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

Sirius Glass · Oct 9, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
In early space shots they had a problem with solder evaporating in the vacuum of space. It often redeposited, making a shorter circuit than the original thus destroying the electronics. We lost several probes due to this.

PE

In space when solder contains tin, tin forms whiskers that cause short circuits and the thread can break off and cause electrical [short circuits] and mechanical problems. As a result, space qualified equipment must have tin free solder.

Photo Engineer · Oct 9, 2014

Well, obviously, someone at NASA did not know about whiskering nor did they know about the potential for sublimation of the metals in vacuum. And, they were in charge I guess.

PE

M Carter · Oct 13, 2014

APUGuser19 said:
A very interesting thought sprang from your statement, PE. I was immediately given to ponder the vacuum tube and its engineering processes. Surely this must have shown itself in the Tung Sol, Sylvania, and RCA engineering labs, since they preceded space shots by 60 years. After all, tubes do have a lifespan,and it is often defined by the losses of the cathode's electron donor metals onto the grid and plate, depleting and shorting the tube at some point. Or gassing it.

So how far CAN I derail this thread? Got hold of some 12AX7 RCA tubes from a 50's Baldwin organ, stuck 'em in my guitar amp. Not an earth-shaking change, but a noticeable improvement in clarity - kind of a "3D-ness" and sweetness. Smitten.

Sad how many beautiful things have been lost due to technology. I'm talking to you, Polagraph 35 - and Ektachrome 320T, my favorite color film of all time for gorgeousness.

Dr Croubie · Oct 13, 2014

M Carter said:
So how far CAN I derail this thread? Got hold of some 12AX7 RCA tubes from a 50's Baldwin organ, stuck 'em in my guitar amp. Not an earth-shaking change, but a noticeable improvement in clarity - kind of a "3D-ness" and sweetness. Smitten.

I dunno, in your attempts to derail you may just bring the whole thing full-circle. There are a lot of arguments to be made about film and older uncoated lenses giving that exact same 'analogue 3D-ness' sound or vision that you just can't get with digital CDs and pixels (says the guy who was developing last night listening to vinyl on his home-made tube-amp, turns out it is possible to change discs in the 50 seconds between agitations).

I'm very surprised about NASA not investigating the effects of vacuums on their equipment, especially as it had already been encountered before in tubes.
Speaking of old-tech, I remember one of my 4th year elec eng professors had a 10x10x2cm-ish frame of wood on his desk, with a bunch of wires in a grid-like pattern. He told me it was a magnetic-core RAM, I think 1kb, that was out of an old NASA capsule, which was very resilient against EMP and solar radiation. Not sure if NASA chose it over other types because of its immunity, or if it was just the best/smallest around at the time, but it seems strange if they used something so suited to space for one thing, and totally cocked up another by using bad solder...

Photo Engineer · Oct 13, 2014

The Russians used lead automobile type batteries and vacuum tubes in Sputnic!

PE

itsdoable · Oct 14, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
The Russians used lead automobile type batteries and vacuum tubes in Sputnic!

PE

Sputnik lasted 22 days...

M Carter · Oct 17, 2014

I recently went to Houston, specifically to see the restored Saturn V. I'm not a "religious" person, but this felt more like a church than anything I've experienced, ever. Moreso than mountains or rain forests, dammit - I was holding back tears to see that thing. It was simply criminal to let it rot, and now it's just glorious.

My wife came along, "OK, OK, we'll go see your rocket". She was dumbfounded. PhD Anthropologist, saying "what society DID this?? And it all burned up and crashed except the very end?" She found it wildly kind of poetic.

There are three Saturn V's restored and on display now - but the Houston one, all the stages were actual flight-ready parts for canceled flights - for some reason that adds to the aura for me. All that mass was waiting to be crashed into oceans or the moon, abandoned in space, and here it sits.

johnha · Oct 19, 2014

M Carter said:
I recently went to Houston, specifically to see the restored Saturn V. I'm not a "religious" person, but this felt more like a church than anything I've experienced, ever. Moreso than mountains or rain forests, dammit - I was holding back tears to see that thing. It was simply criminal to let it rot, and now it's just glorious.

I went to see the one at Cape Canaveral in the early '80s (it was outside then). I can understand the majesty of scale - it was the ultimate expression of the V2 (A-4) program - but, I admire the crews who flew it far more than the machinery itself.

Photo Engineer · Oct 19, 2014

They stopped the countdown for S-1 until Werner Von Braun could drive out in his limousine, stand in front of the bird, and have his picture taken! This was a cost of about $3000 / minute or more.

PE

Terry Breedlove · Oct 20, 2014

The Hasselblad is smaller and lighter but the Mamiya is so much easier to focus. I shoot the RB67 which is even heavier than the RZ. I hold the camera with my left hand under the lens and the camera pressed into my body. Very stable this way and the shutter button , focus knob and advance lever all right there next to each other for my right hand to operate. In fact I can leave my index finger on the shutter button, focus then shoot and advance the film without ever taking my finger off the shutter button. Now don't get me wrong I love the beautiful little Hasselblad but the Mamiya has its own advantages.

Dr Croubie · Oct 20, 2014

This is a thread about Hasselblads?

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 20, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
They stopped the countdown for S-1 until Werner Von Braun could drive out in his limousine, stand in front of the bird, and have his picture taken! This was a cost of about $3000 / minute or more.

PE

I assume you refer to THIS IMAGE ?

Sirius Glass · Oct 20, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
This is a thread about Hasselblads?

Of course the thread is about Hasselblads. They are the only camera worth owning.

In the words of the Packard advertizements, "Ask the man that owns one."

Photo Engineer · Oct 20, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
I assume you refer to THIS IMAGE ?

No. He was standing in front of a live missile covered with ice from the LOX. It was night time (about 2 - 4am) and there was no one on the pad but our truck and his limousine. We were, by that time, about 1 mile away when he stopped us, and his limousine drove right onto the pad.

I have never seen this photo published. But I know he had prints made.

PE

M Carter · Oct 21, 2014

Old-N-Feeble said:
I assume you refer to THIS IMAGE ?

Not quite a launch configuration there... sideways to the moon?

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 21, 2014

M Carter said:
Not quite a launch configuration there... sideways to the moon?

Absolutely true... that obvious error is due to my damaged brain.

tron_ · Oct 21, 2014

I haven't read past page 1 so I'm not sure how derailed the thread got but I have both a 501cm and an RZ67.

Personally I like the RZ a bit more than my Hasselblad. The RZ is much easier to focus and the 110mm and 50mm lenses are the sharpest I have ever used. Don't get me wrong, the CZ 80mm 2.8 on the Hasselblad is very good too but it's not the same as the outstanding Mamiya optics.

I will admit that the Hasselblad is better built than the Mamiya. Whereas the Hasselblad feels like it's made out of one solid hunk of metal, the Mamiya feels a bit flimsier. I have had the RZ body fail on me once before but it is NOT cheaply made. The Hasselblad is just a bit better in terms of quality.

My advice is do what I did and get both . You can get an RZ kit for very cheap these days and there are many of them for sale online. So when my body crapped out on me I was able to pick up a new (to me) one for very cheap.

tron_ · Oct 21, 2014

One more thing, the focusing on the RZ is much nicer imo. You can focus super close with the bellows whereas the close-focusing capabilities of the Hasselblad is kind of a buzz kill.

I have a PM5 prism on my Hasselblad because with the waist level finder the screen is just too dark. If you'd like I can weigh them and post the results here.

Roger Cole · Oct 21, 2014

Can someone elaborate on the differences between the RZ and RB? The RB is all manual and the RZ has some electronic functions, correct? I always thought the RZ was bigger and heavier but I think I read the opposite recently. And the lenses - what overlap is there in lenses or is there any overlap and they're different?

I could probably Google this up but I'm sure someone here knows off the top of their head or has the link to the comparison handy so yes I'm being lazy. (Others who aren't that familiar might also wonder.)

EDIT: Found this among other things for others who might wonder:

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

The RZ is lighter and can use RB lenses but not vice versa?

MattKing · Oct 21, 2014

Almost all RB lenses are usable on the RZ, but none of the RZ lenses are usable on the RZ.

This is due to the fact that the shutters in the RZ lenses are electronically controlled by the camera, whereas the RB lenses have mechanically controlled shutters in them.

The backs and inserts are different.

Winding the film and cocking the shutter on the RB requires two separate motions, whereas the winding lever on the RZ causes both to happen.

There are lots of accessories that are particular to each.

Roger Cole · Oct 21, 2014

Got it, thanks.

Alan Gales · Oct 21, 2014

The RZ takes a battery for the electronic shutter but it's easy to find and lasts a long time. It's a little lighter, a little faster to use, and gives you more lens choices. The RZ 110mm lens is a gem!

The RB is not dependent on a battery, cheaper and some say more reliable.

I owned the RZ and really liked it for portraits but I sold it when I moved up to large format. My wife says I can't own all the toys I want unless I win the lottery.

EdSawyer · Oct 21, 2014

Rz is better in all ways. It can still fire the shutter at 1/400 even woth no battery. The 110 and 50ULD don't exist in the RB lens list. The exotic RB lenses are much harder to come by (eg the APOs, etc.) and cost more as a result. Get an RZ and don't look back. ;-)

film_man · Oct 22, 2014

I love how a thread about a digital back gets locked after 4-5 posts yet random talk about spaceships can go on for 10 pages...

pdeeh · Oct 22, 2014

they're analogue spaceships

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

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency