avid photographer. Ms. Welty shot a Rolleicord -- she couldn't afford a Rolleiflex. One day she lost it in a train station, and that was the end of her photography. Today, a new Rolleiflex will cost you four thousand dollars or more, depending on the model.

Only a child of the eBay era could imagine a Rolleiflex as a budget camera.

max_ebb said:

So you're saying that anybody who shoots anything but a Rollei is NOT an artists, or just the Hasselblad shooters who are not artists? So I guess that Ansel Adams did all his art on a Rolleiflex, and lied about using large format?

Click to expand...

I confined my remarks to Hasselblads, didn't I? Fight fair, if you're going to fight at all. I made you a challenge: Draw up a list of great 20th-century photographers who shot a Hasselblad and compare it to a similar list of Rolleiflex users. You didn't do that. Nor did you tell us whether you've ever shot a Rolleiflex and, if so, whether you made more than passing acquaintance with it.

Of course different people have different hands, different eyes, different needs. No one camera is right for everyone. But your remarks about Rolleiflexes betray a fundamental ignorance of the subject.

Sanders

Stever said:

Have you ever handled a Hasselblad? Did you know that Victor Hasselblad had small hands and purposely designed it so that it was not clunky?[See Hasselblad website under History]

If you want to talk about clunky how about starting the the Mamiyaflex C through C-330 and then taking on all the view cameras?

Sheesh, where do people come up with these ideas?

Steve

Click to expand...

Mamiya TLRs aren't clunky! ...Although my hands *are* big. :rolleyes:

The Rolleis were the workhorses of small format professional cameras practically from their inception in 1929. Many editors, however, refused to use small camera negatives and insisted on 4x5.

Miniature cameras (that is 35mm Leica, Contax) were cameras for amateurs with big incomes. No down and dirty professional photographer would even consider shooting a minicam professionally until the late 1950s. "Photojournalists" the glamour boys and girls on the cutting edge being the exceptions which test this rule--even so, folks like Bourke-White, Haas, others relied on Rolleis when they needed a small camera rather than a 4x5.

The Nikon F (1957?)and Tri-X (1954) began to wear away the professional prejudice in favor of the image quality of the large negative for professional, especially news photography. As late as the early 1960s, many editors insisted a 35mm slide be duped up to a 4x5 transparency before they would look at it.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Sent you a PM. My internet access is very spotty right now, so I'm not able to respond as quickly to the forum as I might have in the past.

I appreciate the many kind remarks!

-Will

Wolfeye said:

Could you tell me more? What sort of cosmetic, mechanical condition is it in? Photos from/of it? Note, I'm replying in the forum and hope you'll reply here too, so that others may consider it too. Just let me have first dibs.

Click to expand...

Sanders McNew said:

I confined my remarks to Hasselblads, didn't I? Fight fair, if you're going to fight at all. I made you a challenge: Draw up a list of great 20th-century photographers who shot a Hasselblad and compare it to a similar list of Rolleiflex users. You didn't do that. Nor did you tell us whether you've ever shot a Rolleiflex and, if so, whether you made more than passing acquaintance with it.

Of course different people have different hands, different eyes, different needs. No one camera is right for everyone. But your remarks about Rolleiflexes betray a fundamental ignorance of the subject.

Sanders

Click to expand...

My original point was about TLR's in general and MF SLR's in general, not about Rollei vs Hassy. I only brought up Hassies because I thought they were around before TLR's.

When you made the statement "Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.", it looks like you are saying that anybody who doesn't shoot Rolleiflex is NOT an artist.

TLR's in general ARE budget cameras compared to MF SLR's in general, and it's been that way for a long time. To deny that is portraying a "fundamental ignorance of the subject". A Rolleiflex is the upper end of TLR's, but it's still a TLR. It's an expensive TLR, but it's not as expensive as most MF SLR gear. Even Rollei MF SLR gear is substantially more expensive than Rolleiflexes (current used prices).

As far as composing a list of 20th century photographers, I'll pass. I owned and operated a custom color lab for a few years and most of my customers were pro photographers. I've also known a lot of other pro photographers (when I say pro, I mean people who make their living from it). I've known pro photographers who shot almost every brand of MF SLR outfits, but I've never met a pro photographer who shot a TLR (not saying that they don't exist somewhere).

max_ebb said:

When you made the statement "Wedding photographers shoot Hasselblads. Artists shoot Rolleiflexes.", it looks like you are saying that anybody who doesn't shoot Rolleiflex is NOT an artist.

Click to expand...

An equally absurd conclusion would be that wedding photographers shoot only Hasselblads. But neither follows logically from the statement, read in its context.

max_ebb said:

TLR's in general ARE budget cameras compared to MF SLR's in general, and it's been that way for a long time.

Click to expand...

A Rolleiflex TLR will set you back $4,000 today at B+H. And it has always been priced at levels considered unaffordable to most. As I said, it is a "budget" camera only in the context of current eBay prices. But by that standard, Hasselblads are also budget cameras. C'mon: You really think Dick Avedon was shooting fashion spreads for Vogue with a Rolleiflex to scrimp on equipment?

max_ebb said:

As far as composing a list of 20th century photographers, I'll pass. I owned and operated a custom color lab for a few years and most of my customers were pro photographers. I've also known a lot of other pro photographers (when I say pro, I mean people who make their living from it). I've known pro photographers who shot almost every brand of MF SLR outfits, but I've never met a pro photographer who shot a TLR (not saying that they don't exist somewhere).

Click to expand...

Well of course you'll pass. I bet you can't even name ten photographers of any consequence in the 20th century who used a Hasselblad with any regularity. In fact, I bet you can't name five.

The remainder of your remarks simply underscores my earlier observation. Hasselblads were cameras of choice for wedding photographers (as you say, "people who make their living from it") because they had to shoot in wildly different conditions, and the interchangeable backs allowed film changes in midroll. A perfectly good reason to opt for a Hasselblad. But the observation begs the question:

Why did so many of the leading photographers of the 20th century opt for a Rolleiflex over a Hasselblad? And how do you reconcile that preference with your own view that a Rolleiflex is just a budget camera that no one would shoot, if they could only afford a Hasselblad?

Sanders

Gotta say this is one pretty absurd thread.
Feel like someone's twisting your tail McNew?
I don't feel the need to make a list of Artists just to further an argument that has no real meaning to anyone but a true blue Rollei user. Unless it's a true blue Hasselblad user who feels their masculinity being threatened.
"Can't we all just get along"

One of those days, John.

The really good thing about the TLR is that, when shooting people, you get to see what kind of expression they have. There is no mirror black out. Plus, they are quieter. For the kind of work Sanders does, this is a tremendous advantage.

When I was in the retail camera business, I had opportunity to use and/or buy many MF. Every Mamiya 645 I handled broke. The old Bronicas were constantly going to the shop. The Mamiya C3 and C330 gave me lots of flexibility and were quiet, but a brass gear in the wind just would not hold up.
My Rolleis were like the Everready Rabbit.
Trying to decide whether I like the feel of the Blad for my own use, I bought a Kiev 80. I think I could live with a "Blad very nicely. But then what do I do with my trusty old Pentaxs 6x7? Oh, btw, because of the flash synch problems with a focal plane shutter, I bought it with a leaf shutter lens.
Reminds me: a couple years ago, at a relative's wedding, I was chatting with one of the photogs. She was shooting a strobed Mamiya 645 . During a break, I asked her what film she was using (you know this was some time ago--film....). She was using a 400 speed color of some sort. I noticed her shutter speed (actually, the camera's shutter speed) at 1/30. I told her I thought her shutter speed was too slow. She very snottily informed me that was a leaf shutter and would synch at any speed. Because I do not suffer young fools at all, I merely walked away. Later, her group shots outdoors had ghost images of the heads of virtually every person who waited for the flash, then relaxed. When my sis in law asked me why those outdoor groups looked funny, I told her. I know that job cost the photographer a lot of freebies and discounts because of that young know it all.
Oh, well. At any rate, I said it before and shall repeat. The biggest bang for the MF buck is a clean late model Rolleicord with a Xenar lens. With art, sometimes it is best to simplify, simplify.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Sanders;

It looks like you are just trying to turn this into a pissing contest about Hassy vs Rollei. I already explained that I was talking about TLR's in general, and only mentioned Hassies because I thought they were around before TLR's. I was wrong, my question was answered. The statement that "The TLR was the professional medium format tool of its day" was absolutely correct.

That was 50+ years ago though. By the 60's or 70's, SLR started becoming the choice of professionals for medium format. At least since the early 80's (long before ebay) TLR's have been a lower cost alternative way to shoot MF compared to SLR's. Rolleiflexes are top of the line TLR's, but on the used market, they're quite a bit cheaper than most MF SLR gear (body with finder, back, and one lens). It's been that way since long before ebay, and the difference was even greater back then. Rolleiflexes have almost a cult like following, so used prices on them haven't dropped as much as they have on most other MF gear.

To say that "Rolleiflex is by far the superior camera" when comparing to a quality MF SLR outfit (not just hasselblad) is ridiculous.

Sanders McNew said:

Why did so many of the leading photographers of the 20th century opt for a Rolleiflex over a Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

I don't know that that many did beyond the 70's. I don't know about hassies in general, but most of "the leading photographers of the 20th century" that did a significant amount of MF were using MF SLR's by the 80's.

Sanders McNew said:

And how do you reconcile that preference with your own view that a Rolleiflex is just a budget camera that no one would shoot, if they could only afford a Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything like that. I'm going to bow out of this thread now.

Anscojohn said:

Oh, well. At any rate, I said it before and shall repeat. The biggest bang for the MF buck is a clean late model Rolleicord with a Xenar lens. With art, sometimes it is best to simplify, simplify.

Anscojohn, Mount Vernon, Virginia USA

Click to expand...

If it suits the needs of the person looking, then that's probably true, but it can't be the most bang for the buck if it can't do certain things that the person needs.

Can it do 1:1 (or more) macro? Does it have interchangeable lenses? Is there a wide angle lens available for it? Everybody's needs are different.

I have a Pentax 6x7 too. I bought a leaf shutter lens more for being able to do multiple exposures than for high shutter speed flash sync (although the high speed flash sync might come in handy some day). Different people have different requirements.

No doubt in the '40s, '50s and even possibly '60s most professional photographers shot MF on a Rollei. After that they nearly all used a Hasselblad. Certainly all the guys I knew used Hasselblad when they shot MF – as did I. There really was no choice.

Later the big Mamiyas began to muscle in on the scene. Then came dig****....

But all this is rather a long way from the original topic which was about MF on a very tight budget.



Richard

Wolfeye said:

Would I be better off trying to find a Mamiya or Bronica 645 with 80mm lens and a film back?

Click to expand...

You've answered your own question...