Deciding - Hasselblad vs Bronica SQ/GS

<p>I have decided that I like film backs so the P67 is out. Ie. color film and b/w and the WLF experience.</p>

<p>I have jotted down the physical dimensions and the weight of the three cameras. Is it true that the Hasselblad 500 and the Bronica GS-1 (even) isn't much physical size dimension difference? Do you notice it when you use it? And of course there is the Bronica SQ which is slightly smaller and lighter.</p>

<p>The main issue is cost. I don't envisage in getting a lot of lenses. Just maybe 3 or 4. Hasselblad lenses are generally between $250-1000+. Bronica (and everyone else) is around $250 or could even be less than $200. Exceptions maybe Contax perhaps. For 3 or 4 lenses if the Hasselblad really is a better system for me, that is not unaffordable. But I'm sort of looking at a pre 1970 or a early 1970s Hasselblad C lens. If I double it to say $500 each, I get a C T lens. But anything more finance becomes an issue ie. CF lens or beyond. So .. the question I keep asking myself is - why consider a pre 1970 or a 1970s lens for $250 or $500 when I could get a not so old Bronica lens for under $200.</p>

<p>And again for a $400 Hasselblad 500CM it might be a 1970/80s body with WLF and film back? </p>

<p>What are you after? Are you wanting to make big prints with maximum detail? Do you want to own "Rolls Royce" type of gear? Is budget the main consideration? Is the weight and size a major determinant? What is the weakest link in your workflow once you <strong><em>have</em></strong> decided and then taken some photos through to getting the finished image (i.e will it be projected/web/monitor/small print/ big print/ huge print? Will you scan your own or send them out or will it be wet chemistry? Are you any good at scanning? Do you have a good (i.e proper film not flatbed) scanner? Are you any good in the darkroom? Is your enlarger a good one with a good lens and vibration free?</p>

<p>And of course will you always (that's ALWAYS) shoot from a tripod?</p>

<p>The answers to these and many other variables can completely undermine any decision making. If on the other hand you just want to play around with medium format for the fun of it go for the Bronica because you won't commit so much money to a project that may fizzle out after a time. Once you've bought it rid your mind of any second thoughts, decide that it's the camera for you and go out and use and enjoy it and make the pictures you take with it the important thing, not the gear you take them on.</p>

<p>Back when there was only film and medium format gear was at a premium I would have been pleased as anything to have owned a Bronica set up. You can do it now for peanuts so go for it. Of course if you have the money to burn or you feel the need to tick the "I've got a Hasselblad" box then go that way instead. The pictures you take probably won't know the difference.</p>

<p>Sorry to take the emotion out of it but a level headed view might just help.</p>

<p>Thanks, I am probably looking at a Bronica SQ than a GS system. My Nikon FM2N (optional) battery been in the camera for 3yr or so .. still works. I take pictures of scapes mainly, the odd portrait, mainly off a tripod. Medium format is really just for the new experience to further slow down. Mainly shoot off a tripod, even for the 35mm stuff. Print stuff up to 13x19, the odd shot up to 24x36 1 done and 2 more soon. I don't have a Coolscan for 120, I do for 135, probably send out for a CCD scan like a Imacon or a proper drum scan - for the few. Rather than spending money on a scanner. Weight/size is a big issue. Mainly outdoor photog be it in my country with a car or a light short trek from the car or a 1hr walk or overseas for a sunrise stay out there sunset, dinner and back to the hotel - focussing on scapes, the few documentary style scape like building with people, people with trains in stations, loosely defined as travel photog. Budget also but it seems like why get the Hassie if there are cheaper solutions. Hassie CT lenses means for the 3 or so lenses is $250 more each, so $750, not unobtainable but tried to work out the merits.</p>

<p>A couple of points. First you're not comparing like with like in the cost stakes. Hasselblads are more expensive. What you have to decide is whether</p>

<ul>

<li>for the same budget you are content with a much older body and lenses to get a Hasselblad. or</li>

<li>You're prepared to flex the budget to choose between two cameras of equivalent age. In which case the Hasselblad is going to cost quite a bit more.</li>

</ul>

<p>I don't think you'll see much difference between the photographs. There is a bit of a difference between how the cameras function- I always found the Bronica easier to get to grips with than a Hasselblad. Ideally you'll find a way to try both before you buy. </p>

<p>Whichever way you jump you're buying a fairly elderly camera that was designed to be serviced regularly and probably hasn't been. MF cameras are very cheap to buy but they are not cheap to fix. For me, buying from a source that has checked the camera over; some sort of provenance/service record; and a warranty or trial period would be more important than what brand I bought. I can't over-stress this point. There seems to be a lot of not very functional MF equipment out there because when a breakdown occurs its a lot cheaper to buy a replacement than get it fixed, especially if you can make a bit on the problem gear. Backs in particular are prone to this.</p>

<p>Finally the Hasselblad brand attracts some people very strongly. If you're going to look at a Bronica and think that you should have bought the Hasselblad, then buy the Hasselblad. Just whatever you buy, try your best to buy a good example, not just the cheapest that comes along on eBay.</p>

<p><em>"Medium format is really just for the new experience to further slow down."</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>This and your other responses makes me reiterate my "go for the Bronica" comment. Buy a good one and use it carefully (that tripod again) and you'll easily get the quality and user experience you seem to be looking for. <br>

<br>

Your choice of film could be another weak link, don't shoot high ISO films and later hope to get large/huge prints with low ISO film quality. If you think you might at some point want to print large put a film in your camera that won't leave you wishing later you hadn't gone for the big ISO number.<br>

<br>

I see you say twice that you mainly shoot off a tripod, I'm assuming (correctly I think) that you mean you are shooting on a tripod. Like for instance if I put my camera on a wall and took a photo I might say I'm shooting off a wall. So if you are shooting off a tripod meaning on a tripod, that's the way to go :-)<br>

<br>

The consensus so far seems to be for the Bronica, as I said "The pictures you take probably won't know the difference." and David above also pointed out "I don't think you'll see much difference between the photographs" it's more what you do with it and the photographic opportunities that present themselves which will determine how good your photos are. The Bronica can cut the mustard.<br>

<br>

(I bet he gets a Hasselblad)</p>

<p>When looking for a 6x6 camera, I never really considered Hasselblad since all I could afford would be a high-mileage relic kit. I found a mint SQ-B kit+Speed winder for around $400 four years ago and never looked back. Suits me since I didn't need a metered finder or power grip. Early S series lenses are very affordable but even the newer PS lenses aren't wildly expensive in common focal lengths. Get the newest body you can afford. Kits are often a better deal than buying individual components since WLFs and 120 backs bought separately can get very pricey. The SQ-B is light, fast handling and durable. Very pleased with shots on Kodak TMY-2, Fuji Reala and E100GX.<br>

<br /> I considered the Bronica GS for 6x7 but went with a Mamiya RB67 Pro S. The GS is relatively rare with extra backs, accessories and lenses equally hard to find. Though bigger and heavier, the Mamiya RB67 cameras of all vintages are plentiful and affordable. The rotating back compensates for its bulk.</p>

<p>I may actually get the Bronica SQ :-) A photog club friend has a GS-1 that I have seen and a Hasselblad in the store in their museum shelf. Some Bronica lenses are $250 and some $150 haha .. going by Keh.com and they are more modern PS lenses which are those from 1996 (according to the Photo.net Bronica SQ article). That would been a Hassie 503 body with maybe even a CFI/CFE lens. </p>

<p>Rollei 6008s aren't bad either. You get the same Zeiss glass as Hassy but in a more modern rig. The 6008s all come with motor winders AND metering even if you are using a waste level finder. They are nice on a tripod but you can also shoot them pretty well hand held.</p>

<p>Depending on the type of light you are shooting in you can get away with hand holding ISO 100 film. I run into problems because I am always using filters which knock off anywhere from 1-5 stops. The Rollei is a brick because of the all the automation and electronics, but I find I burn through film on that rig because of the built in metering, aperture priority mode, and the motor drive.</p>

<i>"Medium format is really just for the new experience to further slow down."</i><br>vs.<br><i>"I find I burn through film on that rig because of [...]"</i><br><br>So not that rig, then? ;-)

<p>Q.G., it depends on how strong you are physically, what subjects you shoot, what filters you shoot through, and what kind of film you use. If you are a pretty strong guy shooting portraits at a 2.8/4.0 in plenty of natural light with no filters and 400 ISO film you can burn through film pretty quickly. Well focusing at 2.8 with an 80mm lens will slow you down a bit. But if you are shooting a landscape at f16 through a couple of filters, with 25 ISO film then you will need a tripod and probably a hand held light meter. That will slow you down a lot. Also when I say "burn through film" I mean relative to my 100% manual ETRS. There are only 12 exposures on 120 film. I don't shoot at anywhere near the rate I do with my DSLR or my 35mm film camera.</p>

<p>My point is you may have one main driving reason for getting a camera but you should also consider other factors as well. With the falling price of MF film gear my question is why not invest in the purportedly best system? You get modern Zeiss glass. You can agonize between whether Zeiss is better than Schnieder or vice versa. But either way no matter what you buy you know the odds of you missing something because of lens quality is basically nil.</p>

<p>I have a Bronica ETRS. And the thing feels like a feather after using my Rollei 6008 for awhile. But when it comes to image quality I don't even think about it when I'm using the Rollei 6008. I know every time I press the shutter I've done every reasonable thing I can do to maximize lens quality. I bought the ETRS years ago. At that time I didn't think about the Rollei because I saw the prices and just moved on. Now that prices have gotten a lot saner I decided to invest in Rollei and be done with it. Astonishingly for a basic Rollei 6003/6008 kit with 80mm Zeiss lens there is quite a bit of overlap with the Bronica system on eprey in the price department. If you want to add additional lenses and backs though Rollei prices are substantially higher.</p>

<p>Keep in mind Rollei 6003/6008s have built in TTL flash metering. I don't think that is an option with SQ-As. I think you have to go up to SQ-Ais for that. And as I mentioned the Rolleis all come with built in motor drives, light meters, and dark slides. No more dark slides to lose. You have to watch out though. Some of those cheaper Rollei kits come with backs with no built in dark slide. They cannot be changed out mid roll.</p>

I can't agree, Jeff. Whether a fully automatic motorized camera that 'burns film' is the thing for you when you are looking to slow down is not a matter of <i>"how strong you are physically"</i>.<br><i>"Weight/size"</i> is though. And if that is an issue, you can easily lose the motor, battery (and automatic exposure) and get something like that Bronica ETRS of yours or that SQ Ray is thinking about (though these both also take batteries).

<p>I'll try to sum up what has been discussed so far.<br /> The OP has narrowed his choices down to Hasselblad vs. Bronica, wants film backs, shoots mainly off/on tripods, and his main issue is cost. Also, we all agree that differences in image quality - assuming one manages to make sharp, well exposed images - have little to do with the camera/lens brand.<br /> So after all the thing is easy to answer, at least for me: a Bronica seems to fit his needs best.</p>

<p>The GS-1 offers 6x7 format plus 6x6 film backs, the SQ offers 6x6 format plus 4.5x6 film backs, it is more versatile and has a wider range of lenses/accessories to choose from.</p>

<p>In his original question, I couldn't detect a need for automatics/electronics, but if he wants TTL flash metering, the SQ-Ai has it (don't know if the GS has it too).</p>

<p>Friedemann</p>

<p>Thanks again.</p>

<p>I don't need TTL at all. I would just use a external light/flash meter. But it seems like the SQ-Ai is pretty cheap anyway. I think this model is also preferable b/c I need bulb exposure. Whereas the earlier one doesn't have it (the photo.net article). Won't be getting auto winders etc .. or the grip. The Rollei is more expensive and on the heavier side. I prefer the 6x6. Smaller/lighter, same with the lenses and not need to think about portrait or landscape. The 6x7 may be rectangle but to go very wide, I could just use my Nikon FM2N with a 20mm. Don't mind too much about the battery. My FM2N is still on its original battery that I bought with the camera a few years back..</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't agree, Jeff. Whether a fully automatic motorized camera that 'burns film' is the thing for you when you are looking to slow down is not a matter of "how strong you are physically".</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Did you read this...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br />Also when I say "burn through film" I mean relative to my 100% manual ETRS. There are only 12 exposures on 120 film. I don't shoot at anywhere near the rate I do with my DSLR or my 35mm film camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Operative word is "relative." I posted my comment in the medium format section because I assumed anyone lurking here would know that ALL medium format cameras operate slower than 35mm film and DSLR cameras. There are degrees of slow. I mean if slow is all you care about why not just get an 8x10 view camera and be done with it?</p>

<p>I've gone the Bronica route and I've gone the Rollei route. I am just reporting my experiences so Ray can make an informed decision. Often people make a costly wrong decision when they are buying a camera because of ignorance. I was trying to prevent that. The Bronica camera may be right for Ray. I just want him to have all the information before he makes his decision.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Also, we all agree that differences in image quality - assuming one manages to make sharp, well exposed images - have little to do with the camera/lens brand.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know that I agree with that. What about <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html">this</a>?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But it seems like <strong>the SQ-Ai is pretty cheap anyway. I think this model is also preferable</strong> b/c I need bulb exposure. Whereas the earlier one doesn't have it (the photo.net article).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ray, you are definitely approaching the Bronica purchase with the right mindset. The way I actually ended up with a Rollei is I bought an ETRS years ago. Well after a several years of not shooting much due to school/work I started getting back into film stuff. I really started pushing my camera and made a couple of discoveries. The first was the ETRS does not have mirror lockup. And the second is that it doesn't have TTL metering for a flash. Well I started looking at getting an ETRSi. The body prices were unrealistic and I didn't want to buy a whole kit just for the body. Anyway I happened to look at the Rollei system and it had everything in one convenient package for a reasonable price. So I got that. If you handle the camera and are confident you don't need all the built in extras of the Rollei then knock yourself out. Get the Bronica. The extras add weight. But if you go the Bronica route make sure the body you get has all the features you want. I couldn't believe the ETRS didn't have mirror lock up. It's not really a feature I ever looked for. All the cameras I've ever owned except the ETRS had it. I just took it for granted.</p>

Jeff,<br><br><i>"Did you read this..."</i><br><br>Yes, i have. Doesn't make a difference.<br><br>You never looked for mirror lock up, yet it was part of the reason why you ditched the ETRS when you found out (accidentally?) that it didn't offer that? ;-)<br><br><br>Friedemann,<br><br>I agree with Jeff. I also don't agree that differences in image quality have little to do with lens brand. Though the differences are small, there are differences that coincide with who made the lenses. And that old "you get what you pay for" still applies. Alas.

<p><em>"I don't know that I agree with that. What about <a href="http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/MF_testing.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this</a>?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Depending on which brand is owned these sort of charts of figures may be reassuring, it is after all nice to think that the lenses you own are good performers. But the numbers aren't everything as the tester's own comment shows :-<br>

<em> </em><br>

<em>"I was hoping that Mamiya's brochure was right and that these optics were "ultra high performance". Oh well,</em> the<em> Hasselblad still wins the day... <strong>but you certainly can't tell from looking at the final prints!"</strong></em> (Bold letters are mine to draw attention to the point I'm expressing)</p>

<p>I think when one is talking Hasselblad/Mamiya/Pentax/Rollei/Bronica/Fuji medium format one can safely assume that one has got a camera that will satisfy most peoples print needs. (Apologies if I missed a brand)</p>

<p>Interestingly on the linked lens resolution testing page, the camera I would far sooner own out of the lot is the one in the YouTube ad in the header. The heretics Sony A77 (Zeiss lenses available). Move with the times I say and I bet you still <em>"can't tell from looking at the final prints!".</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I was hoping that Mamiya's brochure was right and that these optics were "ultra high performance". Oh well,</em> the<em> Hasselblad still wins the day... <strong>but you certainly can't tell from looking at the final prints!"</strong></em> (Bold letters are mine to draw attention to the point I'm expressing)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I always wondered what Chris meant by that comment - "the<em> Hasselblad still wins the day</em>". It's not clear which Hasselblad lens he was referring to, but it must be the 80mm f/2.8 Planar CT* that he tested, if he is trying to compare like with like (two fast standard lenses). The thing is, I rate the Mamiya RZ 110/2.8 lens as better in his data, at least from f2.8 to f5.6. The Planar has relatively poor corners until f/8. I'll take very good performance all over the image, over an exceptional centre and so-so corners, anyday! Chris must have weighted his assessment towards the f8-f11 performance, Depends on what kind of photos you tend to take, I guess.</p>

Well, there is that thing about being "good enough" (the sentiment the bold letters expres). But "good enough" always depends on an often unspoken "for what?" If the answer to that is "more than you will ever need" "good enough" will indeed be that: good enough.<br><br>Anyhow, there are other considerations besides how much you can eek out of a lens. How much that lens costs is one. How big the stuff is you have to haul around to be able to use that lens is another.<br>Ray, i don't think you would do wrong getting a Bronica SQ (and that not just because of that second initial). Or even a Bronica ETRSi.<br>If we only focus on one particular particular of that choice, we could say that you could do better. But considering all there is to consider, it's a perfectly fine choice.<br>The 6x7 Bronica is indeed only a bit larger and heavier than the Hasselblad. Without the prism you would also want for that rectangular format. But even with prism, it could be a good choice.

Where i'm standing, 'choice-wise':<br>I have (a long time ago) decided against Bronica. I could see the difference both the Hasselblad camera (and rest of the system) and the Zeiss lenses made. I also really like(d) the Mamiyas a lot, but not the 6x45, only the 6x7. But they are way too big and heavy for my taste. Pentax 67 also fell by the wayside, because - i found - it was awkward, and not enjoying the best reputation for its mechanics. Limited system too. Rollei cameras are first rate too. But the choice back then was between the lumpy SL66 and the still rather unreliable and limited SLX (or a fixed lens TLR - fun, sometimes. But not for me, thanks. Far too limiting). The 6008 should be much better (though the proprietary battery keeps giving rise to threads asking how to rig a replacement.) Never considered or tried rangefinders, because i want SLRs. So i chose and still use Hasselblad. Never had a reason to want something else.<br>But to each his/her own.

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, i have. Doesn't make a difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. de Bakker, why so obstinate? "Speed" is a continuum from the latest high end pro DSLR to 8x10 view cameras and beyond. Why is your favorite the Bronica SQ-a the only data point that should be considered? This is Ray's thread. I am just providing information to Ray and anyone else that is open minded. Why do you wish to suppress information? I'm not demanding you, Ray or anyone else buy a Rollei 6008. That is a personal decision. It is up to Ray to decide what pace of work he desires.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You never looked for mirror lock up, yet it was part of the reason why you ditched the ETRS when you found out (accidentally?) that it didn't offer that? ;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I got into photography as a young teenager. Sorry I didn't do the same level of due diligence as a pro who's been in the business for 30 years. Every other camera I ever used had it. And I didn't "accidentally" discover the lack of mirror lock up. Like I said my shooting evolved and progressed and mirror lock up was something I wanted to start using on my MF camera. If you go back and read my posts you will find that I am stating things that I did wrong and things that I did right and about my progression. I'm just trying to save some other people some grief. Surely I couldn't have been the first consumer that bought something and assumed it had a particular function and later discovered it didn't.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Depending on which brand is owned these sort of charts of figures may be reassuring, it is after all nice to think that the lenses you own are good performers.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I looked at that chart AFTER I already owned some Bronica lenses that are NOT on that list and before I bought the 80mm Planar. I did not look at that chart to reassure myself about something I already owned. I discovered that chart years ago and it is interesting to look at. But when the Planar prices were out of my range they had no bearing on my reality. Relative poverty actually frees you from certain things. The Bronica was in my opinion the best for my price range and it didn't matter how purportedly sharp some $2,000 lens was. I was never going to purchase it.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think when one is talking Hasselblad/Mamiya/Pentax/Rollei/Bronica/Fuji medium format one can safely assume that one has got a camera that will satisfy most peoples print needs.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mac, yes but I'm not buying a lens for "most people." I'm buying it for me. And as I stated before once prices fall to a certain point why even bother fretting or wondering. Just get the best for your shooting style and be done with it. As I said when prices were substantially different I didn't care what any charts or prints showed. I was not dropping $2,000 on a lens. Now that prices have fallen and you can get a Planar for the same price why expend any more energy thinking about it? Also the Rollei lenses have excellent build quality, they are newer, and I love the bayonet system on them.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The 6008 should be much better (though the proprietary battery keeps giving rise to threads asking how to rig a replacement.)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only people that start new threads inquiring about Rollei 6008 battery replacements are people who can't use the search function and read the numerous posts about simply taking the Rollei battery to the nearest electric hobby store or <a href="http://www.batteriesplus.com/">battery store</a> and paying $40 to get your battery refurbished to a much better NiMH model with far more capacity.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Interestingly on the linked lens resolution testing page, the camera I would far sooner own out of the lot is the one in the YouTube ad in the header. The heretics Sony A77 (<strong>Zeiss lenses available</strong>). Move with the times I say and I bet you still <em>"can't tell from looking at the final prints!".</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em> </em><br>

<em><br /></em>Why would someone who is more interested in APS-C DSLRs be posting in the medium format section? Is someone just satisfying their RDA of digital vs film debates? And I don't care what name is written on my lens. I mentioned Zeiss when talking about Rollei and Hasselblad because we are all familiar with the nice lenses in that line up. Not every single Zeiss lens even in those lineups is worthy of the hype. I have no idea about the Zeiss lenses for your APS-C also ran DSLR. Maybe they are some of the best for APS-Cs maybe they are not. But I need more than just the Zeiss name to buy a lens. My camera phone says Zeiss on it but the results that come out of it don't.</p>

Jeff,<br><br>Read. Not just assume that people say what you think they will say. Read.<br>If you had done that, you would have known, for instance, that the Bronica SQ is not my favourite.<br><br>Obstinate? "Speed is a continuum", but looking to slow down and looking to speed up are diametrically opposed.<br>Speed is relative, then? Sure. And it may well be that someone who wants to slow down finds he has done that too much and wants to speed up a bit again. But why do you assume that is the case to begin with, Jeff?<br><br>"Suppress information"?<br>You must be kidding. Yet, obviously not. What are you trying to do there? Disqualify and dismiss an opinion that doesn't agree with yours, because it doesn't? Disqualify and dismiss a voice pointing out some possible inconsistencies in what you put forward?<br>Jeff, i really think your are way out of line here. Time for you to say "sorry" some more.

<i>"The only people that start new threads inquiring about Rollei 6008 battery replacements are people who can't use the search function and read the numerous posts about simply taking the Rollei battery to the nearest electric hobby store or battery store and paying $40 to get your battery refurbished to a much better NiMH model with far more capacity."</i><br><br>Which proves the point nicely.<br>Rollei 6000-series have batteries that require a different 'solution'. Consider that too when considering buying a Rollei 6000-series.<br><br>One of those strange things you say again, Jeff: if people don't start threads about something, how can people who use search functions find numerous posts on that something?

<p><em>"...we all agree that differences in image quality - assuming one manages to make sharp, well exposed images - have little to do with the camera/lens brand."</em></p>

<p>To be honest, I do not know who else agrees, and I'm sorry for this obviously wrong assumption.</p>

<p>However, I keep up the rest of my statement. I definitely DO know the differences in quality between different manufacturers, but I said "image quality" not "lens quality", and I said "have little to do" not "have nothing to do".</p>

<p>Whatever has been tested and measured under whatever conditions (I ran over these lens comparison charts years ago), I simply meant, differences in image quality depend much more on the photographer than on differences in lens quality.<br>

I mistakenly thought this was common wisdom.</p>

<p>Ray,<br /> Given your requirements, I again suggest a Bronica, maybe 6x6 is right for you. If you manage to get good body and lens samples, you'll get enough camera and lens quality to produce enough image quality for the print sizes you mentioned.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Which proves the point nicely.<br />Rollei 6000-series have batteries that require a different '<a id="itxthook0" href="00b2mo?start=20" rel="nofollow">solution'<img id="itxthook0icon" src="http://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png" alt="" /></a>. Consider that too when considering buying a Rollei 6000-series.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Q.G. de Bakker, I may not agree with your obsession with your personal definition or "slowing down" nor your need to parse my words and "point out inconsistencies" but I do agree with that statement. Indeed if someone is too mentally brain damaged to take their spent battery to a local electronic hobby store or battery store and hand it along with $40 to the guy behind the counter they probably should stay away from the 6008... Frankly they should probably avoid medium format film entirely. There are certain things we can all agree on.</p>

<p>So uh ... this conversation has gotten to a point where I really don't feel like quoting or addressing individual posts of ideas. Trust that I've read them; I just don't want to get involved in the conversation as it is currently being had, so I'm glossing over it.</p>

<p>I have never "owned" a Bronica SQ, but I have used one quite a bit. Ditto for just about every other major-brand MF camera, aside from the Rollei SLRs. I currently do own a Hasselblad. After owning Yashicamats, Mamiya TLRs, and Rolleiflexes, it is the only roll film camera I chose to keep. That should say something right there.</p>

<p>If you can swing the Zeiss CF/CT lenses, the glass on the Hassies is second-to-none if you are shooting at stopped-down apertures. If you are shooting wide open, there's a lot more room for argument, as others have mentioned.</p>

<p>Also, the film and devloper you use plays a big part in how "good" the lenses are. Colour film is a lot better than it used to be, but colour emulsion still isn't as sharp or as grain-free as slow-speed black and white. I shoot FP4+ almost exclusively, and I have to say that there is a very large difference in sharpness between my Hassy and other 6x6 cameras. But when shooting colour, especially at larger apertures, it doesn't really matter so much.</p>

<p>As a final comparison, the Hasselblad cameras are very bare as far as features and controls go. Personally, I like this: it has a mirror lockup, exposure settings, and that's about it. The Bronicas are excellent cameras, but there are just too many buttons for my tastes.</p>

<p>Again, I haven't used the Rollei TLRs. But in my experience, the only 6x6 cameras that are as sharp as the Hassies are the 1970s and newer Rolleiflexes, and the Mamiya and Fuji rangefinders. I don't think that the Mamiya and Fuji lenses are as good as Zeiss, but the cameras hold the film super flat, and that goes a LONG way towards edge-to-edge sharpness.</p>

<p>That doesn't mean that other cameras are worse. There's a lot more to quality than sharpness, after all. But if you're looking to make large prints, sharpness is one of most important things.</p>

<p>Also, have you considered a 4x5 camera? It would make MUCH better enlargements, and a good camera with a nice, relatively modern German lens or two would still set you back about half of what a Hassy would. You would spend a lot more on film and developing, but the $1,000 or so you'd save would go a long way towards paying for that.</p>

<p>I generally use an old Linhof Technika for studio work (more movements than less expensive folding 4x5s, but the same picture quality), and a 500C/M when I'm walking around. I find that up to about 8"x8", the picture quality is the same. 12"x12" is my 'standard' size though, and at that size it's very obvious which camera made the print when viewed near. At around 24x24", it's an obvious difference from any distance.</p>

<p>If you're comfortable with a 4x5, I'd buy that. If you're not, I would think for a long time about what lenses you really want, and how you shoot. If you're mostly just going to use the normal lens, your best bet would probably be a Rolleiflex with the wide and tele adaptors. The lens quality is the same as the Hassy, the film is held even flatter, and the fact that it's all built together makes it easier to cart around and operate.</p>

<p>If you're going to use a bunch of different lenses, then I'd buy the Hassy if you generally stop down (expecially if you shoot a lot of black and white), and I'd probably save the money and buy the Bronica or a Mamiya TLR is you shoot at larger apertures. I prefer the Mamiya TLRs to the Bronica SQs, but obviously you don't get the change the film back.</p>