RB67 vs Hasselblad test shots

[stradibarrius]

I had ask a question about setting up a test to compare these two cameras.
My initial expectations was for the Hasselblad 500c/m w/ 80mm f/2.8 lens to show a superior result compared to an RB67 w/90mm f/3.8 Sekor C lens

I was somewhat surprised to find that there was differences in favor of both??

Here is the test set up.
the test shots were made at the same time, one camera after the other using as close to the same exposure as possible. The shutter speeds of the two lenses differ a bit. And also a cloud may come by and the reading to get the same "0" meter reading might change.
I used a tripod and bothe cameras were fitted with a quick relase plate so I could easily change the two cameras out without moving the tripod or changing the angles.

I used Kodak Tmax 400 developed in XTOL 1:1. Both rolls of film were process at the same time and fresh one shot XTOL 1:1 was used for each roll in a small "patterson" type hand tank.

On a side note I found that Tmax in XTOL was really nice and something I will try again. I don't normally shoot Tmax.

The negatives were scaned on an Epson V500 scanner using a Vista 64 bit PC. No dust removal, sharpening, or any other Photoshop alterations were made. I cropped one of the shots so that the format difference was hidden so as not to give away which shot came from which camera. The shots were only re-sized to comply with the posting rules here.

I can only post 3 shots so I want to post them together. I will try again later to post two more shots.

Can you tell the difference? which shots do you like best?

 

[nyoung]

Just goes to illustrate how optical/mechanical differences in cameras and lenses often fail to produce noticable differences in the finished product. In the end, there are an almost infinite number of variables in play in the making of a photograph. Lens and camera specifications are only two.

 

[mikebarger]

I've always thought "any camera" can deliver better results than most of us are capable of using. Nut behind the wheel theory.

Mike

 

[keithwms]

The main advantage of the rb lenses, IMHO, is that they easily cover 6x8, and there is a 6x8 back; or, as I recently learned, you can put a 6x9 back on there too. I have also done fairly large squares... just shy of 8x8cm.... with an rb on sheet film.

One other point regarding the RB lenses is that there is quite a lot of difference in terms of coatings... there are oldies which are single coated (?) or maybe even uncoated, and then the newest ones (the KLs) have a coating probably more comparable to the newest T* lenses, I think. This issue could affect contrast and perceived sharpness, especially if you shoot without a hood.

 

[canonman]

I like the right one better (Hasselblad???)

 

[Steve Smith]

I like the right one better (Hasselblad???)

Or are you just guessing that because it's a square image?

Both of them are far superior to any scanned results you can show on a computer monitor.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

I've always thought "any camera" can deliver better results than most of us are capable of using.

Definitely. All of my cameras exceed my capabilities.


Steve.

 

[Q.G.]

I've always thought "any camera" can deliver better results than most of us are capable of using. Nut behind the wheel theory.

I disagree here.
All of us can get every bit of technical quality out of any camera without any great effort.

You must be thinking of pictures of aesthetic merrit that deserve not to be spoiled by a not-so-good camera.
That's a different matter. A tad more difficult.

And different from what the test is about.

 

[brian steinberger]

You should really look at these on a light table with a good strong loupe. That's the only way to compare results (assuming you looking at sharpness). You can't see results with a very small scanned image on the computer screen. Maybe center and edge portion high resolution scan sample from each neg?

 

[fLOVE]

Or are you just guessing that because it's a square image?

Both of them are far superior to any scanned results you can show on a computer monitor.


Steve.

Well it's obvious the square one is the Hasselblad and vise versa for the RB image. That or the format was changed intentionally to try and trick us, which seems silly to me. I'd think taking a landscape in the RB and then cropping the edges would make for fair comparison.

 

[darinwc]

Both cameras are professional, top quality systems.
I am not surprised that they produce similar results.
I would be doubtful that any manufacturer would be able to make a system that would signifigantly outperform these.

This is a very good reason mamiya would not want to make a 'hasselblad copy' vs something unique with its own character.

 

[mikebarger]

Q.G.

Sure that's what I mean. We don't make pictures for the technical merit, we make them for artistic merit.

Moving to a camera that will show both hairs on the ant's butt "generally" doesn't improve our pictures an iota, its learning how to use the camera to meet our goal as an artist.

We've all seen people just from brand to brand trying to improve their work, heck I did it myself years ago. I was convinced if I shot Nikon rather than Canon my pictures would improve.....

Anyway, the technical quality of all my equipment still outpaces my ability to make great photographs even though I've gotten better over the years.

Mike

 

[stradibarrius]

The dimensions of the photos were change not to trick but to keep it from being too obvious. So do not judge by that. I have looked at these on my light table but unless you want to come over the only way you can see the results are this way. It may not be the best way like a wet print would be but the results you see are equal in their short comings. These photos were taken to capture things that have texture, shading and detail not win and Ansel Adams contest. I think it is more "Real world" than taking shots of a brick wall or a test pattern on a table.

After a few more people choose I will tell which is which. Tomorrow I will post two more photos.

 

[mikebarger]

I couldn't rate one over the other.

Mike

 

[olleorama]

At what aperture were these shots taken? If they were shot wide open, it would be a clue. Different largest apertures and different neg sizes should affect DOF which I think I can see? Different neg sizes also produces different dof at same aperture. Is it just me or is there some difference in sharpness between the two in the trees in the upper left? Hard to judged from a lo-res scan though.

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G.

Sure that's what I mean. We don't make pictures for the technical merit, we make them for artistic merit.

But - and that's the point - aren't you forgetting that these pictures were taken, not for the artistic merit, but for the technical merit?



I can't tell which one is made with what camera.
If i must, i'd say the first one is the Hasselblad.

 

[mikebarger]

Guess, what I mean is...to me.... it doesn't make any difference which took which. They both are capable of outstanding work.

I rather see posts about how someone used the camera to get what they wanted, rather than my dog is meaner than your dog comparisons. That's just me.

But, whatever makes your boat float is fine by me, I must have some curiosity or I wouldn't read about them dogs .

Diversity is one of the great things about APUG, many different views, but civility in those discussions. Many sites lack the civility part.

Mike

 

[stradibarrius]

One was shot at f/8 & 1/250. The other was f/11 at 1/400.
I am not try to play a game just overcome any bias people may have for one camera over the other. IMO there is no wrong opinion when comparing these two systems. Both of these cameras have very positive attributes they are both F1 racecars, so to speak.
I discovered that there are many things that I actually like working with the RB over the Hassey. The RB has a better viewfinder, for me...The Rb has a place to put the dark slide while shooting. I also like the focus wheels on the RB better than the focus being on the lens like a 35mm. Also the double exposure method on the RB is much more convient
Going the other way the Hassey is much more comfortable around the neck. No surprise there. In fact most of the things I like about the Hassey have to do with weight. Let me qualify thses statements by saying that I have only taken the Hasselblad out on one shoot where I have much shooting time with the RB so it is no surprise that the RB feels more friendly. I weighed my Nikon D300 with an 16-85 VR lens and then weighed the Hasselblad with the 80mm f2.8 and there was only 1oz. difference. The RB was almost two pounds heavier!
I was really hoping that the Hassey would be clearly better for reason I don't really understand, but my first impressions are that they are more equal from a performance standpoint than I had expected.

 

[stradibarrius]

Mike, I would disagree that we only make photos for the "artistic merit" Some people really enjoy the technical side of photography and that is what keeps them interested and pressing forward. There are others that really don't care about the technical stuff they just want to create art. I say it is your hobby, vocation, passion and what ever area is interesting to you is good. so enjoy that aspect and be happy.
For me personally I am still learning and have MUCH to learn. Testing and playing with this stuff is how I learn and at some point the testing and struggling with the technical stuff will help me be more comfortable with the equipment and hopefully make better photographs.

 

[Q.G.]

One was shot at f/8 & 1/250. The other was f/11 at 1/400.

In that case, #1 is the Mamiya.

In fact most of the things I like about the Hassey have to do with weight.

That's exactly it. The Hasselblad is the more compact package, without compromising quality by being that.
The quite a bit bigger RB/RZ cameras are excellent, but are less 'user friendly', while not producing more image quality.



Technical quality of equipment does make a difference. Even if we aren't Master Photographers creating timeless beauty.
Play on a crappy violin, and you can't blame the poor sound that results solely on your lack of playing skills. No matter how bad you are.

 

[Ektagraphic]

The shot on the left is the one that I prefer. Better sharpness.

 

[stradibarrius]

LOL!!!that is very true...and so is the converse! I have to listen to it all the time!

 

[Q.G.]

The shot on the left is the one that I prefer. Better sharpness.

More DOF, because stopped down more.
I don't really see better sharpness in either picture.

 

[Chazzy]

Someday I'd like to have a 6x7 slr, but I've never been able to settle on one particular model. I would like to be able to handle the cameras and judge their ergonomics for myself. I do my family snapshots with a hand-held Koni-Omega, and it would be nice if my slr were also hand-holdable. I suspect that the Pentax 67-II might be easier to handle, but I don't know anyone who owns those cameras to be able to see them and hold them. Anyway, I have no doubt that the RB lenses are excellent. This test just reinforces that impression.

 

[timk]

unless you are doing super-size enlargements, both cameras will give you results that are near-perfect. So much so that it more or less eliminates the quality of the lens as a factor.

I've heard a few people say that the RB lenses are almost as good as Hasselblad (for a fraction of the price), and if you consider that they are designed to cover 7x7, a 6x6 crop of the centre of a RB67 neg compared with the hassy more or less evens the field.

Pros for the RB67 are: better focusing, better viewfinder, 1/3 the price
Cons for the RB67 are: weight, separate advance & cocking levers