RB67 vs Hasselblad test shots

[mikebarger]

Chazzy

Those Koni Omega's are great outfits. It may be the most undervalued camera/system on APUG.

I've got one I got for all but nothing and carry it in the truck for those boy I wish I had a camera moments.

Mike

 

[Joe Grodis]

I'd say "my" biggest advantage with my RB-67 is... it cost me 1/3 that of the "Hassy"

 

[Tom Stanworth]

To really see which lens you prefer you would likely need a much more demanding side by side. When making 20x16 images with lots of fine detail and contrast nuances you get to see which you prefer. The limited tonality of the subject shot in this test and its inability to show the finest detail renders the test incapable of revealing these differences, however subtle they may be. My take would be that both systems are very obviously capable of the best results and if it were me, I would use the RB/RZ in the studio and the smalelr lighter camera in the field. In fact I would ditch the Hassy altogether and use a Mamiya 7II in the field! Many Mamiya lenses are absolutely superb and the bigger neg can make all the difference to tonality as a result of the half-tone effect due to emerging grain. That can matter a lot more than outright resolution. 'Can' being the operative word.

As an aside, with my 35mm RF I shoot Zeiss and Leica lenses and don't even bother trying to guess which was which when printing. It does not matter as they both do what I need them to do.

 

[keithwms]

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

First of all let me say that I am not a fan of X vs. Y. But on the other hand, I think it's great for people to try out many different bodies and lenses and find their own way. That's what I did and, yes it takes time and patience and an investment, but in the end you have your own sense of which tool is best for you, overall. And you may well decide that you need several different tools for different purposes.

But back to your test: my feeling is that most MF lenses will give quite similar results at f/8-f/11, in terms of resolution and bokeh. Contrast may differ slightly at such apertures (the Mamiya giving slightly less contrast IMHO, whereas the Fuji lenses tend to be very contrasty and the Zeiss lenses somewhere in between).... but this is seldom an issue with the b&w process, which has so many means for optimizing contrast along the way. It's more a concern with colour.

You are more likely to see meaningful differences in the 'feeling' imparted by a lens when you shoot it wide open. That is when you see the character(istics) of the glass itself. Generally, all lenses become more and more similar in all respects as you stop down. Okay, there are a few exceptions at the corners and a few other respects, but for the most part, what I am saying is well demonstrated by MTF.

Again, I think trying things out for yourself is great and should be commended. There is of course always more to it than one can do in any single test.... but it's still worth doing and seeing for yourself.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Both are excellant shots, can't make up my mind which I like better.

Jeff

 

[Slixtiesix]

Same here. Can´t say which one was the Mamiya and which one the Hassy. It looks like the 2nd one is a tad more contrastier, but this may be a result of minor irregularities in development time. Rendering of the OOF area is also a little different, but this is probably because of the different apertures used. Seems like there is no difference in practical use. Both are designed to take great pictures.
Regards, Benjamin

 

[Q.G.]

You are more likely to see meaningful differences in the 'feeling' imparted by a lens when you shoot it wide open. That is when you see the character(istics) of the glass itself. Generally, all lenses become more and more similar in all respects as you stop down. Okay, there are a few exceptions at the corners and a few other respects, but for the most part, what I am saying is well demonstrated by MTF.

I disagree.
Differences will show up when you stop down.
Lenses usually - but by no means always - show better performance when you stop them down, but some more so than others. It's not true that they all become similar when stopped down.

And since lenses are used at all apertures anyway, testing them wide open only will not produce "more meaningful" results.

I think this is a very realistic test. It's highly likely that someone would take a picture just like these two, using the lenses as they were used here.
But this test indeed doesn't tell us how the two would differ had they been used wide open.

 

[polyglot]

This test is not capable of resolving any differences between the two lenses/cameras because the results as presented are at such low resolution - 0.7 megapixel, whereas the film+cameras you're using can easily generate 40-60MP. Given the 900-pixel/side images posted, I could produce a result just as good if not better using a 35mm or even an APS camera. We're also at the mercy of the scaling algorithm chosen, which will have an effect on perceived sharpness.

If you want to analyse lens performance, get proper film scans (not flatbed scans) at 4000dpi and show us 100% crops from the centre and corner of each frame. Or if you need to use the flatbed, make 20x20" optical enlargements (same enlarger lens in each case of course, crop the 6x7 to square, don't change head height) and show us 600dpi+ centre/corner scans from those.

Edit: and you're using the lenses at different apertures, which is totally cheating. I'm pretty sure the one at f/11 will be diffraction-limited (and the f/8 likely is too!), which means you're not seeing their full resolution anyway. All you could maybe tell from this test is flare susceptibility and distortion, and neither lens is exhibiting much of either fault.

 

[ricksplace]

I wish I could remember where I read it, but someone did a test using transparency film, same image, different cameras/lenses. IIRC, hassy, mamiya, rb67 and c330, rolleiflex, pentacon six, and I can't remember what else. Final observations, couldn't tell the difference. Statistically, I remember that people picked the images from one of the mamiyas slightly more often. It's the nut that holds the shutter release that makes the difference.

 

[Steve Smith]

I don't think it matters.

This does remind me of the story I once heard about the photographer whose images kept getting rejected by his stock agency.... Until he filed a Hasselblad style V in the film gate of his Rolleiflex. Then they all got accepted.


Steve.

 

[keithwms]

I'm pretty sure the one at f/11 will be diffraction-limited (and the f/8 likely is too!), which means you're not seeing their full resolution anyway.

I think if you look at these charts and those at photodo you will conclude that 'full resolution' is usually not seen until ~f/8-f/11.

But... at the same time, the max resolution of these MF lenses at these apertures are mostly similar. There are a few significant outliers, e.g. several of the mamiya RF lenses and the Rollei 80 and a few others.

All you could maybe tell from this test is flare susceptibility and distortion, and neither lens is exhibiting much of either fault.

I suspect that those issues would more likely be seen when the lenses are shot wide open. As I mentioned in a previous post, many/most of these lenses offer more and more similar performance as you stop down more. By f/16 the differences are pretty much gone, across the board. Take for example the stellar Mamiya 7 80/4 RF lens: it reaches 120 lp/mm wide open, whereas the lowly (!) Hassie 80mm f/2.8 Planar CT* only musters about 60 lp/mm there. But by f/16... diffraction has won and both are in the seventies. Of course, one could easily counter that the Hassie lens is f/2.8 and the Mamiya is but f/4 :rolleyes:

...at the end of the day, what these exercises inevitably conclude is that all of these camera deliver the goods, but the photographer has to sell them... still it's very useful for a photographer to experiment and find out which system is the most comfortable, productive and cost-effective tool.

 

[stradibarrius]

I will shoot some shot wide open and stopped completely down and see what those show.

 

[fmajor]

So, are you EVER going to say which image was taken with which camera?!?

 

[2F/2F]

The question for me if comparing the lenses alone is whether the Hasselblad lens produces a more or less technically sound image in a 10x10 in. or 15x15 in. full frame print than the Mamiya lens does in an identically-sized print. (10 in. and 15 in. prints are the most common sizes that I print from medium format.) The answer is probably that in this case the Hassy lens produces slightly more technically sound images of test charts, but when it comes to standard pictorial applications, the differences may be much harder, if not near impossible, to spot at these degrees of enlargement.

When it comes to making a non-square print, I would say that the advantage goes to the Mamiya...but this time the difference is a bit more noticeable. Unlike in the above example that I gave, in which a Mamiya frame is cropped to make a square print, and there is no resulting difference in final magnification, when the Hasselblad frame is forced to conform to the Mamiya's ratio, there is a difference in magnification. IME, this is not very visible in 10 in. prints (about 4.5x enlargement for the Mamiya, and 5.25x for the Hassy), and it begins to become apparent with 15 in. prints (about 7x enlargement for the Mamiya and a little over 8x for the Hassy), though not different enough to warrant the slightest bit of concern in a standard pictorial application. I would only call the difference "easily noticeable" in prints larger than 15 in., which I almost never make. Even then, the differences would not be great enough to warrant any concern from me, as both would still be very technically sound.

Either one of these lenses should be able to produce technical results satisfactory for almost any use I have (and that most of us have), whether cropped or printed full frame. I'd choose between the two systems based on almost anything but image quality.

 

[2F/2F]

So, are you EVER going to say which image was taken with which camera?!?

The one with the larger headstone should be the one taken by the Mamiya, since the 90mm lens magnifies more than the 80mm lens.

 

[Q.G.]

Nope.
The larger DOF shows the left one, the one with the smaller head stone, being the Mamiya image.

 

[stradibarrius]

I thought this thread was a dead one. To answer the question, Q.G. is correct the smaller image, the one on the left is the RB67 shot and the one on the right is the Hassey shot. But I have had a change in my thought process since I originally took these shots and posted this question. When I did this test, I was trying to decide if I wanted to keep the Hassey kit I had bought or sell it and make a few bucks??? Trying to justify my GAS so to speak. I did make the decision to sell the Hasselblad and keep the RB67. But I have gone through several other pieces of gear since then and in my learning/understanding process I have discovered something that many of you already know. The camera by itself makes no difference. In my opinion it is how your eye sees the results that the camera produces. The hassey MAY be more technically pure?????but I have come to believe that this aspect makes little difference. It is how your eye sees what the camera produces that is really important and has the most effect on YOUR photos.

On Friday I did a deal with a friend and picked up a Bronica ETRS kit. The first two test rolls I shot and processed surprised me in that the "look" of shots produced by these lenses is something that my eye really likes???
Of all the cameras I have and have had I was surprised.
It is really just like a musician and his instrument. The one HE/SHE bonds with for whatever reason is the one that will serve that person best.
I think I will try to go back to the same cemetery and take another few shots of the same headstone with the ETRS and see if I can see the difference in a 3 apple comparison.
I have also come to the conclusion that scans and forum post do not really tell the viewers much about the camera itself. Only about the "vision" of the photographer. The real "proof of the pudding" is in the print. 2f/2f IMO is correct that the larger print will certainly show up more of the technical differences of the equipment. If I were to print the negatives on the same paper, with the same enlarger/lens that would be more of a test...but that would not be a lab test either.
Some of the photographers I like the most worked in 35mm because it suited their style and method better for them. All of this for me is what makes film photography so much fun. Experimenting, being surprised by the results and learning.

 

[fmajor]

Ha! I resurrected the thread b/c it's interesting to me and to see if you're still using the RB. I believe you're on to something with each photographer bonding with their camera/lens/format output.

 

[stradibarrius]

I am still using the RB. I love that camera.

 

[Ric Trexell]

I think we sometimes miss the point in discussions about just how sharp a camera/lense is. Remember that in 50 years for most of us, it will not matter. I have pictures of old family members and the last thing I ask is what type of camera took this. Yes, it would be fun to know, but for most people they are only going to care what the picture is about. When I take a picture of something rather than some person, I think that some day people will look at that picture and say, there used to be an open field there and now it has a shopping mall there. With people shots, someone will be saying look at the eyes of that person and how they look like the eyes of my 3 year old son. I can't imagine someone in the year 2075 looking at a photo and saying, I wonder if the camera was set at f/11 or f/8. As that famous economist was said to responde to the question of what does this mean in the end? He said, in the end we are all dead. Think about it. Ric.

 

[stradibarrius]

Ric, I think you are exactly right. I think the reason those things are discussed here is because we are photographers so we scrutinize each shot...trying to decide how we could be our efforts. The violin forum that I frequent have the same thing except it is about the minutia of the violin world and not photography.

When friends come over and l;ook at my photographs they think they are terrific. I always think...what do you know!
In a few years we won't care about the photog stuff only about what the photo may tell us.

 

[Q.G.]

The quality of the equipment (and that's not just image quality - i didn't pick my cameras because they would produce better images than others) counts when we are trying to find out what equipment we want to use.
After that, once you have made your choice, know why you made that choice, and are happy with it, you can and indeed will forget about it.

 

[keithwms]

As I think I mentioned before, all of these systems definitely deliver the goods... but it's up to you what they deliver.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What they deliver and the ergonomics for you.

Steve

 

[Pavel+]

I have done similar tests back to back with the Mamiya RZ system and the Hassy lenses. With a loupe, by scanning and by prints (although the prints were only 8x10)
What surprised me was the I like the Mamiya rendering better in every instance. The differences are somewhat subtle in normal shooting situations (I didn't consider flare for example) but they are there. The negatives out of the blad always seemed to be more flat but with subtle details. The Mamiya negs were more contrasty and looked better unless you really get into micro-contrast for the sake of it in and of itself.
Like I said ... I was surprised ... but I suppose myths are often just that ... myths.
No system is peerless.