Rolleiflex Wide and Hassy SWC903

[Bakasana]

I am trying to decide between these for all purpose photography in the square format. I shoot virtually all digital photos in 1:1. I make regular use of Instagram.

I do not wish to deal with the hassle of interchangeable lenses, and enjoy something well built and small.

These two cameras represent a different approach.

I tried a Rolleiflex automat type 2 in a shop, and found the focus screen to be too dark, though it was lovely.

I have three questions. Which camera behaves more like a point and shoot? Would I get on better with the more friendly picture angle of the Rollei, which is around 25-38mm on 35mil?

They both will perform well in architecture and landscape, though which would be quicker for very quick point and shoot operation , stopped down to f11 on a street?

A little dubious about the hassy finder though would get used to it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Having used both a Rollei (not the wide, but a standard and a Tele) and a Hassy Superwide, they're apples and oranges. The Superwide, stopped down to f11 and set to hyperfocal, will be a little more 'point-n-shoot' than the Rollei, but only because it is so wide it has nearly infinite depth of field. With the Hassy, the external finder will have barrel distortion that is NOT in the final image, and you will see the lens in the finder. The Rollei will be more "what you see is what you get" in the viewfinder. If you find the screen in the Rollei to be too dark, you can replace it with a bright screen or you can use a prism finder with it which will block any stray light from the focusing screen and make the image much easier to focus. With the Rolleiwide you will need to focus more precisely than the Superwide because it is not nearly as wide a field of view (32mm-ish for the Rollei, 20mm-ish for the Superwide). I've done a LOT of travel with my Rolleis (Paris, New York, Rome, Florence, and a lot of work here at home - between Paris and Italy I put a good 140 rolls of film through a Rollei in less than a total of three weeks, and I've burned maybe 100 more here at home on walkabouts and side trips) and it's easy to use very precisely. I think the decision will come down to which do you feel more comfortable with, and the only way to know that is to shoot with each of them. Using the Superwide as a point-n-shoot is going to lend itself to imprecise composition. If you don't mind cropping your work, you might be happier with the Superwide. If you like precise framing, the Rollei will be better.

 

[Bakasana]

Thank you for that. A normal Rollei is out due to the depth of field issue with wider apertures. A holga 120 is 60mm so it's a useful reference.

I imagine the swc is very hard to shoot from the hip, due to levelling issues, I sense the Rollei wide is more incognito.

 

[4season]

I had a late Super Wide (not C) and I thought it made a fine point 'n shoot, at least for the first shot! Cannot really advance the film without lowering the camera from your eye. I liked the smaller lens barrel and mechanical depth of field indicators of this older model, also. Later ones like mine had the T* coatings too.

Shooting from the hip: I never tried. I suppose if you can see the bubble level, that's a start.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The Superwide does have a bubble level built into the top of the body. You can use it looking down, but it is best viewed through the magnifying prism on the side of the finder, otherwise it's very small.

And don't let the depth of field stopped down on the Superwide fool you- if you have to use it at larger apertures, you'll run afoul of focusing issues too, but you'll have no clue you're off unless you're really good at gauging distances. F3.8 (or even f5.6) is still pretty shallow even on a 38mm lens. The Rolleiwide is quite stealthy for street shooting, as looking down into the chimney finder at waist level makes people think you're checking your watch or making sure your zipper is up or something, not taking their picture.

 

[randyB]

I have owned and used the Rollei Wide and regret the day I sold it. I presently own and use the SWC and love it. Each camera has it's own quirks to get used to in order to make full use of its capabilities. It took me about 10 rolls shooting in each to get the "hang" of the camera. IMO, the SWC would be a little better for P/S type work since it is so wide and sharp that you don't have to frame accurately but you do need to have the focus close. Many times I don't even use the finder, I've just learned the angle of view of the lens. The Rollei Wide is a very handy camera in that if you have a scene where you do need to frame accurately the reflex finder will make the job very easy. The Wide that I had came with a sports finder glass in the hood, you just flipped up the cover which made the camera an eyelevel shooter. Filters, lenshoods, etc for the Rollei are a little harder to find and cost more. You won't go wrong with either.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Hmm. I use a 38/4.5 Biogon on my Century Graphic. The lens doesn't cover 2x3. Good image quality and illumination to 84 mm, illumination cuts off sharply at 86 mm. Interesting cropping possibilities when used with a 2x3 roll holder.

It needs to be focused, shouldn't be used in prefocused point and shoot mode.

It is often too wide, isn't that good for the OP's "general purpose photography." I say this even though I couldn't bring myself to use any other lens for nearly two months after it came back from Grimes.

55 mm is a better choice for general purposes.

 

[Slixtiesix]

Are you aiming at the old Rollei Wide with 55/4 Distagon or the modern version with a Schneider lens? If you intend to buy the old version, I would stay away from it for two reasons: 1st: The price is completely inflated by collectors because this is a very rare camera. 2nd: The lens is not overly good. If you can find the MTF diagrams on the net you will see that the 55/4 Distagon is even worse than the first 50/4 Distagon for Hasselblad and Rollei SLRs. The latter can be had for 1/10 of the price of an original Rollei Wide. I do not want to say that this is a bad lens, but from a user perspective, the price is not justified.
If you want a great point and shoot camera, I would recommend a Hasselblad 2000 series with 50/2,8 F lens, if you can find a nice one. Very bright screen, easy and fast to focus.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The hassy 2000 series cameras have their own issues especially with regard to their focal plane shutters. When they're in good shape, they're great, but if they need repairs, woe be unto you. IF you can get it fixed it will cost a small fortune. If you want to go that route, then get a Kiev that's been overhauled by Hartblei. Then you'll have a reliable camera that may be a little crude in its fit and finish, but won't cost an arm and a leg if it breaks. In either case, though, you're losing the invisibility factor of the Rollei TLR - the 50mm for either the Hassy or the Kiev is a fairly big lens, and focusing them is more obvious to your subject.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Having used both a Rollei (not the wide, but a standard and a Tele) and a Hassy Superwide, they're apples and oranges. The Superwide, stopped down to f11 and set to hyperfocal, will be a little more 'point-n-shoot' than the Rollei, but only because it is so wide it has nearly infinite depth of field. With the Hassy, the external finder will have barrel distortion that is NOT in the final image, and you will see the lens in the finder. The Rollei will be more "what you see is what you get" in the viewfinder. If you find the screen in the Rollei to be too dark, you can replace it with a bright screen or you can use a prism finder with it which will block any stray light from the focusing screen and make the image much easier to focus. With the Rolleiwide you will need to focus more precisely than the Superwide because it is not nearly as wide a field of view (32mm-ish for the Rollei, 20mm-ish for the Superwide). I've done a LOT of travel with my Rolleis (Paris, New York, Rome, Florence, and a lot of work here at home - between Paris and Italy I put a good 140 rolls of film through a Rollei in less than a total of three weeks, and I've burned maybe 100 more here at home on walkabouts and side trips) and it's easy to use very precisely. I think the decision will come down to which do you feel more comfortable with, and the only way to know that is to shoot with each of them. Using the Superwide as a point-n-shoot is going to lend itself to imprecise composition. If you don't mind cropping your work, you might be happier with the Superwide. If you like precise framing, the Rollei will be better.

The Superwide does have a bubble level built into the top of the body. You can use it looking down, but it is best viewed through the magnifying prism on the side of the finder, otherwise it's very small.

And don't let the depth of field stopped down on the Superwide fool you- if you have to use it at larger apertures, you'll run afoul of focusing issues too, but you'll have no clue you're off unless you're really good at gauging distances. F3.8 (or even f5.6) is still pretty shallow even on a 38mm lens. The Rolleiwide is quite stealthy for street shooting, as looking down into the chimney finder at waist level makes people think you're checking your watch or making sure your zipper is up or something, not taking their picture.

The Hasselblad 903 SWC may have issue with a digital back. Check out any digital back before buying or you may end up only using it for film. That would be a really good thing.

 

[ic-racer]

I use a 50mm on my 6008i almost all the time. That is almost point and shoot. They do make the same setup in Autofocus, which would be one of the few medium format point-and shoot wide angle setups available ever.

 

[Bakasana]

The example of the rolleiwide camera for sale has some discolouration on the coating. It is otherwise perfect. I am not concerned with sharpness, though would this have an adverse effect on photos? Thanks.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Oh yes, welcome to APUG

 

[Dave Wooten]

Anyone have positive experience with RB/RZ and Mamiya 50 mm?

 

[Bakasana]

So anyway, thank you for the feedback. What does a slight discoloured coating mean? This feels like weasel words in advertising. "To be expected" was a small quote from it.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

The example of the rolleiwide camera for sale has some discolouration on the coating. It is otherwise perfect. I am not concerned with sharpness, though would this have an adverse effect on photos? Thanks.

Can you post some pictures of the "discoloring" of the coating? In all probability the only effect any loss/alteration to the coating would have is to reduce contrast (slightly) and make it more prone to lens flare when the lens is pointed at a light source. But without seeing it, it is hard to say.

 

[Bakasana]

 

[Bakasana]

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Those coating issues should be a non-issue. It really doesn't look bad at all. To be on the safe side, you should ask if the seller will let you test it out and give you a return option if you detect any effects from the coating (which I'm pretty confident you won't - the coating on one of my two 2.8E's has far more coating loss yet other than lens flare if I don't use a hood and include a light source in the frame - which you shouldn't do anyway - I see no appreciable color shift or other impact).

 

[Bakasana]

Thank you very very much. He said it was ever so slightly mottled close up, but that's it.

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

I guess this is kind of an old thread, but I'd recommend the Rollei. SWCs are great but for general use I think a Rollei is a little better. You can focus more accurately for one. The stock focusing screen will be dark though, in all but great light. Remember it's an F4 lens. A Maxwell screen would be a huge and worthwhile upgrade to any Rollei. The old lens isn't amazing by modern standards but it's no dog. Plus, I personally love Rollei's for their classic rendering. I've got a 645z for modern! The reason why I don't recommend the SWC is simply that it's a lot wider. Portraits and small detail shooting are completely out. Sure Lee Freidlander did his thing and did it well but still all those images just scream SWC. You may want that, you may not. I would want a more all-rounder like a 55. Whyyyy they never made a Rolleiwide 60 IDK, but I woulda bought one.

Prices ARE inflated though, so I'd almost advise spending a little more and getting the modern one. It's worth it, and you'll be the coolest cat in town.

 

[larfe]

I could sell you one of mine if you're interested. It would be my spare one (I have two) which needs a service for mechanics but has otherwise a fine taking lens.
Cosmetically is a good user.

I live in London too so you could check it out first.

 

[John Koehrer]

FWIW Looking around the reflections there seems to be an internal haze.
Along with Sperdydynamite, I'd look around for a bit.

 

[Bakasana]

Hello, at odds to reactivate an old thread but hey. This will be my first TLR. Someone wrote on the web that the focusing is more difficult on the rolleiwide than the 3.5F for example. Things do not snap into focus so easily. I have also found a 3.5F with the planar lens with case, lens cap, lens hood and working meter. Whether the meter works or not is immaterial, it is a Rollei from a far east seller, mint condition.

Perhaps my hit rate will be better with this, due to focusing, and the brighter screen from f2.8. Crucially it has a case and lens hood. Its expensive for the 3.5F though has all accessories, leaving me with filters to get which are easy.

I have tried TLR before at meetup just concerned about focusing and brightness.

 

[Bakasana]

The serial is 2822100 on the white face. Does this ensure the meter is not coupled? I don't want that.