RB67 vs. 501CM

[SodaAnt]

No, this isn't a "help me choose" thread. It's my comparison of the two cameras, based on field usage.

I've had a Mamiya RB67 Pro-SD for about a year now and have used it extensively in the field. I recently acquired a Hasselblad 501CM, 80mm lens, and two film backs, all brand new in the box. According to the serial numbers, the camera, lens, and backs were all made in 2000.

I took the camera on a visit to Bodie State Park, a mining ghost town in the high desert of the eastern Sierra. The camera, lens, and backs all fit in a Domke F2 bag, unlike the RB67, which is bigger and requires a bigger bag to lug it around. I also took my aluminum Manfrotto tripod.

Compared to the RB67, the 501CM seems like a little gem. No, it's not a small camera by any means, but compared to the RB it sure seems like it! Fit and finish also seem to be a little better, although I bought the RB used, so that might be a factor in the comparison.

In actual use, I find the 501CM quicker to use than the RB. Here are some of my likes and dislikes compared to the RB:

I like the fact that advancing the film and cocking the shutter on the Hassy is a single operation versus the two-step process on the RB.

I like the mirror lock-up mechanism of the Hassy better. Seems simpler and easier to use than the RB, which requires attaching a cable release to the lens rather than the body.

I found it quicker and easier to load Hassy film backs.

I like the bayonet filter system on the Hassy. Filters go on and off the lens quicker. Bay60 filters are harder to find and more expensive than standard filters, so I don't have many of them. To get around this, I use a cheap $7 adapter that adapts 67mm screw-on filters to Bay60. I bought one adapter for each of my 67mm filters and leave them attached to the filters, which makes it just as fast to use them on the camera as does an actual Bay60 filter.

I like the focusing mechanism on the RB better. It seems more intuitive to me than focusing using a ring on the lens like on the Hassy. The bellows also let me get closer to a subject than the Hassy, without extension tubes, did. The focusing screen on the Hassy is brighter than the one on the RB, but the difference isn't particularly great.

I like the fact that the back revolves on the RB, which makes it easy to switch orientation without putting the camera on its side. This is, of course, moot with the Hassy as it's a square format camera.

Another interesting point: a number of people came up to me and said "Is that a Hasselblad?" I've never had anyone come up and say "Is that an RB67?" in the year I've been using it out in the field.

Overall, I think I'll probably use the RB67 out in the field more often due to its larger negative size and reserve the 501CM for when bulk and weight matter. I have not developed the film yet, so I can't comment on the image quality of the Hassy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I prefer the Hasselblad over the RB67 for many of the reasons you listed. I feel, for me, the 6x7 format is awkward. B60 filters with all the other filters have become harder to find because of a business driven shift away from filters. I suggest that in addition to looking at B+W and Hasselblad filter manufactures, that you contact filter.find and discuss with the owner the filters that you are searching for and of course KEH.com.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Very useful comparison. Where or how did you find a new in the box 501CM, lens, and backs? What an amazing find.

Is your lens the Planar-CB version? This is the 6-element Planar, a variation of the double Gauss formula. I find mine to be very flat field and uniform.

 

[SodaAnt]

I acquired it from a relative who bought it new many years ago and never used it (he gave up photography and took up golf). He recently found it buried in a closet and asked if I wanted it.

I’m not sure which lens I have. I’ll look when I get home. The lens came with the body and was attached to the body in the same box. He told me the second back was a free promotion when he bought the camera.

He also told me an interesting anecdote. He ordered a filter at the same time he ordered the camera, but they were shipped separately and the filter arrived the day before the camera. When the filter was delivered, it required a signature, but when the camera was delivered a day later it didn’t require a signature and sat on his porch all day until he got home from work.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

They are both wonderful. I've used both, but prefer the RB. I love the bigger negative, and if I want square, I'll crop it. I can also slap a 6x8 back on it. The optics are sharp. RB is built like a tank and weighs like one, but if you drop it, you'll most likely just dent something (or break you foot). Drop the blad, and it could explode into pieces. Second hand, it's way cheaper than a Hasselblad.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'll stick with my RB67. Sure, it's bulkier and heavier than the 'Blad, but it's quite a bit less expensive and more versatile. With that 501 you can shoot 6x6 (or if you can find a working A24, 3x6 and verticals are a PITA). With my RB, I can shoot 6x7 in either orientation with any of the viewfinders, 6x6 (with a Graflex 22 or RH12 film back), 6x4.5 (again, in either orientation), and nearly 6x8 on a 6x9 Graflex 23, because all the film backs I have fit the 2x3 Graflok mount on the RB67.

And never mind that a comparable RB67 kit will cost less than half what a 'Blad will if you're having to buy it vs. inherit...

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

Chalk my vote for the RB67. Probably byassed because I love Mamiya ( from Mamiya 16 all the way to Press cameras). I had both the 501CM and the RB67but decided to keep the RB67 because a)I love big negatives, b) Wide angle lenses are way cheaper for RB67. I do a lot of landscape and architecture photography so prefer wider lenses. I was loaned some Hasselblad wide to compare to RB67 lenses and although they were sharper, the amount of sharpness was not worth the extra $.

Again, they were not worth for me, because I do photography for fun, not business, and I'm very satisfied by RB67 lenses. Hassy lenses are great and for some, they may well worth their weight in gold for them, horses for courses, I guess.

 

[Steven Lee]

A Hasselblad person here... Never tried the RB but, having owned the C330s and 645 Pro, I am sure I would have liked the RB/RZ. There's something about Mamiya approach to hardware that I appreciate. They tend to be practical, well-made and differentiated.

Back to Hasselblads. One big advantage of the platform that's rarely mentioned for some reason is consistency. There is very little variability in optical quality, handling, filter diameter and physical design of their lenses. You quickly become efficient through reliance on muscle memory. Same filters, same focusing throw and focusing effort, same coatings, similar image characteristics, etc. For an active photographer this should be a big deal, not sure why people don't mention it. Other medium format systems require photographer to adjust when swapping lenses.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Back to Hasselblads. One big advantage of the platform that's rarely mentioned for some reason is consistency. There is very little variability in optical quality, handling, filter diameter and physical design of their lenses. You quickly become efficient through reliance on muscle memory. Same filters, same focusing throw and focusing effort, same coatings, similar image characteristics, etc. For an active photographer this should be a big deal, not sure why people don't mention it. Other medium format systems require photographer to adjust when swapping lenses.

Same with the RB...

 

[GregY]

I worked with an RB67 for a while. Using that and the Pentax 6x7 was the impetus for me to move to large format....equally bulky and often less weight. I often have the urge to get a Hasselblad Super Wide C, especially after seeing Philippe-Georges' photos displayed here.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Back to Hasselblads. One big advantage of the platform that's rarely mentioned for some reason is consistency. There is very little variability in optical quality, handling, filter diameter and physical design of their lenses. You quickly become efficient through reliance on muscle memory. Same filters, same focusing throw and focusing effort, same coatings, similar image characteristics, etc. For an active photographer this should be a big deal, not sure why people don't mention it. Other medium format systems require photographer to adjust when swapping lenses.

Same with the RB...

As an RB67 owner, I'll note that the focus travel is *not* the same for all lenses, any more than it's the same for a 35 mm and a 105 mm on a 35 mm SLR. It can't be -- neither with plain lenses like large format examples nor with retrofocus/extended focus lenses like those on the RB system.

If it were, my 180 mm would focus to the same close-up distance as my 50 mm, and that is clearly not the case (the 180 come in to about five feet at minimum, while the 50 mm will go beyond 1:1, though it's not optimized for macro use).

 

[Luckless]

A Hasselblad person here... Never tried the RB but, having owned the C330s and 645 Pro, I am sure I would have liked the RB/RZ. There's something about Mamiya approach to hardware that I appreciate. They tend to be practical, well-made and differentiated.

Back to Hasselblads. One big advantage of the platform that's rarely mentioned for some reason is consistency. There is very little variability in optical quality, handling, filter diameter and physical design of their lenses. You quickly become efficient through reliance on muscle memory. Same filters, same focusing throw and focusing effort, same coatings, similar image characteristics, etc. For an active photographer this should be a big deal, not sure why people don't mention it. Other medium format systems require photographer to adjust when swapping lenses.

People might not mention that as a factor for Hasselblads simply because it isn't nearly as distinctly 'a thing' as you are making it out to be? Is there any medium format system camera that has wildly different optical qualities among first party lenses of similar generations?

Focus knob is -exactly- the same position whether I have the 50mm or 500mm lens on my RB67, and shutter and aperture dials are all in barely distinguishable locations at less than a two inch difference. There are minor changes in min and max apertures, but control wise they all share the same core dials sizes and positions.

Besides the 500mm lens they all take the same 77mm filters...

The Mamiya TLRs can be a bit of a hassle if you are mixing lens generations, with one splitting the controls to either side of the lens body and one combining them to the body's left side, but is easy enough to resolve by just collecting one generation of lenses. And the focus isn't only the same for all of the TLR bodies and lenses, but it is virtually identical in feel and position as the RB67...

 

[Hassasin]

Strange comparison pair, vastly different cameras, just about everything about them is different, without touching either.

I don't how film loading in Hass is easier than in RB, if I were to judge, maybe a tie, but same would apply to Bronica backs or even P645 insert.

But the way RB67 lands its mirror puts most other makes, Hass included, in the Hall of Shame. I'm not sure if RZ has same mirror mechanism.

 

[MarkS]

In the studio- Mamiya RB. On location- Hasselblad.
Of course either camera will be superb in either situation, but that's where the advantages are.

 

[Sean Mac]

I put a basic Hasselblad 500/80mm Planar/A12/PM45 set together last year.

It's wonderful.

It was chosen over the RB67 because I already have a Rolleiflex.

A well used 2.8F with the Zeiss Planar.

My one and only MF camera for twenty something years, so I'm happy with 6x6.

No need for a bigger MF enlarger with the Hasselblad.

Still, I look at Mamiya RB67's and wonder....

 

[fstop]

Interesting, I was considering a RB67.

 

[Steven Lee]

@Luckless My C330s lenses are from the same generation, yet their optical qualities vary wildly. The "black rim" 80mm is head and shoulders above others because it uses visibly different coatings and is much less prone to flare. The 55mm is quite weak in comparison. The 105mm has DOF while others don't. And the 180mm completely changes the handling of a TLR. That's a pretty big difference vs the Hasselblad, at least to me.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Interesting, I was considering a RB67.

One nifty thing with either the RB67 or the Hasselblad -- if you buy it and don't find it suits you, you can resell with little or no loss (or maybe a small profit, if you held it a while finding out).

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

@Luckless My C330s lenses are from the same generation, yet their optical qualities vary wildly. The "black rim" 80mm is head and shoulders above others because it uses visibly different coatings and is much less prone to flare. The 55mm is quite weak in comparison. The 105mm has DOF while others don't. And the 180mm completely changes the handling of a TLR. That's a pretty big difference vs the Hasselblad, at least to me.

Difference between 80 and 55mm performance may be related to 80 being the standard lens and as such, it had better resources for designing a better lens, so it is their main attraction to the system.

Got the same 105mm and yeah, weird they experimented with DOF on it and not the other lenses. To be hones, never used the feature for over 10 years.

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

In the studio- Mamiya RB. On location- Hasselblad.
Of course either camera will be superb in either situation, but that's where the advantages are.

I would say, yeah. RB67 weight difference is an important consideration for location/on the road shooting.

If you do lot of on the road photography, thumbs up for Hasselblad.


For me, when I want to travel light, I use my Bronica ETRS.

 

[GregY]

I would say, yeah. RB67 weight difference is an important consideration for location/on the road shooting.

If you do lot of on the road photography, thumbs up for Hasselblad.


For me, when I want to travel light, I use my Bronica ETRS.

My travel light 6x6 Perkeo ll w Color Skopar

 

[Donald Qualls]

For me, when I want to travel light, I use my Bronica ETRS.

If I want to travel light I'll take one of my folders -- Daiichi Zenobia, Super Ikonta B, Mamiya Six, Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera, or Moskva 5. All lighter than any quality TLR or SLR for 120 film...

 

[Marcelo Paniagua]

If I want to travel light I'll take one of my folders -- Daiichi Zenobia, Super Ikonta B, Mamiya Six, Voigtlander Rollfilmkamera, or Moskva 5. All lighter than any quality TLR or SLR for 120 film...

Oh yeah, the Moskva 5 is light and a good performer. Use the ETR when I want a wide/tele option though, but for general landscape on 6x9, Moskva is hard to beat.

 

[Donald Qualls]

for general landscape on 6x9, Moskva is hard to beat.

Actually, my Rollfilmkamera is at least as good as the Moskva 5 for landscapes -- scale focus is no disadvantage and the 1927 Skopar is every bit as good as the 1959 Industar (Tessar copy), except uncoated (not always a disadvantage). And the Rollfilmkamera is somewhat thinner when folded and not much more than half the weight of the Moskva 5.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

I had a reasonably well filled out RB67 system, and sold it shortly after getting my Hasselblad. The size and weight difference is almost comical, and I found the RB67 so bulky I didn't want to take it out of the house. I'll gladly haul my Hasselblads with me.

One of the things I've come to appreciate about the Hasselblad vs. virtually all of the Japanese MF SLRs I've used is in their approach to light seals. I know the Pro-SD back for the RB67 improved a lot in this area, but the earlier backs were always leaky and I felt like it was a never-ending job to scrape all the old foam out of them and reseal them(although Bronicas are even worse IMO). Compare that to a Hasselblad back of any age, where you have exactly one light seal, and it's a 10 minute job to replace them. Overall when I've ventured inside a Hasselblad I've just appreciated the construction with an eye toward serviceability.

I just always felt too like there was a lot involved in using an RB67. Aside from the separate cock and advance operations, you have things like how on later CRC lenses you have to read the focused distance off the side scale then manually set the CRC ring. I know none of those things by themselves are a big deal, but they all add up to enough that a 4x5 camera isn't that much bigger/heavier or really all that much more tedious to use.

One last thing since back loading was mentioned-as they say the devil is in the details. I can load a Hassy back faster and easier than I can most any other MF back I've used. I feel like on many of them, I'm always wrestling to move the spools around, where on Hassy backs the hinged pins that snap out of the way make doing all of this fast and easy. The much-maligned hold down "tab" is easy to deal with if you turn the back key so that it's "up" and then move it back "down" to slide the insert in.

That's just my take on it, and I'll add that in addition to these two cameras, I've owned and used a Bronica SQ-A, Bronica ETRs, Bronica S2a, Pentax 645, and Pentax 67. Of those, the only other one I've kept is the Pentax 67. I used my Pentax 67 as much in a month of ownership as I did my RBs in a couple of years of ownership, so it was an easy decision for me. The Pentax just suits me better, although my Hasselblads get used more than any of them. Lately I've also been playing with a friend's Century Graphic, and he had a couple of RB67 backs with it in addition to the a couple of 6x9 Graflex and a 6x7 Graflex back. It's been giving me a bit of a reminder of using the RB, although of course it's a lot slower and even more fiddly with more steps involved to use it.