Hasselblad or Rolleiflex TLR? Opinions appreciated

redrockcoulee · Jun 23, 2008

After using a Rolleichord for about 25 years I was able to borrow on long term a Hasselbald system. Liked it so much that I bought a body from David Odess and some backs and extension tubes on eBay. Advantages of the Rolleichord were compactness and light weight, easy of use and easier to hand hold. The advantage of the 'blad is of course interchangeable lenses and although the normal lens is my normal lens I find I use the 50mm a fair amount of the time. I really like the interchangeable backs as not only B&W or colour but also 100 or 400 and also IR on the same shot. When I decided to get a blad of my own I did think about selling the Rolleichord but my wife wisely said NO.

If you want to shoot close ups, change lenses or change film types all the time I would recommend the Hasselblad. Otherwise hard to go wrong with the Rolleiflex. Perhaps a good deal on the 'blad and a quality Rolleichord?

gandolfi · Jun 23, 2008

Sparky said:
Personally - my favourite MOST USEABLE MF cameras in order of how easy it is to make a quality photograph with are

1. Rollei 6000 series
2. Rolleiflex TLR
3. Hasselblad
.
.
.
8 (or thereabouts) Rollei SL-66 (they're just clunky and BIG IMO). Even though their specs look great.

that's funny. or interesting. for me it is the other way around.

my Rolleiflex SL66E will take the first - second and third place...
then my rolliflex 2.8C
then something else

and at a 10'th number, maybe the hasselblad...

even my girlfriend (stine) has succumbed to the Rollei.

as she says: the hasselblad make me look sexy... but if I wanted to carry something around my neck that makes me feel sexy, then I'd rather buy a Gucci bag....

the Rollei is bigger and bulkier than the hassy, but not a lot, and the things you can do with it, by default, outshines a hasselblad any day...

much easier and quick to work with.

...and it is much cheaper than hasselblad...

eddym · Jun 23, 2008

OK, guess I'll join in too. I currently have 3 medium format cameras:
Rollei 2.8F TLR
Rollei SL6003 with 80mm f2.8 Planar
Hasselblad 503CX with 150mm f4 Sonnar. I also have a 16mm extension tube and two A12 backs.

I use the TLR as a hand-held camera for candids, walking-around-shots, and portraits. It's my all-time favorite camera in the world. I've been using TLR's for 30 years.
I use the SL6003 when I shoot from a tripod, usually portraits or landscapes. It's a nice camera, but I don't like the rechargeable batteries.
I use the Hasselblad as a portrait and closeup camera, almost always on a tripod. It allows me to focus closer than any of the Rolleis, and the two backs allow me to switch films (color/B&W, HP5/FP4, etc.).

Charles Webb · Jun 23, 2008

I have been using both the Hasselblad and Rollei for well over fifty years. I have used both in the studio and in the field. Both can give extremely satisfactory results. The user is the weakest link in either system. With out any shadow of doubt, my best negatives with either system and transparancies have been made with the Rolleiflex.

I began with a 500c and a 2.8 and 3.5 Rollei. Have updated many times over the years, however my earliest Rolleis and the 500c are still resting in their place in my camera room. My best overall negatives made in the past fifty years came from a Pentax 6x7 which still delivers excellent results. Were I in the market I would look very hard at the Rolleis, and leave the Hasselblads to the folks that want to talk about photography and are more interested in gear that that works as a statis symbol for them. A lot of great picture makers used and today are using Hasselblads
but the majority of the "Blads" out in the world today are owned by folks who never expose a frame. A shame,
they are great tools.

My opinion gathered from practical experience over a very long time in the profession.

Charlie.....................................

dpurdy · Jun 23, 2008

I think you can say the same thing about Rollei users Charlie. A lot of Rollei owners own mulitple Rollei cameras because they look so good on the shelf. And I'd bet a high percentage of Rollei owners do most of their photography with a digital camera. I agree with everything else you said including the quality of the P67 lenses. And you really see that a lens has a different feel from another lens when you start switching back and forth between P67 lenses and Rollie lenses.

micek · Jun 23, 2008

I wanted a travel camera that was lighter and more compact than my Hasselblad 503CX, so I got a Rolleicord V. I had it CLAd and replaced the original screen with a Maxwell screen. I loved it so much that I "upgraded" to a Rolleiflex 2.8 GX. I suddenly realized that, though it was smaller and somewhat lighter than my Hasselblad, it was still considerably heavier than the Rolleicord. I don't usually enlarge beyond 8x8"; at that size I couldn't perceive any obvious difference in lens quality, and I also preferred the handling of the Rolleicord, so I sold the GX.
Rolleicords are more than marginally lighter and smaller than a Hasselblad + 80mm lens, and the quality of their lenses is not to be disdained.

Rolleiflexible · Jun 23, 2008

keithostertag said:
I don't always use an entire roll at once and it's very nice to be able to switch between B&W and color mid-roll when you want to. I prefer the Hasselblad over a TLR (in general) because of the advantages of the SLR- easier to use filters and shades, no parallax, closer focusing ability, etc. In choosing you might want to consider how the types of images you want to take will determine the type of camera you need. For me, precise composition for closeups is really important.

Several thoughts:

(1) You only get 12 exposures on a 120 roll. So it's not a big deal
to waste a few frames if you really want to change film in midstride.
Moreover, you really don't want to leave roll film loaded in a Rolleiflex
or in a Hasselblad back for much more than an hour at a time. The
film ends up getting bent into the shape of the film path, and plays
havoc with film flatness when you start shooting again. (If you do
leave film loaded, be sure to waste a frame or two to advance flat
film into the film gate.)

(2) Parallax is not an issue with a Rolleiflex. Rolleiflex TLRs have
compensating masks built into the viewscreen.

(3) Precise composition for close-ups is really important for me as
well:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

Happily, the Rolleiflex's close-up attachments have built-in prisms
to correct for parallax as well.

While I share your concerns, none of them points away from a
Rolleiflex.

Sanders

jblake · Jun 23, 2008

Wow! Thank you to all the replies on this decision. Thanks also to Dennis Purdy- I appreciate your input. I have decided to go with a rolleiflex.

I like the feel of the Rollei and I'm confident in the quality and ease of use. This is my first MF camera, I am likely to get a Hasselblad system one day but I will start with the Rolleiflex.

I have been scouring Ebay and Harry Fleenor's site looking at TLR's. Are there any companies on Ebay I should steer away from? Can anyone give me a recommendation on whether I should go for a 2.8 or 3.5? There are so many models that I have researched also by serial number category. I would like to get something around the mid to late 60's if possible, but what do I go for? I am figuring I won't need to spend $2000.00- I could probably get a good model for around $1300-$1500.

Some of the descriptions on Ebay are not conclusive in there descriptions i.e. camera "appears" to be functioning well but we have not tested it with film...etc. I steer away immediately when I see this. I figure that if I'm going to pay the $$ I want a decent model. Anyway any suggestions would be of a great help to me.

Jason

Larry.Manuel · Jun 23, 2008

Harry Fleenor

I bought a like-new Rolleicord from Harry, had it overhauled and a Maxwell screen installed. Then I sent another Rolleicord and my Rolleiflex to him for overhauls and screens. He is a delight to deal with and I love all three cameras. I keep the 'flex at my workshop, and two 'cords at home, with different speed films.

From Harry, I bought a Rolleinar #1 and #2, and have been delighted with them. The image quality is always superb.

As many others have written, the feel and delight in using these cameras cannot be overstated [for those who love them].

While I debated the Hasselblad, I soon decided a fixed-lens camera with super-quiet shutter would suit me better. I've been content.

Larry.Manuel · Jun 23, 2008

New-in-box Rolleicord in Hong Kong on eBay.

If I didn't already have two Rolleicords and on Rolleiflex I'd jump on it.

click here:

http://tinyurl.com/3w6d2k

I'd trade my Rolleicord Va and my 1954-56 Rolleiflex 3.5 for it, but for the fact that it would then have to be overhauled and have a Maxwell screen.

declark · Jun 23, 2008

I was pondering the same question myself. A friend loaned me a Rolleiflex T for about a week and I was hooked. Mistakenly bought a Yashicamat, should have gone straight for the Flex, the Yashicamat just does not feel the same and being a gearhead, I like the super smooth focus and robust feel. Pondered getting a basic Hasselblad set up, but then in order to save me from myself, I thought I would be better off with the Rollei so I don't buy other lenses, backs, prisms etc. Hoping to receive my Rollei T in the mail this week.

jblake · Jun 23, 2008

Thanks Larry, What is the Xenar 3.5 lens like? Are "Photo Arsenal" reputable sellers?

jblake · Jun 24, 2008

Also, what is the essential difference of the "flex" and the "cord?" Excuse my ignorance. I know that the "cord" is a little smaller in size.

Sparky · Jun 24, 2008

gandolfi said:
that's funny. or interesting. for me it is the other way around.

my Rolleiflex SL66E will take the first - second and third place...
then my rolliflex 2.8C
then something else

and at a 10'th number, maybe the hasselblad...

Yeah- kind of funny that way - when I was writing it - I was suspecting that it might be a HIGHLY individual thing - and often it depends on the associations you make with a camera. My SL66 was a bit of a dog... everything on it was just a bit loose for my liking... so it didn't really 'ooze' precision and thus I didn't have a whole lot of confidence in it. I seem to hit it off with rolleis more than anything - as far as composition goes. That, it seems to me - should be the most important thing. For me, framing on a rollei is just 'magic in a viewfinder'. Whereas on a hassy - there's something just a little flat, cold and analytic about it - a little less lush and magic for whatever reason. Probably just me. But I really like them for a lot of things. Someone else mentioned hassys in the studio - and I generally would not assume that by default - even though it's 'known' as a camera associated with studio use. But - for whatever reason - I DO find it better than the rolleis in the studio. Anyway - that's my 2 cents on the issue.

The only other medium format camera I found 'magical' to use was my ancient yashica - my very first camera of any kind I started with in 83 or so... but that was probably due to being my first (??) - I'd like to get one again and see if I can't recapture some of that 'magic'. It's a quality, incidentally, I've ONLY ever found with MF cameras... utterly absent on 35 and mostly absent on larger formats. I suspect it has something to do with being able to see something that looks like a luminous contact print but LIVE - and you see it changing as you move around (referring to the viewing screen of course!)

Tom Hoskinson · Jun 24, 2008

jblake said:
Thanks Larry, What is the Xenar 3.5 lens like? Are "Photo Arsenal" reputable sellers?

The Xenar is Schneider's version of the Tessar. My Rollei Xenar lenses produce images that are fully equivalent to the images made with the Zeiss Tessars on some of my other Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords.

I personally prefer the look of images made with the Zeiss Planars and Schneider Xenotars found on some of the High End Rolleiflexes (Planars are available for Hassleblads).

I have never dealt with Photo Arsenal - so I have no opinion.

I have dealt with Harry Fleenor and I recommend him highly.

dpurdy · Jun 24, 2008

jblake, the Cord is the economy model along with the T. The lenses are good but not as good and the camera is well made but not as well made (some will argue).

The 3.5 models are 75mm lenses and the 2.8s are 80mm. The models follow alpha beta sequence and the last pre GX model was the F.

The model E has 3 versions, the E, the E2 and the E3. Starting with the E2 all Rolleis have removable waist level finders and prism finder capablility. I like the removable finder because I like to use a prism and another good thing about the removable finder is it is easier to put in a bright screen without needing shims.

The 3.5 models take bay 2 (bay 11) accessories which tend to be less expensive than the bay 3 accessories for the 2.8s.

As I understand it the 3.5F was the all time best selling model. However Rollei committed their new cameras to the 2.8 because pro photographers preferred them.

All the Rolleiflexes after WW2 came with either the Schneider Xenotar or the Zeiss Planar in either 3.5 75mm or 2.8 80mm. Each type of lens has it's fans but they are of nearly identical quality. I have a 2.8 HFT planar and a 2.8 Xenotar on mine and I can't say for certain that the new HFT Planar is any better than the 25 year old Xenotar. I just did very careful sharpness tests with them today because I am a sharpness idiot and they tested out absolutely identical.

The place you mentioned Photo Arsenol is reputible but I think they tend to be on the high side of price. Before you buy off ebay make a study of the sellers feedbacks to see what they sell and what they get complimented on and then communicate with them and try to get a feel for what kind of person it is. Study pics very closely.

jblake · Jun 24, 2008

Thanks Tom, I have done some more research on the Cord vb and the Xenar lens. It seems to be great at f8 and above but at the lower end excellent in the centre with a bit of focus fall off around the edges. There are varying opinions on the build of the camera but overall mostly very positive. I guess I have to work out whether I am going to enter a deal with "photo arsenal" and whether this is a reasonable price for a mint product. It is quite expensive compared with other clean and used models but maybe I'm looking a gift horse in the mouth. I wonder if anyone else has dealt with "photo Arsenal," they only have a 96.5% rating on Ebay.

jblake · Jun 24, 2008

Thanks Dennis, This is great information. I think the Rolleicord may be on the high side for value despite its lack of use. Can you recommend perhaps 2 or 3 Rolleiflex models that I might look out for? I was recently searching for the 3.5E or perhaps an F is good too. There are so many, I just want to get a decent looking unit with a nice clean lens. I might wait until Harry Fleenor has something good come up. Many thanks

micek · Jun 24, 2008

Photo Arsenal prices are usually (not to say always) outrageously expensive. I'd look elsewhere.

Laurent · Jun 24, 2008

dpurdy said:
.....
The 3.5 models take bay 2 (bay 11) accessories which tend to be less expensive than the bay 3 accessories for the 2.8s.
...
All the Rolleiflexes after WW2 came with either the Schneider Xenotar or the Zeiss Planar in either 3.5 75mm or 2.8 80mm. Each type of lens has it's fans but they are of nearly identical quality. I have a 2.8 HFT planar and a 2.8 Xenotar on mine and I can't say for certain that the new HFT Planar is any better than the 25 year old Xenotar. I just did very careful sharpness tests with them today because I am a sharpness idiot and they tested out absolutely identical.
...

Dennis, I'm not sure to understand what you mean.
I own a MX-EVS dated from '56, and it is taking Bay I accessories and has a Tessar 3.5 Lens

Anyway, it's a great camera. I acquired it when I was out of despair with my Yashica Mat 124 with it's sticky shutter, and am very happy to have it (I'll still have the Mat fixed, because that one is also a great all-round camera)

edtbjon · Jun 24, 2008

There's nothing really wrong with the -cords, but as others have suggested and as you have the budget for it, go for a Rolleiflex with a Planar or a Xenotar. These lenses will perform better at and close to wide open. Also the ergonomics are a bit better with the Rolleiflex.

//Björn

jblake · Jun 24, 2008

Ok I've done it!! I've taken the plunge and purchased a Rolleiflex 3.5T 1970's rare "white face" model. It has a Maxwell screen already fitted and was recently serviced by Harry Fleenor. It comes with 2 filters and all works perfectly. Fingers crossed all works as described. I bought it off ebay and I have a good feeling about the authenticity of the seller. Thank you all for your help.

IloveTLRs · Jun 24, 2008

I have not owned a Hasselblad but I do occasionally shoot with a Bronica which is perhaps similar. I also shoot frequently with a Rolleiflex (hence the username.)
The main advantage I find to a Hasselblad-like system is the bright viewfinder and changable backs (shoot B&W, slide film, etc, without reloading.) The only downside I find to the Rolleiflex is a dimmer viewfinder and the caution required with regards to parallax errors. TLRs are very quiet thought, and at least to me, great fun to use.

lgrabun · Jun 24, 2008

jblake said:
Ok I've done it!! I've taken the plunge and purchased a Rolleiflex 3.5T 1970's rare "white face" model. It has a Maxwell screen already fitted and was recently serviced by Harry Fleenor. It comes with 2 filters and all works perfectly. Fingers crossed all works as described. I bought it off ebay and I have a good feeling about the authenticity of the seller. Thank you all for your help.

Congrats on your purchase, I am sure everything will be fine. The fact is the non-interchangeability of the lens is not that big issue; I find myself shooting most often with Planar 80mm when using Hasselblad even though I own Sonnar 150/4. 80mm is most versatile and useful lens - good for landscapes and for portraits as well.

Good luck with your camera, it will serve you well.

Shelly Grimson · Jun 24, 2008

I use the Rollei T and have a Hasselblad C/M as well. I use them interchangeably every week and enjoy them both. The advantage of the T with a brightscreen is that it is very light compared to the Rollei F's that I also own. The Hassy with the 80 isn't really that much bigger or heavier but feels like alot in use. The staps are thick and clumsy and the Rollei straps are a bit of a pain being so thin etc. You can't even get perfection but let there be no mistake- if you close down to F4 or 5.6 and get that terrific negative, both will knock your socks off. Today I printed a 16x20 done with Tri-x and HC-110 dilution B and I am impressed. When you meter it on the button and the subject sings with tones these cameras are unbeatable. NUFF said...

Hasselblad or Rolleiflex TLR? Opinions appreciated

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency