500 c/m vs. RB

[Nuff]

I went with 501c and I've considered RB/RZ.

Since I travel with my kit, the hassy made a lot more sense due to weight. With 80mm back it weights 1.4kg. Add 150mm lenses and also my 35mm kit + lots of film to last 2 weeks while overseas it starts to get pretty heavy.

Also it's very easy to hold it with my left hand and access all of the controls with my right hand.

I would say if you planning to take your gear out a lot, go with hassy due to weight.

 

[agfarapid]

I have an RB Pro s with 180, 90 and 50mm lenses. I also have a 500c (with a recently jammed shutter) with the 80 Planar. The Hassey is smaller, lighter with older technology. The RB has a much gentler and smoother shutter release, more precise (for me) rack and pinion focusing and a larger negative size. Optically, in real use, the lenses are about equal although I'll give the nod to the Mamiya for sharpness and contrast. One of the nice things about the Mamiya is that you need not keep your finger depressed on the shutter for the longer shutter speeds as in the Hasselblad. True, the Mamiya is a boat anchor but you kinda get used to it. Also, close-ups are a breeze for the RB due to the bellows. Really, it all depends on your shooting style and needs. Regarding mirror slap, the Mamiya feels smoother than the Hassey (although this is very subjective).

 

[John Koehrer]

The principal reason I'd want a Blad is for the leaf shutter lenses, and absence of shutter curtain slap (it does create a small double image even with mirror lock up on exposures of several seconds.) .

I read the sentence as referring to the Hasselblad.
Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Shootar401]

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?

There is nothing special or magic about Zeiss lenses. It's just a brand name, much like Nikkor. If I had a choice and money wasn't an option I would stay with the RB/RZ series without a doubt

 

[Alan Gales]

There is nothing special or magic about Zeiss lenses. It's just a brand name, much like Nikkor. If I had a choice and money wasn't an option I would stay with the RB/RZ series without a doubt

Blasphemy!


I think it's funny how some photographers get so caught up with certain brands when shooting 35mm, medium format or digital. They think that whatever they use is the absolute best.

Most large format photographers own lenses of various brands.

 

[Roger Cole]

The P67 has a focal plane curtain shutter. It's big enough that its mass vibrates the tripod mounted camera enough to register a visible double image on an exposure of multiple (I don't remember exactly, but a bracketed series of up to 45" I think) seconds. I photographed the 59th Street bridge and some roof top views of 57th Street a few years ago at night, and that's what happened. The prints from that session are nice, but I can't go beyond 11x14 nominal without seeing the doubled point source lights on the bridge. I don't believe a leaf shutter would have allowed that.

Assuming this really is a problem, for long exposures use the "hat trick." Hold a card (or hat, thus the name) over the lens while you open the shutter with a release in the other hand. Then let vibrations settle and move the card or hat away from the lens and time the exposure with your watch. Then cover the lens again at the end and then close the shutter. It's harder to describe than to do, plenty accurate for exposures of a few seconds or longer, and cures the problem.

 

[Roger Cole]

Between these two it seems very simple to me. If you want to shoot always off a tripod, get the RB. If you want to carry it around on a neck strap and shoot handheld, even occasionally, get the Hasselblad.

Of course there are other options in both formats. The Fuji and Mamiya rangefinders are much much more easily hand held in 6x7 as, for that matter, is the Pentax. There are other 6x6 cameras and then 645 if you always crop. I have a 6x6 TLR and sometimes I crop those negs to rectangles and sometimes I leave them square.

I also have a pretty large Mamiya 645 Pro kit and the comment above about it adding up is spot on. With the camera, several backs, AE prism, three lenses etc. it weighs more than my 4x5 Tech III kit complete with three lenses and holders. (My 8 lb. tripod I always take with the 4x5 and not always with the Mamiya more than makes up for that though.) Of course I don't have to take the whole kit. I can just walk around with the camera, one back and one lens and have fun taking pictures. Then again for that kind of shooting I enjoy the TLR even more. Sometimes there are too many choices!

 

[Alan Gales]

Between these two it seems very simple to me. If you want to shoot always off a tripod, get the RB. If you want to carry it around on a neck strap and shoot handheld, even occasionally, get the Hasselblad.

The OP describes himself as an 8x10 Shooter. I figure shooting the lightweight Hasselblad handheld would be a welcomed change every once in a while. I know it is for me.

 

[Jim Rice]

I am leaning toward the 'blad though the RB prices sure are attractive. Thanks everyone.

 

[JamesR]

i have both, 500C/M (50 and 80mm lenses) and an RB67 ( 50,65,90,180 & 250mm lenses) both have their place in my collection.

the Hassy is light enough to carry around and isnt too big, i mainly use the RB67 for landscapes, do shoot it handheld a lot though, mirror slap isnt a huge issue, with the 50mm, i shot it at 1/15th once with no blur. and 6x7 is nice.

 

[ac12]

I went with the Hasselblad, simply because the price of used ones were down where I could finally afford it. I got a 500c/m + A12 back + 80CF for less than I paid for my Nikon D70. And I would do it again.

That said, I had looked long and hard at the RB/RZ-67. I liked the larger negative and the rotating back. But it was heavier, and I needed to get my Hasselblad first. For me the Hasselblad is "good enough" for what I want. If I want a larger negative than 6x6, I would skip 6x7 and go to a 6x9 in MF or 4x5 in LF.

As for the square vs. rectangle format. For me that is a non-issue. The 6x6 negative is large enough to crop w/o noticable (to me) degradation in the image quality. Then any MF would have that effect, since I came up from 35mm, with its even smaller negative.

 

[amsp]

I have both a 501cm and an rz67, love them both to death. But, if you can only afford one and you want versatility the choice is easy, go with the Hasselblad.

 

[gone]

Try one of the "budget" Rolleicords Jim w/ a Triotar lens. If you like sharper, try a somewhat more expensive one w/ a Xenar. $150 tops should get the latter, less for the former. They're light and very well made. My experience w/ 'blads is that they are nice studio cameras, relatively big and heavy, quirky, and not nearly as portable and fast to use as a 'cord. Bit noisy too, but wait till you try one of the old Bronicas w/ the Nikkor lenses. Ka Pow! If you must have interchangeable lenses, then this wouldn't work of course.The TLR's shutter are essentially noiseless. My Triotar is just fantastic for portraits, as it has a real sharp center and very nice bokeh. I had no idea the Rolleicords were so welll made and took such fine photos. Much simpler cameras than the Rolleiflex models. Heck, try an Autocord for small money too. Bigger and heavier than the "cord, but what a lens!

 

[Roger Cole]

TLRs are great but I assume Jim is interested in interchangeable lenses, and maybe backs as well. Of course there are the Mamiya interchangeable lens TLRs but they're quite a bit larger and heavier than the fixed lens TLRs, and still don't have interchangeable backs.

 

[Jim Rice]

I am currently using a Mat-124G which I enjoy. Pretty small and self-contained, which I like, and very quiet. The thing that has me asking are the insanely low used prices for the RB (they must have made a gazillion of them.) From past experience I know that I like the 6x7 format very much. OTOH from my 35mm work I simply ADORE the color rendition from Zeiss glass. It seems to me of late that one pays a premium for C-series Mamiyas as well as the Universal and Graflex-XL.

 

[schewct]

I would personally prefer the 500 c/m. Nothing beats the blad. Enough said.

 

[jglass]

I don't want to hijack this thread, but my issue is close to being on topic in a way. I have a Mamiya 7 rangefinder, a 6x7 format, and a Hasselblad for more flexibility (close focusing particularly). The RZ/RB's are just too dam big.

I LOVE the 6x7 ratio and want to mark the Hass focusing screen for that ratio to crop at the time of composition. Any suggestions on exactly how to do that? I've had a hard time finding methods that seemed practical. Seems like there should be an easy solution, but have not found it. Any suggestions from you experts?

 

[bdial]

If you use a screen with the grid on it, the first lines from the top and bottom or left and right show you the 645 image area. See parts 3042217 or 3042260 on this page; Dead Link Removed

I've heard of people drawing lines on the mat side with a sharp pencil, but I prefer the grid screens anyway, so for me, that's the easy solution.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Hasslblad is a great camera, but I love my RB67.

Jeff

 

[PtJudeRI]

I have been shooting my RB67 for the better part of 5 years now. I too love the 6x7 and never had an attachment to square format. Although heavy, I think the RB glass is great (I have the 50, 90 and 180)and the camera itself is very well built. I do cringe when I have to lug that and the prism finder around though, that sucker is pushing 7 lbs or so at that point.

 

[erikg]

I would personally prefer the 500 c/m. Nothing beats the blad. Enough said.

Enough said? I think this thread proves otherwise. I'd pass on the RB, go for an RZ, unless I want to forgo the tripod, then I would go with a 501. A fuji rangefinder is even better in that regard. It all comes down to personal preference.

 

[Tony-S]

I LOVE the 6x7 ratio and want to mark the Hass focusing screen for that ratio to crop at the time of composition. Any suggestions on exactly how to do that? I've had a hard time finding methods that seemed practical. Seems like there should be an easy solution, but have not found it. Any suggestions from you experts?

The 6x6 format is evolutionary baggage from the beginning of the TLR days when it was typically cropped to 6x4.5. Not that it can't be compositionally useful, but the 6x7 format is more flexible.

 

[Roger Cole]

The 6x6 format is evolutionary baggage from the beginning of the TLR days when it was typically cropped to 6x4.5. Not that it can't be compositionally useful, but the 6x7 format is more flexible.

And requires a lot bigger camera.

There's something to be said for square. It's big enough, especially with today's films, to crop at will to a rectangle without having to rotate the camera or the back, essential for TLRs and handy for MF SLRs with waist level finders. The trade off is wasting a bit of film compared to a 645 camera. Of course I have some images I composed and shot square and like that way, but you can just as easily crop the 6x7 back to 6x6 when you want square.

I have both 6x6 and 6x4.5 cameras (TLR and SLR respectively.) I will happily use either handheld. Having handled an RB, while you CAN shoot some with it handheld, it's just not a practical walking around camera. If you want that in 6x7 get a Pentax or a Mamiya 7 (and be prepared to pay for the latter.) Or possibly one of the Fuji RFs if interchangeable lenses are not a must. The Pentax is more workable handheld than the RB but you give up interchangeable backs and the rotating back, and it's still bigger and heavier than the Hassleblad.

I come right back to what I said before - if one is ONLY going to use it on a tripod, get the RB. If it's going to be used handheld, even occasionally and especially while moving from place to place like walking down the street or around at an event, get the Hassleblad (or something else, but not an RB.)

 

[Tony-S]

By the time you crop a 6x6 down to the same aspect ratio of 6x7 you have more than 50% more surface area with a 6x7 frame. My GS-1 isn't all that much bigger than my Rolleiflex SLX. Probably why the Rollei is rarely used.

 

[Roger Cole]

That's true, but does it matter? It depends on your final print size, your film and developer, and your tolerance for grain. I happily print up to 16x20 from my 645 negs, or 6x6 cropped to 645. The bigger negative would primarily be an advantage to me for cropping further for composition or to make up for a lens a bit shorter than I would have preferred.

If you print larger, use film that's grainier, or are averse to any visible grain at all then it starts to matter more. I can certainly see the difference between 645 and 6x7 on a 16x20 from fast film, at least if viewed fairly close. More commonly I print 11x14 and at that size the difference becomes very small.

I totally understand the appeal of the lack of grain and smooth tonality of a larger negative enlarged less - I do shoot 4x5. I'm not familiar with the GS, at least in person (never seen one IRL.) The RB is just bigger and heavier than I, or many people, want to carry and use handheld so if the choice is between the RB and Hassleblad it comes down to that. Now if I'm going to use it on a tripod all the time, I'd take the RB hands down for that bigger negative. I'm not a believer in the church of Zeiss or any other magic lens make. Good lenses, yes, special magic in certain brands, no. Mamiya glass is excellent.