RB67 vs Hasselblad test shots

Pavel+ · Sep 21, 2010

What Ric says is sooo true! I have recently received negs from my father from the 50's through on to the seventies. He shot with a Rolleiflex until the early seventies and looking at the negs now I marvel at how now, in the internet age where we look so closely this rollei would be considered a poor performer - if the brand badge was removed. I suspect the films have much to do with it as well - but the important point, which Ric alludes to, is that it is the content that matters.

I would not judge these old irreplaceable shots against any of the future, no matter how sharp and detailed they one day could be - unless the contents is just as meaningful. And when the content is meaningful the technical seems to melt away.

As the photographic state of technology evolves to make super sharp, super whatever, easy as pie at the click of a button accessible to everyone - I wonder if technically imperfect shots will not start to gain in stature? Will it not soon be like ikea furniture versus hand built furniture? Who looks at for example, a hand made heirloom quality armoire and sees only imperfections in the wood?
We photographers sure can be like that.

Q.G. · Sep 22, 2010

As far as lenses are concerned, the state of technology hasn't evolved to bring us better lenses. The ones they made many decades ago were already near or at the limit of what is possible.
What technical 'progress' (computer power) has brought are convenient lenses: lenses with moving bits that reduce the amount of glass that has to be moved so that autofocus motors can do their job, or moving bits that change focal length during focusing, so lenses don't grow into long behemoths when focusing. That sort of thing.
But better than the used to be, modern lenses are not (except perhaps for those very imperfect ones from the earliest days of photography. The Petzval thingies, and that sort of thing). So there is no such progression that would make us feel nostalgic about older lenses .

Sirius Glass · Sep 22, 2010

The last three advances in the design and building of commercially available are

aspheric lenses
optical design software
newer lens coatings

Steve

Q.G. · Sep 22, 2010

I disagree, Steve.

Lens coatings haven't evolved much, if at all. The principal doesn't allow for much improvement, and all that perhaps could be done is make them more durable. I haven't manage to rub of the coating on my age old lenses yet.

Aspherical lenses are expensive to produce, and not used much for that reason.
Sheer computer power makes finding solutions without aspheric lenses not that difficult.

And that: raw computer power (not software) is the only real change.
People knew all there is to know about designing good lenses. It was just a lot of work to do the calculations.
Yet they did them anyway: time wasn't so scarce back then.

Raw computer power is what allows the trickery employed in modern lenses i mentioned before.
But all that hasn't given us better lenses. Simply because they already really knew how to make good lenses back then, when electricity was something new.

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 22, 2010

I had to make a choice between a Mamiya RZ or a Hasselblad system 20 years ago. I made the decided to go with Mamiya. I assisted photographers that used Hasseys and to me, Hasselblads seem to be slightly more solid and feels better in the hand. I love my RZ, but it's sure big. What convinced me to use RZs instead of Hasselblad was the 6x7 format better suited for commercial work. the 7x7 cm Polaroids were nice too. I always wanted a wide angle lens for my RZ and found an RB wide angle on Ebay for a song. I also found a RB prism on ebay for cheap too.

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 22, 2010

I say - six of one, half dozen of the other.

A camera has so many ins and outs, and it takes a while to learn how to use it intuitively, to be prepared with it, and to be able to react when a picture comes to you.

The test shows that at medium apertures, the pictures from both cameras show similar results.
What happens in high contrast lighting? What happens at close focusing range? What happens wide open and stopped way down? How does the out of focus stuff look when shot wide open???
There are too many unanswered questions to even begin to make a comparison with what's posted here.

Barry, what did you learn from all of this?

stradibarrius · Sep 22, 2010

Thomas I agree with you totally about learning YOUR gear whatever it may be. I have learned that photographers are just like all other passionate people and that we love to talk about our passion and dissect frog hairs regarding the "Stuff". I have also learned that like everything else there is no prefect camera/lens/film/developer. You may find what works best for you and when you find that combo, then that is the BEST.
I do enjoy reading some of the back and forths. a lot of it goes over my head or over my interest level. I love playing with the gear too...but I believe that a good photographer can make a great photo with mediocre gear and a bad photographer will always make snapshots no matter what.

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 22, 2010

I totally agree. A good chef cooks delicious meals in any kitchen. Sometimes like cooking as well as photography, the gear gets in the way. Like both endeavors, there is too much gear fetish.

scinysnaps · Sep 23, 2010

For commercial work, a RZ67 is the way to go. The square format eventually gets cropped. For personal or artistic stuff I love the square. Weight or bulk is not an issue when used commercially. That's what you have assistants for. The larger film size of the 6x7 is a plus point.

TSSPro · Sep 23, 2010

The 6x7 format translates easily into 8.5x11" magazine format, plus, the square is not getting used as much as it had in the past for editorial or advert work, so there is an even greater chance that it would be cropped down, there-by reducing that film real estate. (Not that it matters too much when you are shooting for a 1/2 to 1/8 page insert in an underpaid editorial piece.)

Q.G. · Sep 23, 2010

It doesn't matter either when you are shooting for a full two page spread.
Why, even 35 mm miniature format doesn't have to try hard to fullfill the 'demands' posed by the printing press.

6x7 or 6x4.5 (cropped 6x6) really aren't that far apart as is often assumed.
The choice between those formats rests (or should do) on other issues, like ergonomics, entirely.

André E.C. · Sep 23, 2010

As far as I'm concerned, it's down to plenty of other things present in both systems.
They are both excellent optically speaking, the RB having the operator friendly edge. Yet it's a brick gentlemen, I haven't killed nobody, therefore, don't need to pay such a heavy price as carring that thing around for a day.

The Hasselblad delivers a different modus operandi for sure, isn't even an easy camera to work with, actually, you could almost classify it as tricky, but for me, it's my camera, the one I feel good operating, I like the little ocasionally annoying things, I've learn them, they are funny at the end.

With me other things come into the game, I need to connect with the device, if I don't feel confortable with it, it's not my camera and I let it go, tried an RB, has great qualities and if I had a studio, I would get one for sure, yet for outdoors as I almost always shoot, the Hasselblad it's just right, the optics are terrific, the design is timeless, the weight is perfect, as also the format.

Put your hands on both and take them for a day trip in town at your shoulder, then we come back to this subject again

Cheers

Mainecoonmaniac · Sep 23, 2010

You're a wise man. I bought my Mamiya RZ when I was a strappin' young lad not knowing what age does to the body. 20 years later, it seems heavier. Go figure.... I have a bad back from years of assisting and being a photographer. It's an occupational hazard. We suffer for our art. But a Hassy is sure easier on the back when you're out shooting.

BmurphyRZ67 · Sep 30, 2010

I bought an RZ67 early this year and used it a lot, and never got bad results that were attributed to the technical aspects of the camera or lenses. For some inexplicable reason, a month ago, I sold it, with some grumbling about "weight" and "portability." I heard so many wonderful things about Hasselblad that I thought it deserved a try. I purchased one, and just never felt any connection to it. I feel confident and very zen using the RZ, and felt so the moment I laid my hands on it. Despite being a larger camera, for studio work, it's quicker to use. I enjoyed the large, ideal format negatives, the smoother, more natural out of focus elements, the color rendition, the sharpness; everything just felt right. It's as Ansel Adams said, there may be no REAL difference, but our minds tell us there IS a difference. However, the bottom line is that both systems are technically worthy, and produce more than acceptable results for anyone's purpose, and it's up to you to see what feels right.

Needless to say, I've gotten rid of the Hasselblad and gotten another RZ.

Philippe-Georges · Sep 30, 2010

André E.C. said:
As far as I'm concerned, it's down to plenty of other things present in both systems.
They are both excellent optically speaking, the RB having the operator friendly edge. Yet it's a brick gentlemen, I haven't killed nobody, therefore, don't need to pay such a heavy price as carring that thing around for a day.

The Hasselblad delivers a different modus operandi for sure, isn't even an easy camera to work with, actually, you could almost classify it as tricky, but for me, it's my camera, the one I feel good operating, I like the little ocasionally annoying things, I've learn them, they are funny at the end.

With me other things come into the game, I need to connect with the device, if I don't feel confortable with it, it's not my camera and I let it go, tried an RB, has great qualities and if I had a studio, I would get one for sure, yet for outdoors as I almost always shoot, the Hasselblad it's just right, the optics are terrific, the design is timeless, the weight is perfect, as also the format.

Put your hands on both and take them for a day trip in town at your shoulder, then we come back to this subject again

Cheers

I do agree with you, André, one has to consider subjective arguments too when choosing the 'right' gear.
On the other had one has to compare too, that's the only way to be able to choose a pice of equipment. Only then one can know if it really fits his hands and needs.
I went for Hasselblad some 30 years ago and the only other 'system', if it could be considered as a true 'system', that tempted me once was the Mamiya 6 range finder. But the lack of a real 'wide' wide angle finally kept me away from it. I do not care if Mamiya, Bronica, Fujica or Rollei is better or sharper, I do FEEL happier with my Victor and that's enough for me…

Sirius Glass · Sep 30, 2010

leicam5 said:
I do not care if Mamiya, Bronica, Fujica or Rollei is better or sharper, I do FEEL happier with my Victor and that's enough for me

I call mine Victor, too. However my SWC is named "Wide Willy".

RB67 vs Hasselblad test shots

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency