Rolleiflex or Hasselblad?

I have never owned a Rolleiflex, but may have used one briefly (but can’t really remember). However, I have a Hasselblad and I note that there is some form of cult following out there for Rolleiflex. My question is: - Is it worth buying/using a Rolleiflex to try and understand what this camera has in terms of tactile use, or is it just a more bulky version of a Hasselblad?

I have never owned a TLR. My friend has 3 or 4 Rolleiflexs so I have handled them for a short period of time which is nowhere the same as actually shooting one for a while. I've tried in vain to get him to sell me one cheap. I think they are like rangefinders. You love them or you don't. Of course I will really never know unless I buy one.

I don't understand the comparison between Rolleiflex and Hasselblad unless you are only going to own just the 80mm lens for the Blad. I have owned a Hasselblad and they are very versatile cameras.

I own both and I must say the thing about the Hassy is the opportunity to expand in the future by buying new lenses. With the Rolleiflex you get a fixed lens but you also get something a little smaller. The hasselblad is kind of big and bulky to carry around. I prefer my Rolleiflex for street photography and my hassy for studio

There is little comparison other than both use 120 film. If you are enjoying the Hasselblad then don't bother with a Rollei. Unless, of course, you just want another enjoyable experience.

Back when, when I was shooting weddings, I used both a Rollei 2.8F and a Hasselblad 500CM. The Rollei is lighter/quieter when looked at from just the handling point of view. The Hasselblad is much heavier and much, much noisier but offers interchangeable lenses/backs. Comes down to what kind of photography you're going to do. In the end, I always used the Rollei for personal/vacation use and the Hasselblad for business/professional use. As an aside, I never, repeat never, got used the "kalunk-a-lunk sound that the Hasselblad made when you fired the shutter as opposed to the tiny 'snick' the Rollei made. Every time I would take the wide shot of the ceremony from the back balcony with the Hasselblad, the congregation would turn around to see what all the racket was about!

If you pop for the Rollei, I had both the Planar and the Xenotar. There isn't a nickel's worth of difference between them, either will do a fantastic job!

Edit: after re-reading your post, I think perhaps you were looking to compare Hasselblad and Rollei SLR, i.e., Rollei 6006? I wouldn't consider the Rollei TLR to be bulkier than a 500CM.

I've used both extensively as well.
They are both more or less the same size, just oriented differently. The Rollei is much lighter.
As mentioned, the Hasselblad is nice if you want to change optics or add things like extension tubes or a bellows. The ability to change backs is nice if you want to shoot more than one kind of film, or the ability to switch to a new roll quickly (assuming you have an assistant available to reload).
Otherwise, the Rollei is a winner due to relatively light weight, simplicity and minimal acoustics.

When I went back to MF, the ability to change lenses and backs was important to me, so I went in the Hasselblad direction.
Haven't looked back…much

You need to specify whether you're talking about Rolleiflex TLR or SLR.

frank said:

You need to specify whether you're talking about Rolleiflex TLR or SLR.

Click to expand...

That's a very good question, Frank! I just assumed.

I've used a Rolleicord,which must be similar to the flex.I've used a Yashica TLR and Mamiya C330 TLR's.I like them a lot and never thought I'd get rid of my C330 s,but I did.I think it was always having to shoot from the midriff that finally made me part with TLR's.I never liked the eyelevel prism with a TLR,it just didn't feel right because the controls weren't designed for eye level operation in my opinion.Having said all that,I'm using a Hasselblad 500cm for a few years now with a chimney finder and really like it.Is it worth buying and using a Rolleiflex?Of course,all cameras are worth trying,in my opinion.

I can't speak for Clive,but he seems like a fellah that knows his eggs.Therefore we can assume that he is referring to the TLR-he's a cultured gentleman,I'd say!!

Compare and contrast

By the bulkier-than-Hasselblad remark, I assume the OP isn't talking about the Rolleiflex twin lens reflex cameras.

The Rolleiflex SL66 is an old favorite of mine, and an excellent outfit for macro photography even with the standard 80mm lens. Built-in bellows with tilt allow both close focus and additional depth of field control up to ~ 1:2 magnification, while bayonets on front of 80mm lens allow lens to be reverse-mounted for 1:1 magnification. The last of that line was the SL66SE, and I recall seeing them in the stores well beyond 1995. Very expensive!

The Rollei 6008/6006/SLX et al were very different beasts and more directly comparable to Hasselblad. Motorized Hasselblads with electronic leaf shutters, that is. Also very expensive new though not particularly macro-oriented. I really wanted a 6008 at the time but never got to try one.

Rollei lenses & backs: Probably want to do some research there, as backwards compatibility didn't seem to be a top priority for the company.

The best way to acquire a Rolleiflex SLR outfit at a good price is to buy a complete multi-lens system lens shades, finders and what-not all included, as some of the small items were surprisingly (even astoundingly) expensive when new, even ones which look like ordinary plastic parts.

My Rolleiflex is the smallest, lightest, and quietest.
Hasselblad is in the middle but offers interchangeable lenses, backs, and finders
Rolleiflex 6003src 1000 is the bulkiest and heaviest, offers the advantages of Hasselblad, and adds motorized film advance, built in meter, and auto exposure options, but is battery dependent (as is the motorized Hasselblad elx)

They are all top notch cameras in their class.

I had used a number of TLRs but not Rolleis. Then I inherited a Mamiya C330 with the 65mm, 80mm, 250mm lenses, WLF, Chimney, and PorroFlex. I did not care for the Mamiya and traded it for the Hasselblad 503 CX. I have the Hasselblad 903 SWC [38mm], CF 50mm, CF 80mm, CF 150mm and the CF 250mm lenses, 2X extender, extension tubes, WLF and CFE. I do not use the WLF; I use the PME. Hasselblads have changeable film backs allowing one to change film types mind roll.

The Rolleis TLRs lack changeable lenses, so unless you want camera bling and carrying a wide angle Rollei, a normal Rollei and a telephoto Rollei around your neck you will not be gaining anything by using a Rollei. Both Rollei and Hasselblad use Zeiss lenses so there is not optical trade off. Rollei TLRs do not have changeable film backs.

If you want a Rollei to have a Rollei and to use a Rollei, then get a Rollei, other than that there is nothing gained over owning and using a Hasselblad.

The Rollei SL-66 does have some lens movements but not enough to be an advantage over Hasselblads.

I agree with Fred, the Rollei is A LOT quieter...... Much the same as a comparing a 35mm SLR to a rangefinder. So if quiet is important Rollei has it all over the Blad. Quiet is hard to come by too.

The Hasselblad is a system camera by comparison. Interchangeable lenes, Backs, lots of accessories, and most of the accessories are well thought out too. I think the Blad is pretty lite as well

rthollenbeck said:

I agree with Fred, the Rollei is A LOT quieter...... Much the same as a comparing a 35mm SLR to a rangefinder. So if quiet is important Rollei has it all over the Blad. Quiet is hard to come by too.

The Hasselblad is a system camera by comparison. Interchangeable lenses, Backs, lots of accessories, and most of the accessories are well thought out too. I think the Blad is pretty lite as well

Click to expand...

I really like the solid KA-Thunk of a Hasselblad.

I completely agree with the second paragraph.

I have used both systems extensively. To me the Rolleiflex ( I own 2) is an emotional attachment and the Hasselblad is a logical attachment. The Rollei follows me around and finds itself on my work counter and my personal counter space and the Hasselblad finds its place in the camera closet. The Rollei represents freedom. Just a camera with a lens. Highest quality but you have to be willing to work with what it does... just the normal lens. To me that is a benefit in that I completely integrate the perspective. Not so possible when having multiple focal lengths to consider. Used Rolleis hold their value. Try one and sell it if it doesn't work for you.

dpurdy said:

The Rollei follows me around and finds itself on my work counter and my personal counter space and ...

Click to expand...

If a Rollei followed my around, I would probably take it home and feed it an occasional roll of film.

I use and enjoy both (Hassy 500CM and Rolleiflex TLRs, that is, and also have an SL66 system). I do so for the same reason I like to shoot both Nikon SLRs and also Leica rangefinders.

cliveh said:

... just a more bulky version of a Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

You must be thinking of the SL66. I'd go with the black SL66E. They have not made these for a long time but they are fully mechanical. Lenses are cheaper than the same 6000 series lenses.

Since you referred to it as the "more bulky version" of a Hasselblad, I also assume you are asking about the SL66? As someone who used both an SL66 for years and now a Hasselblad as well I can make the following comparison: Yes, the Rollei is more bulky, but not necessarily heavier. Rollei used quite a bit of aluminium and plastic of very high quality. It feels definitely lighter than it looks at first sight. The Hasselblad on the other hand is smaller and mostly made from steel, so the weight feels more concentrated. More like a brick. SL66 has a built-in bellows which allows seamless focussing from infinity to very close distances (16cm with the 80mm lens I think). Hasselblad only allows about 90cm and from then on you have to fiddle with tubes. SL66 also allows some tilt but I have not used that very often. SL66 has 1/1000 sec, Hasselblad only 1/500 (apart from the 200/2000 series). SL66 has a focal plane shutter and instant return mirror. The mirror is very well damped and the sound is softer, as opposed to the harsher, metallic sound of a Hasselblad. I also have the feeling that mirror slap is less with the Rollei compared to the 500 series, and even more so compared to a 2000FC I´ve handled. On the other hand, when using mirror pre-release, the Hasselblad wins because of its vibration free central shutter (apart from 200/2000 series with F-lenses of course). The SL66 magazines have automatic film-start-detection, which can be good or bad. Can be bad if the mags are not well maintained, if you do not pay enough attention or if you use exotic films as some reported (never had an issue with Ilford or Fuji). I like the Hasselblad magazines and the way the film is loaded better. They also seem less prone to failure. The Rollei has the better screen in my opinion (comparing both the latest High-D vs. Acute Matte D, I don´t know about older screens), because the Hasselblad screen has a shiny glass plate on top whereas the Rollei screen is all plastic and matte. It´s like with these notebook screens glossy vs matte. However, the Hasselblad screen can be cleaned more easily whereas you should not clean the Rollei screen to often not to scratch the plastic. The SL66 only has a flash sync of 1/30 sec but there were two lenses with central shutter (1/500 sec) available. Overall one must keep in mind that the SL66 was a camera that was produced from the 60s-80s, so most of them are 35-50 years old now whereas you can still buy a Hasselblad 503cw that is less than 10 years old. Hasselblad also offered some newer lens designs (50 FLE, 100/3,5, 180/4) or faster lenses (110/2), things like winders and motorized cameras ect. But there is just something about the way the SL66 feels and sounds that is very charming...

cliveh said:

I have never owned a Rolleiflex, but may have used one briefly (but can’t really remember). However, I have a Hasselblad and I note that there is some form of cult following out there for Rolleiflex. My question is: - Is it worth buying/using a Rolleiflex to try and understand what this camera has in terms of tactile use, or is it just a more bulky version of a Hasselblad?

Click to expand...

Seriously? I think you need to do a little more research, first.

4season said:

By the bulkier-than-Hasselblad remark, I assume the OP isn't talking about the Rolleiflex twin lens reflex cameras.

The Rolleiflex SL66 is an old favorite of mine, and an excellent outfit for macro photography even with the standard 80mm lens. Built-in bellows with tilt allow both close focus and additional depth of field control up to ~ 1:2 magnification, while bayonets on front of 80mm lens allow lens to be reverse-mounted for 1:1 magnification. The last of that line was the SL66SE, and I recall seeing them in the stores well beyond 1995. Very expensive!

The Rollei 6008/6006/SLX et al were very different beasts and more directly comparable to Hasselblad. Motorized Hasselblads with electronic leaf shutters, that is. Also very expensive new though not particularly macro-oriented. I really wanted a 6008 at the time but never got to try one.

Rollei lenses & backs: Probably want to do some research there, as backwards compatibility didn't seem to be a top priority for the company.

The best way to acquire a Rolleiflex SLR outfit at a good price is to buy a complete multi-lens system lens shades, finders and what-not all included, as some of the small items were surprisingly (even astoundingly) expensive when new, even ones which look like ordinary plastic parts.

Click to expand...

Fair point, the SL66 is more substantial, but, I'm not sure you're right in this instance, I thought the twin lens reflexes were being discussed. But how would we know?

Sorry folks, I did mean the TLR Rolleiflex and thought with a viewing and taking compartment it would be slightly more bulky than a Hasselblad. It seems this is not the case.

I've owned a TLR (though not a Rollei) and I've owned a Hasselblad 500cm.
I found the "form factor" of a TLR horrible to handle and use, a heavy bulky box that never felt right.
On the other hand I found the Hasselblad an ergonomic joy. It probably weighed the same as the TLR but didn't feel it. I wish I'd kept it.

Like all cameras, it's almost pointless asking what to use - you have to pick them up and use them yourself to see whether they are right for you. My (or anyone else's) opinion on which I prefer is valueless to you, in all truth - if you pick up a TLR and love it, the fact that I think it is a monstrosity is irrelevant.