Hassy vs. RZ: Another one of THOSE threads....

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
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

ChristopherCoy

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
3,599
Location
On a boat.
Format
Multi Format
I think we've taken a left turn into whack-o-ville. LOL
 

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council
Advertiser
Joined
May 24, 2005
Messages
11,546
Location
Washington DC
Format
Multi Format
Alan Gales said:
What weight? An RB would float away just like a Hassie on the moon!
Click to expand...

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.
 

Sirius Glass

Subscriber
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
50,411
Location
Southern California
Format
Multi Format
Since camera repairs at the Moon are inconvenient at best, NASA needed reliable equipment => Hasselblad
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
You can darn-well bet Hassy sent NASA special cameras. A mechanical failure on a moon mission would have been marketing suicide.
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
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
 

Old-N-Feeble

Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
6,805
Location
South Texas
Format
Multi Format
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.
 

frank

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2002
Messages
4,359
Location
Canada
Format
Multi Format
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!
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    672.1 KB · Views: 175
Last edited by a moderator:

film_man

Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
1,575
Location
London
Format
Multi Format
Sirius Glass said:
Since camera repairs at the Moon are inconvenient at best, NASA needed reliable equipment => Hasselblad
Click to expand...

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?
 

M Carter

Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
2,147
Location
Dallas, TX
Format
Medium Format
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.
 

johnha

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
289
Location
Lancashire,
Format
Medium Format
frank said:
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!
Click to expand...

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).
 

Photo Engineer

Subscriber
Joined
Apr 19, 2005
Messages
29,018
Location
Rochester, NY
Format
Multi Format
Yes, there is torque generated by the mirror. But it is very tiny. My only personal experience was with a Nikon F.

PE
 

johnha

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
289
Location
Lancashire,
Format
Medium Format

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.
 

Alan Gales

Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,253
Location
St. Louis, M
Format
Large Format
TheFlyingCamera said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's a good point.
 

zeta3

Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
34
Location
Switzerland
Format
Multi Format

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…