500 c/m vs. RB

[Jim Rice]

I understand that at current prices I should just try both, but setting up my darkroom has gone WAY over budget. I further understand that the Zeiss lenses have that little bit of magic stirred in (I have and use a Contax RTS.) I am also aware that the 'blad has operational 'issues' and that the RB is bigger and heavier So.......

If you were starting from scratch, which system would you buy into?

 

[HTF III]

What operational issues? I'd say if you're already over budget and want a good 2 1/4 cheap, buy a Hasselblad EL/ELM

 

[Jeff L]

For what's it worth - I have an RZ and think its a truly great camera and system. I don't use it, or hardly use it because life has changed, and I travel for work. If I had a 500 and the 2 or 3 common lenses I would use it far more. Just my opinion.

 

[Jim Rice]

Lens changing and the occasional locking up. Also having to keep the release pressed during long exposures. I also think that I would not care for an EL in the field.

 

[Jim Rice]

My thoughts for the 500 c/m are 50, 80 and 150. For the RB are 50. 90 and something long.

 

[Jim Rice]

What I REALLY want is a Rolleiflex 2.8 F but, alas, I will never be able to afford it.

 

[HTF III]

A CM can be carried around your neck like a 35, but gets you away from the grain problem pretty well. An RB is closer to a 4x5, but twice the weight of a Crown Graphic. Those things can be real boat anchors. CM's get you away from "should I rotate the back on this shot?" That back rotating question crops up every time you want to take a picture. Phooey on that. But by the time you crop a square C negative, an RB gives you full frame. A sharper, less grainy photo. But a CM can be carried around you neck, or did I say that?

 

[Jim Rice]

What does a 500 c/m weigh (with an 80?) I know the RB, with a 90 is about six pounds.

 

[Jim Rice]

Also, what are your thoughts about relative 'mirror slap?'

 

[HTF III]

I think a Rapid Omega ends the mirror slap situation AND gives you the RB negative.

 

[Jim Rice]

Actually, I used to own a Koni-Omegaflex (the TLR sibling.) I always thought the Hexanons pretty well rocked.

 

[HTF III]

A Rapid Omega is a FINE camera. Good as any camera needs to be.

 

[Jim Rice]

It is my understanding, though, that the 135 (my second favorite) is difficult to obtain.

 

[HTF III]

It is. So one alternative is to just enlarge the negative with the 90. Still gets you the image area of a cropped CM negative to get the same thing.

 

[Jim Rice]

I have often pondered that solution. If I thought I could get the 58 (with finder) and 135 I would probably be a goner, though give me a month or two before offering me one, please.

 

[HTF III]

Well I've owned them all. And when I got burned out on owning cameras and wanting my house back from all that junk, I got rid of all over it and just keep the Hasselblad. Now the house is cluttered with reel to reel tape recorders, and tape recorder repair equipment.

 

[Jim Rice]

I am just a smidge away from making (RA-4) prints.

 

[Alan Gales]

What does a 500 c/m weigh (with an 80?) I know the RB, with a 90 is about six pounds.

I weighed my 500cm on my postage scale for you. It weighs 3 pounds 5 ounces including body, waist level finder, and A12 120 film back.

 

[Jim Rice]

I assume with calibration tapes.

 

[Alan Gales]

I weighed my 500cm on my postage scale for you. It weighs 3 pounds 5 ounces including body, waist level finder, and A12 120 film back.

Oh, I forgot that weight also included an 80mm Planar lens.

 

[Jim Rice]

With the 80?

 

[Jim Rice]

That's pretty light.

 

[Alan Gales]

That's pretty light.[/QUOTE

It sure beats the Mamiya RZ67 that I used to own. I had a 3 lens kit (50mm ULD, 110mm and 180mm). Together it all weighed a ton.

 

[Jim Rice]

Do you find yourself shying from long exposures hand-held?

 

[HTF III]

I assume with calibration tapes.

I have an MRL 200nwb/m tape. It gets me by.