Rollei SLX II with 80mm HFT Planar lens or Mamiya C330s 80mm Sekor (latest)

<p>Hi all,<br>

<br />I am looking for a fairly compact 6x6 camera for portrait/hand-held/natural light work. <br>

<br />I am looking at either Rollei SLX II with 80mm HFT Planar lens or Mamiya C330s 80mm Sekor (latest). They're more or less in the same price bracket but I am having difficulty deciding which lens I like better. <br>

Has anyone had a chance to use both fo rthis type of work? <br>

Any opinions will be appreciated.<br>

Many thanks!<br>

Pat</p>

<p>I have used a Mamiya 330. It's reliable and totally manual. The lenses may need lubrication after time. I have only handled the Rollei SLX a few times. I think there were some issues with the batteries.</p>

<p>The battery issue can be easily rectified by replacing the cells. The slx II model is also less problematic whent it comes to electronics (as opposed to SLX I), that's why I am not too put off by this.<br>

I like the way rollei renders the pictures, mamiya is no slouch either but I am under the impression that 80mm sekor is soft, with slightly more nervous bokeh, while the 80mm planar is slightly smoother and perhaps not as sharp. This is only by comparing photos online though.<br>

thanks Rick</p>

<p>The SLX is lighter and feels handier than the Mamiya, and is one of the easiest-loading roll-film

cameras there is; the Mamiya is built to take a beating, and offers close-focussing abilities as

standard. It's also easier to find someone who will service Mamiya bodies and lenses, should the need

arise. On the other hand the SLX opens the way to some tasty lenses like the 150mm f/4 Sonnar and

180mm f/2.8 Tele-Xenar.

</p>

<br/>

<p>In terms of 80mm, the Planar offers:

<br/>

<a href=" title="6003_80_FP4_Scan-120829-

0007 by ruby.monkey, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8037/7896743474_b7799c8dd0_z.jpg" width="640" height="639"

alt="6003_80_FP4_Scan-120829-0007"></a>

<br/>

and

<br/>

<a href=" title="Bath Toys by ruby.monkey, on

Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5220/5523071469_2b43427cbe_z.jpg" width="640"

height="640" alt="Bath Toys"></a>

<br/>

<br/>

while the Mamiya-Sekor gives:

<br/>

<a href=" title="C330f_80_HP5_Scan-120904-

0006 by ruby.monkey, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8322/8040922927_4aaa4f9e1d_z.jpg" width="640" height="638"

alt="C330f_80_HP5_Scan-120904-0006"></a>

<br/>

and

<br/>

<a href=" title="C330F_80_HP5_Scan-120523-

0010 by ruby.monkey, on Flickr"><img

src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8027/7271908786_16ed75eb62_z.jpg" width="640" height="635"

alt="C330F_80_HP5_Scan-120523-0010"></a>

</p>

<br/>

<p>Not really sure what to say - I'd be more than happy with either 80mm.</p>

<p>Two things to consider. Are you going to be wet printing, or digital printing from scans? I have finally decided that these are two totally unrelated mediums! Can't tell you how many times I made a decision based on flickr or other online photos, only to discover that: A-what you see online is directly related to how adept someone is in post processing film scans, and B- often, when looking at my own work, I am struck by how differently a scanned printed image (or on the computer monitor even) and a wet printed image differ. Sometimes a lens that I love w/ scans and inkjet prints sucks compared to a wet print, and the other way around can ring true too. For most photography it isn't important, but for portraits, when you reallly want a lens that handles skin tones exceptionally well, it does make a big difference.</p>

<p>Having used both cameras you mentioned, I would recommend a Rollei w/ a Planar lens. Actually, a much cheaper alternative would be an older Hasselblad 500 w/ a prism and an older silver 80 Planar. I don't like the IQ of most Japanese lenses, but a Planar is a gem. Russian lenses are also excellent, but if you have to use it on a Russian camera it isn't worth the bother. I assume you're going to be shooting portraits whilst out and about, and not in a studio in a controlled environment? An 80 lens on a MF camera is going to keep you well away from your subject, so you'll either be cropping, or be satisfied w/ head and shoulder shots. What I found is that I like some interaction between myself and the victim, and I like a little distance. So for casual portraits I use a 35mm SLR w/ a 90 or longer lens, in a studio I can go w/ a bigger and louder camera that will require me to be closer to the person.</p>

<p>Many thanks for your thoughts so far.<br>

Jean, the handling of the camera will be important as I said previously so your suggestion makes sense. This tape of subject/background separation is what makes this lens sign.<br>

The idea is to stick to one lens, no additional backs, maybe a spare battery and chuck it in my bag for portrait shooting. I already use a complete (for my portrait needs) studio system - a mamiya RZ - which I really enjoy using but I need something a bit more portable.<br /> I realize neither of them are feathers but it's still smaller than my main studio rig.<br>

Steve, you make some valid points there. Online browsing may be misleading but you do get a feel for the lens. I only scan these days, using a dedicated Imacon, and the 80mm HTF Planar appears to take scanning well - looking at Flickr photos at least, would you agree?<br>

By the way, has the 80mm HTF Planar changed much throughout the years (with the 6008i series for instance) - leaving aside all the functional differences as in PQ lenses - or has the design remained the same? With the sl66 series, for instance, it appears to have a slightly different character than with the 6000 series, but perhaps that's more to do with shift and close-up capabilities of the sl66.</p>

<p >I can come close to the cameras you're looking at. I own a Rollei 6006 with 80/2.8 Planar and a Mamiya C220 with 80/2.8 Mamiya. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The Rollei is a larger and heavier than my Mamiya. Probably a bit clumsier to handle to. If you're into portraits, it's a great studio camera. If you plan on carrying the camera around with you a lot, the weight an bulk will eventually get to you. The worst thing about the Rollei is that it's 100% battery dependent. Once the battery goes, the camera is dead. Note that you will need to buy the proprietary battery and charger to go along with your SLX.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >To me, the Mamiya is a better field camera. While not exactly small, it's easier to handle than the Rollei. Lighter too. Plus, it doesn't need batteries. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Both cameras benefit from using an accessory "L" bracket. Makes hand-holding much easier.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As for lenses, the 80/2.8 Planar on the Rollei is better than the 80/2.8 on the Mamiya. You'll mainly notice the difference wide-open. Once you stop down to F:4 and smaller, the two lenses are virtually indistinguishable. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use both depending on what Im shooting. The Rollei is my main portrait camera while the C220 is what I take in the "field." They both are excellent cameras.</p>

<p>Thanks Jim. I know this can be a personal thing but how woud you define better? Sharper? More contrasty than Mamiya's 80mm? What about bokeh? Are they comparable?</p>

<p>The Zeiss 80/2.8 Planar on my Rollei is sharper, wide-open, than the 80/2.8 of the Mamiya. It's a big difference too, very noticeable on the negative or when the negative is scanned. I don't know if this is because of design differences between the two lenses or whether I have a bad example of the Mamiya 80mm. Contrast between the Zeiss and the Mamiya is about the same. Again, I'm talking wide-open here, and once you stop down to F:4 or so the differences start to vanish. </p>

<p>As for bokeh, the Zeiss is probably a bit smoother.</p>

<p>I actually don't use the 80/2.8 Mamiya on my C220 much. I much prefer the Mamiya 105/3.5 for portraits. It's a Heliar design which gives pictures, to me, a more distinctive look. </p>

<p>For me, if I want to use the 80mm focal length, I always grab the Rollei. That camera/lens combo, and the Zeiss 150/4, are absolutely great for portraits.</p>

<p>Great stuff Jim, really helpful - thanks.<br>

Jean, I've just realized that you've posted images for the planar AND the sekor! Although not identical, they both look great, so you see what I mean... :) I think you're right, you can't really go wrong with either. </p>

<p> </p>