Last word: Rolleiflex vs. hassy?

[NB23]

Quality wise, what's the last word regarding a Rolleiflex vs. 500c+ 80mm cf?
My flex is a 3.5f xenotar but I don't care about the max aperture, more interested in the negative...

 

[Tom1956]

That's a tough call. I'm sure these 2 fellows debated the matter. To be sure, a Rollei operates free of vibration, a Hasselblad goes off in your hand like a little bomb.

 

[NB23]

I fear the diffs are all in the handling... I'm planing a trip: xpan+30mm /leica MP+ 28 cron + Rolleiflex 3.5F but would maybe like the 500cm instead if it offers a quality advantage...

 

[Tom1956]

A Planar/Xenotar is equal in both. A Rolleiflex is "collectible", and therefor not something you want to risk getting banged around or lost, as in a trip. Hasselblads are a dime a dozen. If you bang it up, ebay is full of more. No clear answer I can see.

 

[Vaughn]

KISS - Rolleiflex.

 

[Ektagraphic]

I'm sure these 2 fellows debated the matter.

That is quite a photograph indeed!

 

[jcoldslabs]

I've used both and have a preference for the Rolleiflex. The mirror slap and operating noise of the Hasselblad was enough to chase me away. Build quality, though? Not sure one is better than the other.

You could always split the difference and opt for a Rollei SL66!

Jonathan

 

[jp498]

The hasselblad gives you quicker reloading if you have extra backs. Not an issue for me. The rollei seems more quaint and old fashioned, something subjects/public love.

I think it's probably personal preference. I like my older rolleis.

 

[ntenny]

I don't think there is a "last word" on this sort of question; some people are going to like one, some the other, for a wide variety of reasons both objective and subjective.

Chris Perez's "four cameras" comparison might be good grist for the mill:
http://http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

-NT

 

[BrianShaw]

The last word may be "BOTH". They are very different cameras. The only things they share are film size and format.

 

[Pioneer]

Both take great pictures. The advantage with the Hassy is interchangeable lenses. If all you intend to use is an 80mm go with the Rollei. It is more compact.

 

[JLP]

Subject matter would be important for me to chose one of the two. If you shoot street scenes and mostly handheld there is no question that the Rolleiflex is the right tool but if you always use a tripod and shoot both B&W and color and have more than one back for the Hasselblad that would the right tool.
The IQ I think would be very much identical unless there are flaws on one of the lenses.

 

[dasBlute]

more like 120,000 dimes/dozen...

I think the risk would be the same for the amount of coin spent on a 'blad.

I use my rollei all the time, a 50mm on a 'blad would be nice once in awhile.

Like telescopes, the best camera is the the one you'll use [sometimes smaller/easier/compact *is* better]

A Planar/Xenotar is equal in both. A Rolleiflex is "collectible", and therefor not something you want to risk getting banged around or lost, as in a trip. Hasselblads are a dime a dozen. If you bang it up, ebay is full of more. No clear answer I can see.

 

[Brian Legge]

I can't imagine a 75mm lens better than the one on my Rollei 3.5F Planar. The sharpness is amazing and the way the lens renders is beautiful. The camera handles well - quiet, compact, easy to use - and does what I need. Sure, it has its limits with the fixed lens and all but I don't think its possible to go wrong with the camera if you can work within its boundaries. I haven't used a Hasselblad myself so I can't compare though I know how good they are. I don't think its possible to call one of these cameras 'better' than the other. Both do their job as well as possible.

 

[Tom1956]

What I like about SOME models of Rolleiflex is that they make great eye-level cameras. When you open the lid and flip in the front to lower the reflex mirror, you simply give a quick peep through the lens to focus on the ground glass, then scoot up to the open framefinder for the picture. A Hasselblad is a "look down into" camera strictly. An eye-level camera is a much better people camera, especially. People do not respond well when they are looking at the bald spot of the photographer's head. People are naturally skittish enough when a camera is pointed at them. But when they see a pleasant and reassuring face behind the camera, they respond well for the snapshot. When they just see a camera with the top of your head behind it, it's much harder to get them to look towards the camera with a photogenic expression.
In this day and time, Rolleis have a weak point. When you have a Rollei with "cleaning marks" (SCRATCHES!) on the lens, the whole camera is junk, as far as worth is concerned. A Hasselblad, you can simply twist off the ruined lens and find another one. On a Rollei, when the roll of film is finished, you are dead in the water till you can complete the re-filming process. A Hasselblad is quick-change. The Hasselblad is a camera that is best on a tripod, because of it's vibration. A Rollei needs none. And if you are going to have to drag around a tripod and live with such a boat anchor, then you might as well have a LF A Rolleiflex has the edge, all things considered. But it's a mighty close shave.

 

[MDR]

The camera with the tripod. The 80mm lenses are about equal some say the Rollei's were manufactured to higher precision because they didn't need the whole helical focussing mount. In the real world you won't see any differences

 

[PKM-25]

I think a Rollie keeps it simple. A 500 & an 80 can be simple too but there is something about the Rollei's simplicity, it is what it is and nothing more.

I chose a Blad because I wanted to build a system and that is where the Blad really shines, they are like Legos. I have three bodies, 7 lenses, three finders, two extension tubes and 8 backs, etc...my dream system.

 

[Steve Smith]

That is quite a photograph indeed!

I have a book about Victor Hasselblad which has another picture of the two of them photographing each other.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I can't imagine a 75mm lens better than the one on my Rollei 3.5F Planar. The sharpness is amazing

I feel the same way about the Xenar lens on my Rolleicord. I'm sure it's the sharpest lens I own.


Steve.

 

[Ian Grant]

I think a Rollie keeps it simple. A 500 & an 80 can be simple too but there is something about the Rollei's simplicity, it is what it is and nothing more.

I chose a Blad because I wanted to build a system and that is where the Blad really shines, they are like Legos. I have three bodies, 7 lenses, three finders, two extension tubes and 8 backs, etc...my dream system.

You've hit the nail on the head it really does depend on whether you want a system camera or are happy with a fixed lens.

I've chosen to use a Rollei but then it's often used alongside a my LF kit. I have a MF system that I used commercially for many years that still gets occasional use.

Ian

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Ian is right,I for one could never get comfortable with the twin lens solution.I'm too used to SLRs.tha's why I went with the more flexible Hassy systemAlso,the 2nd-hand market is still gigantic with good deals if you are patient and know what you are looking for.

 

[ic-racer]

I went with the Rolleiflex. Having the built-in motor, ez-load back and electronically coupled lenses makes it less fiddly to use.

 

[Roger Cole]

What I like about SOME models of Rolleiflex is that they make great eye-level cameras. When you open the lid and flip in the front to lower the reflex mirror, you simply give a quick peep through the lens to focus on the ground glass, then scoot up to the open framefinder for the picture. A Hasselblad is a "look down into" camera strictly. An eye-level camera is a much better people camera, especially. People do not respond well when they are looking at the bald spot of the photographer's head. People are naturally skittish enough when a camera is pointed at them. But when they see a pleasant and reassuring face behind the camera, they respond well for the snapshot. When they just see a camera with the top of your head behind it, it's much harder to get them to look towards the camera with a photogenic expression.

This has not been my experience AT ALL. People are threatened more by feeling like something is aimed at them. They are almost universally, again in my experience, charmed and disarmed by my Yashicamat 124 used with the waist level finder (it too has a sports finder you can use at eye level) though in practice I use it more at "neck level" with it held up to my head with my eye against the focus magnifier.

They are generally much more natural and at-ease with the WLF than with the prism on my M645 Pro, which of course is eye level.

In this day and time, Rolleis have a weak point. When you have a Rollei with "cleaning marks" (SCRATCHES!) on the lens, the whole camera is junk, as far as worth is concerned. A Hasselblad, you can simply twist off the ruined lens and find another one. On a Rollei, when the roll of film is finished, you are dead in the water till you can complete the re-filming process. A Hasselblad is quick-change. The Hasselblad is a camera that is best on a tripod, because of it's vibration. A Rollei needs none. And if you are going to have to drag around a tripod and live with such a boat anchor, then you might as well have a LF A Rolleiflex has the edge, all things considered. But it's a mighty close shave.

I'm really not trying to pick on you or your post in particular *g* but again, if you have a "junk" Rollei, or other camera for that matter, because of cleaning marks (yes, they're scratches, but tiny ones) please send it to me to be disposed of properly rather than tossed out.

Seriously, you'd be amazed how scratched, dirty and crummy a lens has to be before it impacts the results very much at all. It IS true that a lot of tiny "cleaning type" scratches are apt to cause more problems than one or two much bigger and more obvious ones, mainly a reduction in contrast and increase in flare. The former can be dealt with in black and white in printing easily.

I do agree with the rest. I don't have either camera, but I do have the above mentioned Yashicamat 124 and a Mamiya 645 Pro which have similarities in spite of the smaller format of the M645. The Hassy is far more versatile with its interchangeable lenses and backs and through the lens viewing. It can do things the Rollei can't. But what the Rollei does, it does EXTREMELY well, better for my purposes than a big SLR (at those particular things.)

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Quality wise, what's the last word regarding a Rolleiflex vs. 500c+ 80mm cf?
My flex is a 3.5f xenotar but I don't care about the max aperture, more interested in the negative...

Why is that so? And how does it relate to the perceived comparison, "quality wise" between a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad 500c (or any other Hasselblad)?
In skilled, well experienced hands any camera — from a pinhole to a top-drawer Hasselblad, will deliver the results the photographer envisioned. They are, after all, only tools.

 

[Lowly]

You should get a Rolleiflex TLR so you can have both. Just in the past week I've had three people come up to see the Rolleiflex with admiration and ask "Is that a Hasselblad?"