Sounds like an excellent book then. I recall that Bob Shell was an active poster at the now defunct (but excellent) Robert Monaghan's site.
Now, on topic, i'm new to the forum and have read most of this thread with interest.
And let me say that i'm a bit amazed that there are so many people on the Hasselblad camp.
The fact is that the Hasselblad 500 series are based on a design from 1957, the 500C. The Mamiya RB67 was introduced in 1970, 13 years later, and for me it's obvious that it was designed to be directly aimed as a competition to Hasselblad. It had been designed later and from the ground-up, so it had all the chances to be a superior product. The same was true of the Rolleiflex SL66: an improvement on the Hasselblad (and a great machine). So the RB67 was designed with the advantage of having the SL66 and the 500-series as a benchmarks.
Who were Mamiya in 1970? Mamiya was one of the most innovative camera designers, with products like the Mamiyaflex C (first practical TLR with interchangeable lenses) back in the late 1950s. They released the first SLR with electronic mounts in the early 80s. In 1971 they had just released the Auto XTL 35mm SLR, which was probably one of the most advanced SLRs on that time, and were selling their TLR like hotcakes. So we can say that in the early 70s they were already taking camera design seriously; had the money, and the ambition.
So they weren't average camera makers, and they had all the chances to improve on the Hasselblad. They delivered.
People brag about the Hassy being more compact and light than the RB and thus being more apt to be taken out rather than leave it sitting on the studio. Well, the problem is that the Hassy, at least the 500C and similar models, have a pretty strong camera vibration at the time of exposure. First time i tried one i was shocked (pun intended) by this. You can make a quick survey of Hasselblad 500-system camera owners and i'd say they would mostly agree that 1/60 or 1/125 is the minimum shutter speed to be clear on this problem.
The RB was specifically engineered to be absent of mirror shock, by using a centrifugal governor. The RB is perhaps the steadiest SLR i own and i have used it successfuly handheld at 1/8 with no problem. For me, this is an important advantage. For other people this may not be a deal-breaker, of course. The added camera weight also helps with stability; something that does not get mentioned too often when praising light cameras.
The revolving back. This is a god-send. Even more when i use the 6x4.5 back. Easier to shoot 6x4.5 portrait with an RB than with a "proper" 6x4,5 camera, because of this. All in all, vertical shots are more confortable than using a modern DSLR with a vertical grip, because the camera never rotates!
Now, on optics. The format is 6x7 rather than 6x6. This increase of film real estate gives a slight improvement on image quality. Or a significant one, if you don't shoot "square" 6x6 but always crop to 1:1.25 or 1:1.50 aspect ratio. So from the start there's an advantage to the RB. Of course, should you choose to shoot square 6x6, there is no advantage here.
Zeiss lenses are thought by some to be superior to the Mamiya offerings, but from the late 70s Mamiya drastically increased their skills on lens making and i'd say that for all practical purposes they are as good as they come. RZ and K/L lenses, from the 1990s, use advanced technology like anomalous dispersion glasses; so they were state-of-the art. I'm afraid there's too much mystique around the Zeiss name, and that clouds judgement. To me, at the golden era of Zeiss (50s-60s), Voigtlander made more interesting designs (and for a while were the only ones in Germany to own a computer for lens optimization -- which they rented to other manufacturers ), Schneider-Kreuznach made better lenses, and the first f2.8 Rolleiflex was intended to use the Xenotar, not the Planar, because the Rollei engineers considered it the better lens. Or so i've read. In any case, Kodak was at the very top of the optics world at the time, not Zeiss.
Marco Cavina's website is an eye opener regarding camera lens design history; i recommend it. Long story short: Towards the mid 70s, all the major lens manufacturers (Leitz, Zeiss, Schneider, Fuji, Nikon, Canon, Tomioka, Mamiya, etc) were doing computer-designed glasses with state-of-the art glass compounds, and were able to use custom-glasses and aspheric lenses as needed. Bottom line: For a late 70s lens of any of those manufacturers, the final quality will have a lot to do with what the manufacturing cost should be, and little to do with the brand. If any of those manufacturers wanted to build a very good lens, they were able to build it.
Reliability. I think Photo Engineer has said it all. I'll quote him for truth (QFT):
I own two RBs, one of them looks battered. It still works correctly.
Plus -something that does not get mentioned often- RBs were engineered to be easy to service. My camera tech likes them because of this.
All in all, once i ignore its size and weight, i consider the RB67 pro-S the most satisfying piece of camera gear i have owned. A masterpiece.
