Handheld Test: Hasselblad 500 CM vs Mamiya RZ67 vs Rolleiflex 2.8F

[jd callow]

I'd be interested in a similar test that would include MF RF's and the Hassy SWC. As Ole states, Tripods may be a best practice, but not always practical. I have enlarged handheld images to 20x20 from 6x6 negs and they were plenty sharp. I have also enlarged 6x6 negs to 20x20 that upon inspection exhibited some camera shake. The final product may not have suffered because the image was strong.

 

[Sandeep]

I didn't see it mentioned. What kind of finders on the three cameras? All WL? Or a mix?

I used waistlevel finders on all three cameras. In general I prefer waistlevel finders for the larger and brighter image than a prism making focusing easier and they also cut down on system weight.

Tripod is definately the way to go, but unfortunately it's not always possible, practical or permitted. I was just curious to see what kind of results can you expect without one in low light slow shutter speeds situations and high light fast shutter speed situations. Now I know.

I plan to repeat the test using a monopod as I'm curious to see how much of a difference it makes and will report back.

 

[antielectrons]

The problem with moderating threads is that there will often be some "carry-over" into later posts. The decision of how much to edit these is a difficult one, and we moderators generally hope that later posters will ignore these and just get back to the subject.

Please?

Thanks for that. You are doing just fine!

 

[gnashings]

My apologies and thanks to the moderation team - a cut above as always, doing a splendid job in a manner beyond reproach. I regret that I allowed myself to be reduced to such "tactics" by something so trivial, and something that I really should know better than to react to, thus creating the need for a lot of unnecessary work and aggrevation on the behalf of the moderators.

Back to the subject at hand though, a thought struck me: what is sharp enough? Again, I think pointing out that tripods will produce better image sharpness than handholding is completely missing the point, a point that the original post and a great majority of responses seemed to identfiy as a given - but, with the obvious element of motion introduced by "pure" handholding (ie. not braced or rested on anything), and the "lesser of several evils" identified as generally cameras with no mirror and leaf shutters, what is the criteria?
I believe the a big grain of wisdom in this dsicussion was contributed by mrcallow: "if the image is strong enough", I believe were his words. Isn't that the point? At what point does technical shortcoming overshadow the creative force of a photograph? Frankly, I don't think there is any one answer to this question (although I am sure there is a book out there that gives a very definitive one...).
For example, hasn't everyone here had at least one photo that they have taken stand out in terms of value as an image, while not necessarily being the height of their technical achievement? I know I have, but I would love to hear from those more experienced and accomplished than I!

Peter.

 

[BrianShaw]

I plan to repeat the test using a monopod as I'm curious to see how much of a difference it makes and will report back.

Monopods are wonderful. Not quite as wonderful as a tripod, but better than hand-holding in a situation where monopods/tripods are appropriate.

One to two stops, with normal lens. One with longer lenses. No significant improvement below 1/4 second. No noticable improvement above 1/250 second with TLR (or Hassy shutter pre-released). This is my experience.

Please do the 'test' and let us know if you agree!

 

[antielectrons]

Apologies accepted Peter. It is always a good idea to read the entire thread before jumping in with such heavy comments. And even if I were a non-native English speaker (which I am not), attacking someone's mother tongue is not a good way to go about discuss anything, let alone photography. Lets keep Apug an open and inviting place.

Antonio

My apologies and thanks to the moderation team - a cut above as always, doing a splendid job in a manner beyond reproach. I regret that I allowed myself to be reduced to such "tactics" by something so trivial, and something that I really should know better than to react to, thus creating the need for a lot of unnecessary work and aggrevation on the behalf of the moderators.


Peter.

 

[Ole]

The moderation team thanks you for your apologies, and extends its wishes for a continued pleasant debate.

 

[Ole]

.. it seems I am treated the same as someone who is obviously looking to do nothing but instigate unrest. ...

As long as you won't let this rest, that is exactly how it seems to me. I'm sure I'm not alone in this view.

If you want to fight, take it outside.

(You too, antielectrons)

 

[df cardwell]

Sandeep began this thread with an interesting post that ( as I read it ) pointed out a virtue of the classic Rolleiflex. There is a reason it is considered a classic.

Obviously, if one photographs one's world with long lenses and slow film, a TLR has no more merit than a ... well, something without much merit. But if we like the idea of a willing and gamesome travel companion, quirky enough to have to make a few allowances for, but equally at home wherever you're likely to go, a Rollei ( or Minolta, or some other TLR ) is a great choice.

d

 

[antielectrons]

Yes, I agree. Some of my better street image were taken with Rollei TLR's. Clearly not having a mirror slap around is a big plus as is their size, being easy to handhold and keep still. It is a real shame they have become so overpriced, if only someone would do a "voiglander" and produce a modern TLR with quality lenses.

Antonio

Sandeep began this thread with an interesting post that ( as I read it ) pointed out a virtue of the classic Rolleiflex. There is a reason it is considered a classic.

Obviously, if one photographs one's world with long lenses and slow film, a TLR has no more merit than a ... well, something without much merit. But if we like the idea of a willing and gamesome travel companion, quirky enough to have to make a few allowances for, but equally at home wherever you're likely to go, a Rollei ( or Minolta, or some other TLR ) is a great choice.

d

 

[BrianShaw]

C'mon you guys, PLEASE have some consideration for the rest of us. How about taking your bickering to PMs?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Once again, please take the bickering offline.

 

[isaacc7]

Surprising handholdability...

I've just shot several rolls on my new (to me) Horseman VHR. I've found it pretty easy to get sharp photos (viewing neg with 8x loupe) with the 105mm lens handheld even down to 1/60. Haven't tried the wider lens yet, but I figure that I may be able to go down even lower. I'm figuring that it is the "RZ67 syndrome" in action... There is enough mass there to dampen a lot of the vibrations. Think I'll be using the rangefinder quite often....

Isaac

 

[DBP]

a willing and gamesome travel companion, quirky enough to have to make a few allowances for, but equally at home wherever you're likely to go

Yes, and a camera too!

 

[DBP]

I've just shot several rolls on my new (to me) Horseman VHR. I've found it pretty easy to get sharp photos (viewing neg with 8x loupe) with the 105mm lens handheld even down to 1/60. Haven't tried the wider lens yet, but I figure that I may be able to go down even lower. I'm figuring that it is the "RZ67 syndrome" in action... There is enough mass there to dampen a lot of the vibrations. Think I'll be using the rangefinder quite often....

Isaac

Remember the 2x3 Horsemans (horsemen?) are basically souped up press cameras. They're designed to handheld. With leaf shutters and no mirror there is no camera induced vibration, and the weight will dampen much environmental vibration from you and the wind. People regularly claim to be able to use leaf shuttered 35mm rangfinders at 1/30th, so 1/60 should be comparable on the Horseman. Haven't tried it with my 980, as the only hand held shots I have taken have been with flash. If I want to carry a 2x3 rangefinder around outdoors I usually use a Moskva or Miniature Speed Graphic to save weight. I have shot the Graphic handheld, but seated, at 1/25 with tolerable results.

 

[DBP]

Yes, I agree. Some of my better street image were taken with Rollei TLR's. Clearly not having a mirror slap around is a big plus as is their size, being easy to handhold and keep still. It is a real shame they have become so overpriced, if only someone would do a "voiglander" and produce a modern TLR with quality lenses.

Antonio

I suspect that the Seagull manufacturers think they are doing that. The difference is that prior to Cosina there was nothing comparable to a Leica M new or used at anything resembling a reasonable price. And the early Bessa series were able to share everything but the rangefinder with an active production line for SLRs, so costs were easier to control. Even so, Cosina stepped in pretty carefully. I doubt a modern TLR could be built anywhere near the price of the Bessas. For starters, what's the going rate for a good leaf shutter? With old Rolleis, Yashicamats, Autocords and the like going for under $300, there is no market sufficient to support the needed investment.

 

[antielectrons]

I suspect that the Seagull manufacturers think they are doing that. The difference is that prior to Cosina there was nothing comparable to a Leica M new or used at anything resembling a reasonable price. And the early Bessa series were able to share everything but the rangefinder with an active production line for SLRs, so costs were easier to control. Even so, Cosina stepped in pretty carefully. I doubt a modern TLR could be built anywhere near the price of the Bessas. For starters, what's the going rate for a good leaf shutter? With old Rolleis, Yashicamats, Autocords and the like going for under $300, there is no market sufficient to support the needed investment.

Old Rolleis for underr $300? More like $1000 for a decent second hand 2.8f or $4000 for a new one. Nobody beleived there was a market for Voiglander to do what they did in 35mm either.

 

[DBP]

Am I the only person who knows how to do a search for completed auctions on eBay? I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. But Rolleiflexes! are going for under $300, and Rolleicords for less than half that.

 

[Maine-iac]

The Rollei SL66 had one of the lowest levels of shutter vibration and mirror slap of any 6X6 SLR. I've handheld it successfully down to 1/15 with the normal lens on, but wouldn't try it with the 150. Mostly I use it on a tripod with slower (ACROS) film.

The Pentax 67 had the reputation for having the worst mirror slap of any medium format SLR, but again, I could handhold it without problems down to 1/30. What I discovered was all the slap and banging happened after the shutter closed, so it didn't affect the sharpness; the mass and weight actually helped. While I most often used it on a tripod, occasionally I'd not want to be bothered and would just sling it over my shoulder and go. If I needed a support, I'd find a convenient tree to lean against.

I routinely use my 645 and 6X7 Fuji rangefinders without a tripod; it's why I have them. They're my "grab and go" cameras, and I've never been unhappy with the results. When I have had sharpness problems with the 6X7 while handholding, it was because I moved rather than the camera. But then, given that they're rangefinders with leaf shutters, you'd expect them to be hand-holdable. The 6X7 does make a god-awfu "kchung!" sound, but it doesn't seem to affect anything but my ears.

Larry

 

[antielectrons]

Am I the only person who knows how to do a search for completed auctions on eBay? I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. But Rolleiflexes! are going for under $300, and Rolleicords for less than half that.

I am sure there are some real bargains on ebay in bargain condition! But I challenge you to show me a 3.5f or a 2.8f in decent working order for less than $300 or less. All the good stuff is up at around $1000 and even then it is still second hand grade.

 

[Bruce Appel]

This just goes to show that there are lots of variables involved with handholding.

 

[DBP]

I am sure there are some real bargains on ebay in bargain condition! But I challenge you to show me a 3.5f or a 2.8f in decent working order for less than $300 or less. All the good stuff is up at around $1000 and even then it is still second hand grade.

I believe you said "old Rolleis". Try looking at one that went for $220 last night, item 7624997202. Watch it for a while, see if the buyer complains about condition. You can't keep changing the terms of your statement in hopes of making it correct. I am as surprised as anyone at the current price of TLRs. But it is a fact.

 

[antielectrons]

David A. Goldfarb. - what is with all the deletions? Could you care to explain yourself? It is very bad form to edit threads you yourself took part in. The "moderators" are getting really carried away here and spoiling the site.

 

[antielectrons]

I believe you said "old Rolleis". Try looking at one that went for $220 last night, item 7624997202. Watch it for a while, see if the buyer complains about condition. You can't keep changing the terms of your statement in hopes of making it correct. I am as surprised as anyone at the current price of TLRs. But it is a fact.

I said 3.5f or 2.8f. Old Rollies could be any old garbage.

 

[Mike Kovacs]

I believe you said "old Rolleis". Try looking at one that went for $220 last night, item 7624997202. Watch it for a while, see if the buyer complains about condition. You can't keep changing the terms of your statement in hopes of making it correct. I am as surprised as anyone at the current price of TLRs. But it is a fact.

He should complain - its not even a 3.5F model! Hard to see but is that not a Tessar lens? Looks like a MX model Automat to my eye.