Hasselblad SLR or Rollei TLR

Hi,

 

I'm getting into a better camera soon and not sure between a nice Rollei TLR or an affordable Hasselblad

SLR (500 CM?). Any suggestions? Thanks.

Michael

 

With a HASSELBLAD you have the ability of using many wonderful lenses .

You will miss this ability very soon when buying a TLR camera .

 

J�rgen

What's your budget?

 

Do you want to be able to change lenses and backs?

 

What do you normally photograph?

I know the Hassey offers a lot in the way of options, but i also don't want to get into the

bottomless pit of spending. i shoot a lot of street stuff, outdoor stuff, no portraits or pro-

wedding stuff, etc. Is the Hasselblad 500 (and its variations) a great camera?

The Rollei makes a better paperweight and the Hassy an excellent doorstop. If you had other uses in mind it might be good to describe them.

The 500 is a very clumsy metal box with great lenses.

Rollei tends to be a camera thet you will take almost anywhere.

The Rollei with the f/2.8 lens keeps things simple. And it is a quiet camera. Spend the

bucks on a proper CLA and enjoy.

"The Rollei makes a better paperweight and the Hassy an excellent doorstop." funniest thing so far :)

OK, without the funnies . . . . the Rollei is a great camera that's been a professional user's

standby for 50+ years. It's just as up to date today as it was in 1967. That means it is

easy to use, simple to operate, rugged and produces excellent quality. Buy an F-model

with the removeable hood so you can easily interchange the focusing screen.

 

Buy a Maxwell Screen that's as bright as a modern Hasselblad screen and drop it into the

camera. You'll have a viewing system that's been described as 8x to 10x brighter than the

original and you will have a split image rangefinder center spot surrounded by a

microprism and a corner to corner bright screen.

 

If you buy the 3.5 model, you are more likely to carry it everywhere since it is smaller and

lighter than the 2.8 version. Planar or Xenotar lens makes no difference. Top ISO b&w film

in the 1960s was 400 speed. With today's high speed film you probably don't need a 2.8.

I have both and carry my 3.5 much more often than the 2.8.

 

Shoot with it for six months or six years and if you don't like it, sell it for the same price

you paid for it, plus about $160 extra for the Maxwell screen. Rollei prices have been

pretty stable over the past 6 or 7 years through the "digital revolution" and that's because

they are a great, top of the line, professional camera with excellent lenses. (And there's

not enough around in great condition to fill the demand. An "excellent to mint" 3.5 should

cost in the $600 to $800 range but double that for the 2.8 model in similar condition.

 

Just be sure to get the E-2 or F-model with the removeable hood as these have the higher

value and easily changed screens that you can do in five minutes yourself. (Older models

require the screen to be changed by a technician.)

 

Just skim the Rollie Index on this forum and you'll see what others say again and again.

I have nothing against Hasselblad--I own three of the newest models 503 and 203 and

903 before they went to autofocus and they are excellent. But you can buy a Rollei for half

the price you'd pay for just one additional Hasselblad lens.

<i>But you can buy a Rollei for half the price you'd pay for just one additional Hasselblad

lens.</i><p>

Check out the prices on used 'blad lenses. They have plummeted to cheap.

The Rollei twins from the late 1950's on are simpler and will give you better results(I am sure there will be an argument here, but I have used both a lot and it is true). The Hasselblads are very good cameras, more modular since you can change lens, finder and back. But you say you do not want a lot of accessories, so I believe the Rollei is the way to go for you. Hasselblads have the disadvantage of jamming easily, preventing the camera from operating. Even experienced users occasionally have this problem. Yes I know how to prevent it but it happens for unexpected reasons anyway. Not having other lenses can be an advantage. You get shots you would miss while thinking about lens changes. Obviously you will not be able to bring in something from a distance like you could with a Hasselblad, or get a wide shot standing close, but I still believe 1 lens is best in most circumstances. You CAN do portraits with a Rollei, but not headshots. Stay at least 4 ft from the person you are shooting and the standard 75 or 80mm will be fine. As an all purpose camera not for Macro or wide angle work, the Rollei is better. Just don't get one from the early 50's or earlier because the lenses were not as good.

"Hasselblads have the disadvantage of jamming easily" ??

 

This is just utter nonsense, as though there are actually cameras that will last forever in spite of abuse. That said, any piece of fine machinery, even the best engineered, requires service. The 500C and C/M can be up to fifty years old. Show me a car that can withstand half a century of door slamming and gear crashing, whatever, and still be as good as new.

 

The Hasselblad system is really worth looking at. It can be turned to almost any application and in the right hands, deliver remarkable results.

Kevin: I worked with Hasselblads professionally for many years. Believe me, they jam. Once I was on vacation in Vermont and saw a landscape shot I really wanted. So I set it up on the only camera I had with me, a Hass 500CM, purchased new not long before that. Decided to lock up the mirror because it turns the body into a cocktail shaker. Followes the instructions in the manual. It jammed. No pictures on that vacation. When I brought it in for service they said "well, it shouldn't have jammed.'' But it did. I bought New Hass bodies in the 60's, 80's and 90's. It made no difference whether they were new or old bodies. None of them were abused or dropped. They all looked almost new when I replacd them. They are temperamental. If the young man is looking for a single reliable 120 camera, he should get a Rollei. Hasselblad is OK if you want to carry extra bodies and lenses (once a lens jams up it cannot be removed and put on another body except by a service person), and if you like the cocktail shaker affect. By bthe way I take it personally when someone says my comments are nonsense. You can expressyourself, I am sure, without insulting others. You just have to try a little to be civilized. All the best.

Nothing beats the lenses for Hasselblad. If you want the best image quality Rollei TLR (the

old ones) arent in the game.

Some people are a lightening rod for problems. Nothing personal, it's just math.

 

I've used a Hasselblad for 30 years and have had exactly zero jam ups ... and I'm not light

user ... weddings, commercial work, personal shooting. Not that it can't happen, it just

hasn't happened to me.

 

I follow one rule: read the directions and follow them exactly as written. Always check the

red dot, and put tubes on and off the way they say to do it. It's as simple as that.

 

Michael, TLRs are cool. Simple, no big decisions concerning gear ... any lens you want as

long as it's the one permanately mounted on the camera : -)

 

A Hassey can operate that way also, just don't buy any other lens.

 

However, if you want to do a number of different thing with one camera, than the modular

design can come in handy ... the option of using different films at any time, swap a wide

lens for a portrait lens, and so on.

 

It's completely up to you and what you envision getting out of a camera.

The Rollei lenses got better in the late 1950's. Before that they were not that sharp.

Michael,

 

Both Rolleiflex and Hasselblad are excellent cameras, if you get a good one and use it well.

If you get one that has been abused, they will both cost a lot to sort out. Either would do

what you are looking for with equal facility. But then so would many other cameras.

 

What camera do you have now? What do you mean by "better"? That's what I'd have to

know to advise you.

 

Godfrey

Carry a screw driver to unjam your 'blad. Take the back off, push the metal secondary "shutter" out of the way, and turn the slotted "screw" just below the lens inside the camera. Instant unjam. I guess that's why the put that slotted thing there to begin with.

Michael, If you use it mainly for street, I think Rollei TLR might be a better choice as the shutter sound is more quiet than Hassy. I sometime forget to take out the dark slide when using Hassy and miss good chance to capture photos. -- Alex

Michael: I use both a Rollei 3.5F (with Maxwell screen) and a Hasselblad 500C/M and my experience is exactly as CPeter's. A late model Rollei is capable of excellent results, is relatively small and lightweight and more amenable to handheld shots than the Hasselblad, which I tend to use from a tripod. The modular SLR Hasselblad design is more flexible, but at the cost of more gear and more weight, and somewhat more cost, although as pointed out, Hasselblad gear prices have dropped dramatically. The Rollei esentially is what it is, and if you're not drawn to extreme closeups, wide or long lenses, etc., would be a good choice.

<i>The Rollei lenses got better in the late 1950's. Before that they were not that sharp.</i>

 

<p>I guess that you have not used one. My oldest is a 1930 vintage Original. The Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar lens is what started the Rolleiflex's reputation.

 

<p><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/130/338534601_f26b409ea8_o.jpg">

 

<p>I can see the fibres making up the threads on my daughter's dress. If that isn't sharp enough, I don't know what is. (1939 vintage Automat II, CZJ Tessar 7.5cm 1:3.5, Tmax 100)

 

<p>It is my experience that there are no bad Rolleiflex TLRs. Yes the later models are better yet in some circumstances but the older ones have a certain charm too. I personally think the 2.8C, D and E offer the most value, particularly with the Xenotar lens. My 2.8E Xenotar is equipped with a Maxwell screen. In my experience, my Xenotar 80/2.8 is as sharp, if not sharper than the Planar 80/2.8 on my Rolleiflex SL66 SLR. The SL66 uses the same lens designs as Hasselblad (of the same era).

 

<p>I don't shoot a Hassy regularly but I find a TLR is better for shooting on the run. With a medium format SLR, out comes the tripod normally. The mirror slap really means you have to keep the shutter speeds high, and in my experience, the SL66 has a better damped mirror than the Hassy 500 series cameras. (it also weights 1.5x as much)

Get a beautiful 3.5F for $950 w/Planar or Xenotar 75mm lens & get an incredible 500CM with 50mm Distagon C T*lens $1,300 & be happy, happy.

The Rolleiflexes and the Hasselblad are both heavy and actually have about the same

amount of bulkyness compared to the much lighter Rolleicords which is what I would

suggest for a take everywhere street shooter. All three are incredible image makers. Both

TLR will be much quiter than the Blad but I think one can be even more "stealthy" with the

under lens release/shutter cock and seperate knob wind of the rolleicord. Its also a heck

of a lot of camera for the $ AND if something happens to it, your not going to be quite as

sad with the financial loss as with the others. I have owned two Rolleicords in the past 20

years. The first was stolen(and I was out $50! plus untold pain and suffering at the loss),

the second I bought more recently for less than $100. I really love the Xenar lenses

personally, even compared to the Planars. Even more, I prefer the ergonomics of the older

Rolleicords to the last Rolleicord V and more expensive Rolleiflexes in that one can cradle

the camera in the left hand with your finger under the lens cocking and firing while at the

same time your right hand is left to focus and wind. This makes much more sense to me

than having the focus on the Left which is where it is with the Rolleiflex because there is

no way to focus, crank and shoot while also holding the camera at the same time!

The reason Rolleicords are so much less expensive is that they didn't come with the top 5

and 6 element Xenotar or Planar lenses--and they had less automatic features as noted.

I used a Rolleiflex "on the street" covering breaking news for the wire services for six years,

cranking, focusing and shooting pretty damn rapidly. And I still have my negatives (and

prints) of Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson shot in those days. (Somehow lost

my Martin Luther King negs, probably because he wasn't an icon until after was killed.)