And no used RB/RZ's are available on the moon.
That again could have been a weight and size problem. IDK, but lets at least consider it. After all, the film was coated on special support to conserve weight and volume.
PE
Hassy vs. RZ: Another one of THOSE threads....
-
A
- Thread starter ChristopherCoy
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Wollensak Verito Diffused Focus 8 3/4" f/4 Lens Copal 3S Shutter
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Dallmeyer Quick Acting Portrait 2B 6" Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
Sold Graflex 8X10 Focal Plane Shutter
- Started by 2Dogs
-
For Sale FS: Toyo Blue Lettering 4x5 Film Holders - 10 nos.
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
That again could have been a weight and size problem. IDK, but lets at least consider it. After all, the film was coated on special support to conserve weight and volume.
PE
Humans landed on the moon in 1969. The RB67 was introduced in 1970. Even so, I'm sure the Hassy would have won due to its size/weight and much longer track record.
Even so, I'm sure the Hassy would have won due to its size/weight and much longer track record.
They did make more than one trip!
True, PE, but the last lunar landing occurred only a year or so after the RB67 was introduced. Also, by then Hassy was already in their checklists... and gov't bureaucracies don't like to change their procedures.
OP
OP
I think we've taken a left turn into whack-o-ville. LOL
Humans landed on the moon in 1969. The RB67 was introduced in 1970.
What weight? An RB would float away just like a Hassie on the moon!
TheFlyingCamera
Membership Council
What weight? An RB would float away just like a Hassie on the moon!
Not the weight on the moon, but the weight launching it into space. NASA is extremely weight conscious. They definitely would have cared about an extra 2 lbs of camera gear, as they calculate to the gram for fuel consumption purposes.
Since camera repairs at the Moon are inconvenient at best, NASA needed reliable equipment => Hasselblad
Yeah, most cameras only a few years old don't need many repairs.
You can darn-well bet Hassy sent NASA special cameras. A mechanical failure on a moon mission would have been marketing suicide.
And since Hasselblads never break down anyhow, they didn't have to make special equipment for NASA.
I think in space the mass would be the correct term, while on earth the weight would be correct.
And having worked at the Cape, I can say that NASA can turn on a dime!
PE
I think in space the mass would be the correct term, while on earth the weight would be correct.
And having worked at the Cape, I can say that NASA can turn on a dime!
PE
I once had a car that could turn on a dime. The problem is every time I turned it cost me ten cents so I drove straight to work and straight home. I was saving for a Hasselblad but opted for an RB67.
All this talk of Hasselblads or Mamiyas. THIS is THE camera!
In space, no one can hear you scream, or the mirror slap!
That's good, because I hear the mirror slap on that thing is epic.
Good thing they didn't try to use my ELX then...
I'm curious as you're quite a Hassy zealot, do you just say these thing for laughs or do you really believe it?
My RB setup was a decade old when I bought it, and a workhorse for the next 10 years. I still use it today, the only issues being new foam last year and one lens with a stuck shutter (which cleared right up with a cleaning). Argue all you want about weight and size and sharpness, but to my knowledge, RZ/RB gear has a solid track record for reliability.
Can't imagine anyone will be using my DSLRs 25 years from now - I do love me some steel & chrome & leatherette.
Can't imagine anyone will be using my DSLRs 25 years from now - I do love me some steel & chrome & leatherette.
He isn't Sirius!
All this talk of Hasselblads or Mamiyas. THIS is THE camera!
(Thank you Rob!)
In space, no one can hear you scream, or the mirror slap!
The S2's are beautiful cameras - I missed out on one on ebay but bought a P67 instead.
Of course the lunar 'blads were stripped down - no viewfinders - no mirrors, the Apollo spacecraft had several others floating around the cabin.
However - with the reduced gravity in space/on the moon, mirror slap might be a bigger problem (no gravity to dampen the recoil).
Yes, there is torque generated by the mirror. But it is very tiny. My only personal experience was with a Nikon F.
PE
PE
Could you elaborate? I have an SQ-B and apart from perhaps film loading, there doesn't seem to be much scope for one to handle better than the other? I didn't like reports that 'blads could jam if used incorrectly, but not having used one I can't really put it into perspective.
It is a most wonderful satisfying THUNK that anyone has ever heard.
OP
OP
Here! Here!
That's a good point.
The first time I pressed the shutter release on an EC I thought I had broke something.
The Bronica is just slightly smaller in the hand than the Blad and the focusing seems to snap better on the screen. The magnifier on the Bronica allows me to see the whole image while on the Blad, I have to put it back again for the final compose. The release is easier to get to. Just very small things. Dont get me wrong, I love my Blads too but this thread reminded me I havent used the Bronica all year so next week it will go on holiday with me.
I cannot compare weights because I have the 150/2.8 for the Hassy but the 150/4 for the Bronica.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |