Last word: Rolleiflex vs. hassy?

[Black Dog]

Don't use a 'blad anywhere near a faultline...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Because it is much more that it is cracked up to be.

 

[NB23]

I (don't) see...

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I have two 500-series Hassy's and at least 7-8 Rolleiflexes including the -wide, the Tele-, and the SL66. They are all the best.

 

[Ian Grant]

You can get custom screens for Rolleis if you want - even in the older cameras, but you'll need professional installation in the pre-F models. I'm planning on having bright screens put in both of my E's soon.

I put a Chinese made replacement Rolleiflex screen in my Microcord (essentially a UK made Rolleicord III) with no issues it's a simple swap no focus shift, just 4 screws. I'd bought it hoping it might be possible to fit in my Yashicamat 124.

The screen in my Rolleiflec 3.5E is excellent but I think they used improved screens in the later versions.

Ian

 

[Black Dog]

I (don't) see...

The mirror on a 'blad would score pretty highly on the Richter scale...

 

[JW PHOTO]

The mirror on a 'blad would score pretty highly on the Richter scale...

Try a Bronica S2A or a Pentax 67 sometime. I don't think the scale would go high enough for the S2A.

 

[Pioneer]

I think the title of this thread should be changed as it does not appear that there is a "last word." I think perhaps "Ongoing Words: Rolleiflex vs Hassey" would be a bit more accurate.

 

[Ian Grant]

I'd guess that in reality the last word is which of the two makes a poster in the thread is actually still using. I my case I never had any interest in Hasselblads but have used 4 Rolleiflexes (or Rolleicords) and have an MPP Microcord which is a UK better engineered version ot the Rolleicord III with a higher quality (compared to the Tessar) Xpres lens.

So I happened to go down the Rollei TLR route 6 or 7 years ago, it's about knowing your cameras capabilities and getting the most from them, I have no doubt I could get excellent results from a Hasselblad. I happened to use a Bronica S2a firts in the 1970's and the system was superb but I went for a Mamiya 645 system in preference, it was just what suited me best and at the time I didn't like or rather utlise the square format even when I had mamiya C3 & C33 cameras so 645 made much more sense.

These days after buying a Yashicamat 124 and reviving a mint dried our Rolleiflex 3.5 E I find the square format is wonderful and I always work to it, it's by instinct though I vcan work to many formats and never crop.

Ian

 

[Pioneer]

Bought a YashicaMat first and then moved to Rolleiflex. Have two now, one is an MXV Automat circa 1954 and the other is a Tele-Rolleiflex from around 1960. Still have all three along with several Ikoflexes. Enjoy them all immensely though I am nowhere near mastering any of them. I cannot seem to live without the view in that glass.

In the meantime I have owned a Mamiya 645. It never worked quite right, I think it was about used up by the time I got it. Sold that, bought a Hassy 501CM. The pix were fine but I sold that and bought a Pentax 645Nii. Most of my best shots have come with the Pentax but I am addicted to the Rolleis so I keep using them.

I keep telling myself I could live only with a Rollei and a 645Nii, and maybe one day I will.

 

[Edwardv]

Rolleiflex

 

[ambaker]

As cheap as film cameras have become, why not one of each?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[JW PHOTO]

As cheap as film cameras have become, why not one of each?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Now you're talking! Get a Yashicamat (12, 124, 124G), Roleiflex, Blad, Mamiya................................................................................................or whatever else tickles your fancy. That way you can decide just exactly what fit your style and type of photography. That's what I did, but watch out for the trap! The trap is you'll want to keep them all and it's not good for the pocket book or sometimes the marriage. JohnW

 

[ntenny]

I've never gone in for Hasselblads because of the price of the lenses, but I do think in general it makes sense to have "one of each" between TLRs and some kind of MF system cameras. The benefits of each have been decently covered in this thread, and they're quite complementary.

See? *That's* how you do a "last" word.

-NT

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I can't believe that so many posts CAN be made about something like this.
They are not exactly the same, are they? There's a reason they took Haaselblad cameras to space, used them for scientific photography, and that they were so popular in studios. They are good at applications like that. Extremely competent cameras.

Rolleiflex TLRs are of a different kind. They are smooth, light, beautiful devices that work so well for art photography, more casual and relaxed, every day use, away from the tripod.

They are completely different animals. Both very competent, but apples and oranges, and it comes down to shooting technique which suits the user best. Both cameras are capable of extremely high print quality. Mirror vibration has not been an issue in my years with Hasselblad.

 

[Roger Cole]

As cheap as film cameras have become, why not one of each?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Then the problem you face is which one to shoot with. I have this problem now, with a 35mm kit consisting of three K mount bodies (not counting the Ricoh Singlex TLS screw mount I bought because one just like it was my first real camera and I waned one - dim viewfinder and heavy, but works ok) and a Yashicamat 124, a M645 Pro, and a Linhof 4x5. The 35mm kit has grown to where I pack what I expect I might use at a given time in a smaller bag. The whole thing fits in one big bag but with two WA-short Tele zooms, one 50mm, a 70-210, a flash unit, filters etc. it's pretty darned heavy to tote the whole thing. Same only more so with the 645 Pro with the winder grip, AE prism finder, three lenses, four backs, something like five or six inserts (I forget exactly) and a Polaroid back. And the 4x5, well, with 11 holders, a roll film back, a Polaroid back (for the still available and affordable 3.25x4.25 Fuji film) three lenses, dark cloth, spot meter... it fits nicely in a backpack, but needs that backpack if I want to carry it all (I rarely carry all the holders, since I'd never use them all in one outing) not to mention my 8 lb. tripod I always carry if I'm shooting 4x5.

And I know my kits are sparse compared to many folks here.

It becomes a problem of choosing what to take and what to leave and suffering a type of paralysis by analysis.

And, perhaps oddly, when I think it will suit the shooting I want to do, my favorite to take is the Yashicmat. One lense, built in, my LunaPro SBC, a hood, some filters and extra film fits nicely in a quite small bag made originally for digital. It's unobtrusive and easy to carry while walking for other purposes.

Either my 35mm kit with my LX and MX and lenses or the M645 Pro with the AE prism, interchangeable backs and lenses is far more versatile (the 4x5 is LESS versatile but what it does, it does better than any of my other cameras) but the Yashica is about the most fun of the lot.

 

[Tom1956]

You know what I'd like to see discussed, pro and con?--User opinions of a C, CM compared with its EL models. I for one maintain that the ELM can compare more on the same footing with Rolleis in the camera vibration department. The motor/battery adding dampening by weight. My EL trips off smooth as silk. I pick up the C and it jumps in my hand when I trip it. Yes, all foams are new. On top of that, EL's are cheap. Goes to show don't have to spend yourself into guilt to have a great camera. I'm telling you folks who have never shot an EL/ELM--they're really smooth when that mirror clacks. Much closer to a Rollei. A CM is like--FLOP!, and it shakes your hand. And my logic is that because of that, your hand is the actual offender more than the camera. C's are compact, and EL's have the beef to get the grain (pixel) peeping sharpness.
Put me down in the ELM column, by reason of stability. (and price)