MF Conundrum

[kavandje]

So my Yashicamat 124's shutter is rapidly developing a form of dementia. It's definitely time for a service and / or repair. Questions as to where and how have already been asked, and I have received replies; thank you!

But the ghastly spectre of a replacement -- or at the very least, a backup -- has raised its head.

I definitely want to shoot 6x6. Not negotiable.

I'm teetering between a Rolleiflex TLR and a Hasselblad 'starter set'; have been following the discussions in other threads, and as I see it, both systems have their specific merits.

Rollei: quiet, vibration-free, superb lenses, kooky ergonomics leads to relaxed candids.

Hasselblad: superb lenses, bulletproof build quality, interchangeable film backs (including digital, should I ever want to go to the dark side) and lenses, etc etc etc.

Am I missing anything?

Intended use will be everything from 'studio' (i.e., controlled environment) use, street, road-trips, landscape, low-light. Wildlife and macro, not so much.

I'm leaning towards the Rollei for its simplicity and its near-silence, plus the fact that I love shooting with a TLR for reasons hard to articulate, but would be open to compelling reasons to go with a Hassy with an 80mm.

In either case, I'm looking to hear from people recommendations as to 'sweet-spot' vintages (Is there a particular Rolleiflex or Hasselblad I should be aiming for, and why?), and what I should be looking to budget to get sensible equipment.
I will be in Vancouver in September. Recommendations for shopping would be most welcome also...

 

[Simplicius]

Pretty much asking the same question I have in my head... I will watch with interest the replies. The Rollei is leading my choices too at moment --

 

[elekm]

Either a Rolleiflex or Hasselblad is a camera for life.

If you get a good condition Rolleiflex and have it serviced (or buy one that's been serviced), it will provide you with years of dependable use.

With the Rolleiflex, some people need the extra speed of the f/2.8 Planar or Xenotar, while for others f/3.5 is sufficient. And it also comes down to Tessar/Xenar vs. Planar/Xenotar. Wide-open performance of the two groups of lens is different at closer distances, while stopped down the performance is nearly identical.

The Rolleiflexes in general were built to a high standard, and so the quality of construction should be nearly the same. What will be different is the physical condition of the camera.

The later Rolleiflexes have larger focusing knobs, which might be a selling point for you or not important at all. Later models had selenium meters built in. In general, the Planar/Xenotar cameras are heavier than the Tessar/Xenar models.

Some users like to swap out the original screen for an after-market screen for a brighter image.

Like most cameras, I would try to find a shop that has several different models and hold them in your hands. That will tell you more than any technical specs.

 

[Terence]

Both are a joy to use and both are solidly built. That said, I'd stick with the TLR. It's ergonomics are strange, but so are the Hasselblad's. And the Hassie is heavier and larger to grasp. If you can deal with the strange gyrations of shooting a TLR, stick with it.

Obviously just an opinion and not gospel truth for all.

I started MF with a Rolleicord and it was all I had for years. Loved it. I now have a fairly complete Hasselblad system that's great for many things, especially long lenses, but you really have to want to carry the extra weight, etc. The Rollei gets picked up without a thought.

 

[Nick Merritt]

What Mike said. Because the Rolleis have fixed lenses, they are inherently less versatile, though that may not bother you too much. And there are some Rollei accessories (I think of the Rolleinar closeup lenses) that increase their capabilities somewhat. But you still can't do as much with a TLR as you can with an SLR like the Hasselblad. That may not be an issue for you at all. I warn you that these cameras are rather addictive: Again, because the lenses aren't interchangeable, you may well find yourself "needing" to get several variants -- like if you got one of the older ones with the Tessar, you may have to get one of the later ones with the Planar or Xenotar. And if you got one with, say, the Planar, you may believe you have to have the Xenotar version too. Or if you have one of the 3.5 ones, you may "have" to get a 2.8 one. And so on.

That said, I think you can't go wrong with a mid-50s Rolleiflex, such as the MX-EVS. This has the Tessar lens, and so isn't as heavy as the Planar/Xenotar-equipped cameras. The only suggestion I'd make is to swap out the focusing screen with a fresnel screen; it does make a difference.

The Hasselblads are lovely pieces of equipment, and you can do a lot with them. They aren't too heavy or bulky either. Their modular design does add complexity, of course -- can't remove the back without the dark slide in; can't take a picture with the dark slide in; need to make sure the shutter is charged before changing backs or lenses. As an occasional user I find I have to stop and do a mental inventory from time to time ("OK, why won't the shutter fire? Oh right, the dark slide is still in"). But that isn't a big deal. Loading film is not something that you can do quickly with one of these, while the Rollei is pretty quick. Certainly the idea of being able to use a digital back with these is very attractive, as you mention.

I guess I'd stay with one of the all-mechanical bodies -- a 500C/M or 501CM -- for the real Hassy experience. And if you can get T* lenses that's great, but the older chrome C lenses (Compur shutter) or CF (Prontor) will be fine.

 

[Larry.Manuel]

For me, Rolleicord = simplicity.

Now, I own two Rolleicords and one Rolleiflex, all overhauled by Harry Fleenor and all with Maxwell screens. For this investment, I could own a Hasselblad and maybe two lenses. And I did - very seriously - consider the H'blad. The Rolleicords are mechanically simpler [fewer features] and are my favourites. Overhaul costs are lower - they don't need film transport overhauls.

Winding on film by knob and cocking the shutter by hand never bothers me, actually I prefer it.

My Leica M3 isn't seeing much use - my work with the Rollei TLRs is more satisfying to me. I feel completely at ease using the TLRs. My positive feelings:

- really quiet shutter, with low vibration.
- negatives are as sharp as I'd ever want. These lenses are superb.
- I find it thrilling, knowing that I am creating a reasonably-sized negative. The level of detail that I capture is satisfying every time.
- a certain hard-to-define funkiness that appeals to me.
- a timeless feel of practical quality and reliability.
- fond memories of my dad's Rolleiflex [60s and 70s].
- lastly, and perhaps most importantly: their utter simplicity of operation. Here I reference Barry Schwartz's Paradox of Choice. see Dead Link Removed

Certainly there are limitations to using a fixed-lens camera. As Schwartz argues, I feel happier with these limitations.

Certainly, I'd love to have a Hasselblad. I might not be happier using it, though. Good luck to all. I'm two weeks into recovering from a broken hip [fell off my bike]. Almost every day I make an exposure or several. I love doing that.

 

[Greg_E]

Mamiya RB or RZ with 6x6 back. Far more camera for the money, RB's are selling for pennies on the dollar compared to the original price.

 

[dpurdy]

Rolleiflex has "kooky ergonomics"!! where do you get that?

Rolleiflex is a very well designed and intuitive camera that will last a life time. Is it kooky to look in a WLF? The kooky ergonomics is more a Hasselblad problem.
dennis

 

[kavandje]

To clarify the kookiness: TLRs are not kooky to me either; I've been happily shooting away with a Yashicamat 124 for years; they're kooky from the perspective of someone who's accustomed to (D)SLRs -- it was really, really funny watching a friend of mine, a pro photographer who's weapon of choice is some Nikon with lots of letters and numbers in its name, try to figure out where her hands were supposed to go....

 

[Steve Smith]

Mamiya RB or RZ with 6x6 back. Far more camera for the money.

Agreed but there are times when I don't mind carrying my RB67 and times when I don't want to and would rather take my Rolleicord.


Steve.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

A Rolleiflex's ergonomics are
no kookier than a Hasselblad's.
Both present the same backward
image in the viewfinder, and both
rely on the same type of waist-
level finder.

The original post suggested that
"superb lenses" and "bulletproof
build quality" were Hasselblad
advantages. A Rolleiflex TLR
offers the same degree of lens
and build quality.

A Rolleiflex is the superior
camera IF you don't mind the
lack of interchangeable lenses.
If you do, then Hasselblad.

 

[Q.G.]

A Rolleiflex is the superior
camera IF you don't mind the
lack of interchangeable lenses.

And if you don't mind not seeing what the taking lens sees, and what the film will record.

I have nothing against Rollei TLRs, think they are great. Really do.
But with limitations.
And for the life of me i can't think in what way they are ' superior' . Except being quieter. But in what other way???

 

[John Koehrer]

Ergonomically the only difference in operation is the focus. Rollei's is on the side & 'Blads is on the lens. Film advance and shutter release are for effects & purposes are the same.
Hasselblad's heavier & Rollei's lighter.

 

[Greg_E]

I agree, there are times where a system camera is too big and bulky to carry around, this is where a small TLR will shine.

Another option might be a Mamiya TLR like a C330 or C33 so that you get the different lenses. Slightly bigger and heavier than a 'flex but similar simple operation.

Rollei's (TLRs in general) are good cameras, I have an original model 'flex sitting here waiting to be restored, plus a Yashica 635 and a 'cord in working condition. But they won't get me the images I can get with the 500mm lens on my Mamiya 645 Pro, or the wide I can get with the 30mm fisheye on the same, or the macro I can get with any of the lenses and the 3 extension tubes. They (TLRs) have their function, and they can take good images, but they are not the panacea that some would make them out to be!

One other superior thing for a TLR is that you can see if the model blinks when you click the shutter, this can not be done with an SLR since the mirror needs to get out of the way. Megavision makes a current digital integrated camera that is like this so that you can see if the model blinks so that you can reshoot without having to look at the computer. They market this to people who do school yearbooks and have to push people through the line as quickly as possible.

Personally I would probably go for a Kiev 88 before I would get a Hasselblad. And if I wanted the highest resolution available, I would probably go for a Mamiya 7 or 7II, but the price is fairly high for those cameras and lenses. Hasselblad or RB 67??? RB any day for my money, you could get more for the money you have with the RB. RZ IID would be even better, but the price on those is still high because there is still a demand for them since they have the interface to digital backs.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

And if you don't mind not seeing what the taking lens sees, and what the film will record.

I have nothing against Rollei TLRs, think they are great. Really do.
But with limitations.
And for the life of me i can't think in what way they are ' superior' . Except being quieter. But in what other way???

Much quieter.
Much smaller.
Less obtrusive.
Much simpler.
Not prone to jamming.
More elegant.

The Rolleiflex has automatic parallax
correction and the viewfinder is precisely
keyed to the taking lens, so not seeing
through the taking lens is rarely an issue.

 

[tomkatf]

If you want to stick with TLR's, I'd also say take a long look at the Mamiya C330... TLR advantages plus interchangable lenses and a nice complete system. (and this from a Hasselblad user!)

Good Luck...

Best,
Tom

 

[dpurdy]

I currently have a sheet film back on one of my TLR Rolleis which gives me ground glass viewing and focusing with the taking lens. And it allows me to shoot one sheet at a time. They didn't intend the new 2.8FX to have interchangeable backs but I put the old style strap hanger on the FX and now I can put the sheet film back on the new FX.. which is where it is.
Dennis

 

[Q.G.]

Much quieter.

Give you that (i already had).

Much smaller.

?
You must be thinking about some other camera. There's not much in it between the two.

Less obtrusive.

While we could debat the smaller-thingy, this is simply not true.

Much simpler.

Also, not so.
A Hasselblad has a button to push when you want to expose the film. A wind crank to wind the film and cock the shutter afterwards.
It has a ring to turn to select a shutterspeed, another thing to select an aperture. And a ring to set focus.
A hood to open to see what you are getting on film.
And somewhere to load film in.
There's no more to it.
How's the Rollei TLR simpler, let alone "much" simpler?

But yes, the mechanics of the thing is a bit more complicated.
But that needn't concern any of us. It is as reliable.

Not prone to jamming.

That's true.
But neither is the Hasselblad.

More elegant.

That's a matter of taste...

The Rolleiflex has automatic parallax
correction and the viewfinder is precisely
keyed to the taking lens, so not seeing
through the taking lens is rarely an issue.

Parallax is not 'corrected'.
It cannot be, unless you put the viewing lens where the taking lens is.
What you can do is give an indication in the viewfinder how the subject is framed. But you will still see it different from what the taking lens sees.

The viewfinder of any (!) SLR is "precisely keyed to the taking lens".
Of course much more so than that of any TLR.
So how's that a sign of a TLR's superiority?

Don't get me wrong. I still like Rollei TLRs.

But because it is a TLR, it is limiting you in what you can do with it.
The uncorrectable parallax means it is absolutely no good for anything close.
Not seeing through the lens makes using polarizers or grads a pain in the posterior.
And Rollei's fixed lens means you have to carry three cameras if you want something on either side of the standard lens.

"Superior"...?

 

[kavandje]

Hmm. Just as I thought: sharply divided opinions, all of which are perfectly reasonable.

My latent preference for TLRs derives from their relative discretion on the noise front. Just how noisy is a Hassy?

That said: I suppose given the chance to try one out, I may find myself liking it a great deal, so my latent TLR preference may be moot.

As for the Mamiya option (both RB and C330): I've thought about it, but I suppose that the ornery German in me, as well as a preference for Zeiss glass, won out. I may yet sway, depending on what I find, but I am grateful nonetheless for the informative and all very reasonable, if differing, opinions and suggestions!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

You must be thinking about some other camera. There's not much in it between the two.

Quentin, you argue from false presumptions.

Weight. A Hasselblad fitted with a film back
and 80mm Planar weighs 1555 grams. A
Rolleiflex will weigh only 1000 to 1200
grams, depending on model.

Size. A Hasselblad fitted with a film back
and 80mm Planar measures 11x11x18 cm.
A Rolleiflex, only 11x10x15 cm.

Simplicity. The Hasselblad, having interchangeable
backs and lenses, as well as a swinging reflex mirror
and a second barn-door shutter in the body, has many
more moving parts than a Rolleiflex, and therefore many
more opportunities for failure. (See "jamming," below.)
In addition, it requires shutter interlocks tied to the
film back, the darkslide, and the lens mount. The
Rolleiflex has none of that.

Jamming. It is REALLY easy to jam the shutter of a
Hasselblad. (I know, having done it several times myself
before selling my Hasselblad.) This is such a common
problem that Hasselblad sells what it euphemistically
calls a "camera key" to enable users to unjam frozen
cameras without having to take it to a dealer for service.

And we won't even talk about the flakiness of the C
series Hasselblad lenses, and the lack of parts to fix
them when their shutters die.

All of these things have real-world consequences for
a photographer. The mechanical complexity ensures
that the Hasselblad will need more attention and be
more prone to failure. The added size and weight is
substantial. The mirror slap makes handholding the
camera unrealistic at speeds under 1/60th of a second,
and even that is optimistic -- unless you don't mind
soft images from the vibrations caused by the mirror
and the body barn-door shutter.

 

[Nick Merritt]

I for one would love to know about the "flakiness" of the C-series lenses, since I own two of them myself. I'm not sure how, other than age and the fact they use Compurs as opposed to Prontors, they're different from newer Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses mechanically.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

But because it is a TLR, it is limiting you in what you can do with it.
The uncorrectable parallax means it is absolutely no good for anything close.

From a Rolleiflex 2.8C:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

From a Tele Rolleiflex:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

How much closer would you like me to get? :-D

 

[Rolleiflexible]

I for one would love to know about the "flakiness" of the C-series lenses, since I own two of them myself. I'm not sure how, other than age and the fact they use Compurs as opposed to Prontors, they're different from newer Hasselblad/Zeiss lenses mechanically.

The shutters are old and wearing out and Hasselblad
no longer supports them. I have two dead C lenses,
an 80 Planar and a 120 Makro Planar, that make nice
paperweights because they cannot be repaired.

Compare that with a Rolleiflex -- there isn't a Rolleiflex
lens, body or shutter out there that cannot be revived.

 

[Q.G.]

Well. We could go on arguing... and we will. For a bit.

Size and weight: thanks for getting the numbers.
"Substantial" Really not much in it, is there?

Complexity: it doesn't matter to you, as a photographer.
Maybe if you were taking the things apart and having to reassemble them properly again.
But i don't know about you, but i don't do that with my cameras. I push that button on front and take pictures. ;-)

So, despite what's gong on inside, what matters is that it works. And it does. Just as well as the less complex thing. With no need to fear it would be less reliable.
That's quality for you.

This ubiquitous jamming myth...
I have been using Hasselblads for decades, and have never ever jammed one of them.
And i am not someone who can take a camera apart and reassemble it properly again, i.e. i'm not super dextrous.
If it were REALLY easy, what am i doing wrong? ;-)

The ergonomics of the C lenses can be debated, yes.
But C lenses are not Hasselblad. C lenses were replaced 25 years ago.
The line that replaced them was replaced years ago already too. Each line even (!) better than the preceeding line.
Nothing of the sort with Rollei TLRs, right? But you could argue that if a thing works, it does not need upgrading. Well, many people still use C lenses, and are very happy doing so.

Parts for C lenses? Not from Hasselblad or Zeiss, because they do not want parts for these old things available. So they say they are not.
But you can get your 50 year old C lenses fixed even today (if you find you can't find anyone to help you with your two C lenses, just let us know).
Some would say that's something to boost confidence. You see it as a a worry... Ah well!

That mirror slap (and rear shutter slap) is a deciding factor in handholding is (sorry!) utter nonsense. It really is. (Just for fun, go to YouTube, and search for Hasselblad and Penny)
The shake of your hands is orders of magnitudes worst than anything the mirror or rear shutter could cause, if it did its utmost best. So even discussing whether a mirror does cause vibrations or not is pointless.
Just as the often heard (but not any more near the truth because of it) thingy that TLRs can be held at slower speeds than SLRs. Also unfounded nonsense.
It's fantasy. Myth. Not true. Neither of the two widely held believes is.


P.S. (i just can't resist):
You got my name wrong too...

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Res ipsa loquitur.

I rest my case.