Rollei TLR and Hasselblad outdoors?

Now everybody has spread out those superlatives about Rolleiflexes,

be the glass Z or SK. What my concern is -- how does a Rollei TLR

compare outdoors (general landscape, cities, rural, vistas etc.) to

Hasselblad (say Planar 80/2,8 T*).

 

Please don't tell me anything botanical about oranges, lemons,

potatoes or apples. Nothing, please, about mirror slap or nr. of lens

or parallax or WYSIWYG.

 

I know that stuff. (I have a H-blad and consider a Rollei 3,5 E or F)

 

I want to know about practical usage (meso- and micrologistical

differences in the workflow). Which one is more comfortable to use and

will the comfort take anyhow precedence over quality?

Or put differently -- when we assume everything else is equal, which

glasses give me superior results in transparencies? BW?

 

Peeter Vissak

My gosh Peeter. Maybe you must answer this question yourself since you know exactly what you don't want to hear about. In fact much of what you ask can ONLY be answered by you as these issues are so subjective.

I haven't used a Rollei TLR since I was about 14, but

I have recent experience with a Hassy 500 C/M

and a Mamiya C330 TLR in the field.

<p>

The TLR shape "hangs better" when carrying it on a neck strap.

It's always in shooting position. The Hassy has a tendency

to point lens down. That's a minor issue, but it's an

issue of comfort and it's not on your list of forbidden

subjects. It would only be of any importance for

grabbing quick handheld shots in a hurry, and rarely of

vital importance there.

<p>

As far as lens quality, I find that I'm always stopped down

far enough for DoF reasons that uncorrected aberrations aren't

a big deal, no matter which brand of (reasonably good quality)

glass I'm using. Still, focusing through the faster 80mm f2.8, with

its narrower DoF, would have to be an advantage in my book.

<p>

I'd have to say the more obvious TLR versus SLR differences

which you don't want to hear about would be more important

factors than anything I've mentioned here. Oh, and Hassy's

interchangable backs for switching between B&W and color.

And practical things like cost, weight, etc.

<p>

All in all, though, either camera should be able to produce

beautiful results.

I find that the convenience & flexibility given by my Hasselblad system far out-weigh the compact, plus side of a TLR.

 

Given the choice, which I am as I have both, I take the Hasselblad out every time.

 

Gavin

 

www.urban-landscapes.co.uk

The 80mm F2.8 Planars and Xenotars in the Rollei TLR are 5 elements; in the Blad; 7 elements.........Which is your lucky number? :) All are great lenses..........But many TLRs have alot of miles; like the blads too; the focus is not direct; and must track with the viewing lens......Getting a second hand TLR has some slight real risk in focusing error; ie lens performance; if some yoyo has the front standard bent; not parallel; or replaced something; without getting the front standard plate square; then main lens focus correct; then viewing lens to track with both.........<BR><BR>The F 3.5 Rollei TLR's are 75mm; slightly wider than your 80mm blad lens...The 75mm F3.5 TLR's are preferred by wedding guys/gals; for the slightly wider lens......<BR><BR>The TLR's are alot quieter; usually lighter than the Blad..............My Mamiya C3 is a heavy beast; compared to the Rolleiflexes......<BR><BR>The Rollei's are fast to wind........<BR><BR>At F8 to F11 ; the premium Rollei Planars and Xenotars are just about equal to the blads Planar in sharpness; ie a wash.....The newer mulicoated blad lenses will have slightly more contrast and less flare than the single coated C, D, and F TLR,s lenses.....<BR><BR>TLR's hang better from the neck.

A major problem is will a single lens TLR fit your style?........

Why not just go to apples and apples and compare the Hasselblad SLR to a Rollei 6XXX

SLR?

 

Then you are comparing the same lenses (if you chose) with the flexability of the SLR.

If you have a hassie, why bother with a TLR camera. I own 3 TLR's, rollieflex, rolleicord, and Mamiya c33. They never get used!

 

Equip your hassie with a rapid crank, focus handle, prism and a split image screen. You will love the handling. Add a diopter if need.

Well if you shoot IR film, the TLR wins hands down. Putting an IR filter over any SLR lens is not fun; that's wy we have TLRs and RF cameras.

 

I assume you will be on a tripod. In that case the 'Blad will sit a little higher with the WLF than the Rollei will. Not a big difference. If you use only one film then the Rollei makes sense. If you shoot both B&W and color then the 'Blad wins (you could always buy two Rolleis; what's the cost of an A12 vs an entire camera?).

 

Is weight a factor? If so the Rollei should be lighter.

 

Why not borrow or rent a Rollei and take it for a spin?

I find that for landscape photography it is often beneficial to use either a polariser or a split ND filter. Both of these can be used on TLRs but it is a lot easier to do on an SLR. All in all, this makes for a great difference in practical using comfort. If instead of landscapes you shoot models outdoors, the same goes with vignetters and softars, especially those that are clear in the middle. Even more so because the viewing lens in a TLR cannot be stopped down to the shooting aperture to see the exact effect.

 

If I had a Hasselblad, I would be happy using that and not consider an old TLR.

I used to use a rollei 35 pocket camera as part of my Nikon kit - and you would get smilar advantages supplementing a 'bald kit with a rolliflex:

 

It is ever-ready.

 

It is a very usefull additional body which would be a spare and save 'blad lens changes.

 

I seldom use my 80mm lens, so I would rarely use a rollieflex, but I would like to acquire a telle-rollie - this would be mainly for out-of-studio portraiture so I would miss the TTL flash facility.

 

The lack of a mirror is one of the main advantages I would appreciate.

I don't have a Hassy but I have a Rollei 6006 and several Rollei TLRs. My 6006 (Planar HFT) give me contrastier slides while the Planar of the 2.8F is a tiny bit sharper. In use, the 6006 weight a hell lot more and much bulkier than the F but the meter is very accurate and I like having WYSIWYG with DOF.

 

Siu Fai

I tend to agree with Gene to some extent - if you're happy with your Hasselblad I'm not sure what a Rollei TLR would offer other than the simple and perfectly valid pleasure of owning another fine machine.

 

That said, I've used my Rollei TLR almost exclusively outdoors, mostly for daytime photography, usually b&w (slow, fine grain films like TMX, APX 100, Delta 100, etc.).

 

I'll start with the one major drawback:

 

My 2.8C has a dim focusing screen, especially at the edges. I desperately need a good Maxwell or Beattie screen to really enjoy using this thing. As it is I often have to wear a darkcloth (actually, I prefer a white "lightcloth" for our Texas summers) or shade it with a hat.

 

While the dim viewfinder doesn't interfere with accurate focusing, it does make accurate composition difficult. I prefer to shoot for the square intended to print all-in for the square. Sometimes I miss, badly, and wind up with rectangular prints. Not a tragedy, sure, but it defeats my damned aesthetics.

 

I find the performance of the 80/2.8 S-K Xenotar in my sample to be excellent. Since I use mine for architecture, landscapes and similar subjects my standards for performance from this camera are very high. It never fails to satisfy.

 

So if you get a good example you can be assured of good results. Comparable or superior to your Hasselblad? I wouldn't even want to touch that subject.

 

I really don't like the debates over Zeiss vs. Schneider-Krueznach; it's silly. I'd be happy with either. Both made excellent lenses and, yes, a few dogs have shown up over the decades. Age, wear, element separation, coating damage, all kinds of problems can crop up with older cameras. That's the drawback to something like the Rollei TLR - you can't fix an optical problem by simply popping on another lens.

 

Another potential drawback is the design of the commonly available lens shade. In some circumstances I find it barely adequate to prevent flare. Sometimes I just have to forego a shot if moving doesn't solve the problem. Keep that in mind, since you have the option of some pretty sophisticated lens shading solutions for the Hasselblad.

 

You also seem to be interested in handling characteristics. The TLR is a pure, simple pleasure to use. It is quiet, hardly louder than the clicking of a ballpoint pen. That might factor into your shooting style or choice of subject matter, environment, etc.

 

When considering a medium format camera I handled everything available and decided that what I wanted would have to be as comfortable to use handheld as on a tripod. While the Hasselblad is a very compact camera and could easily be handheld (with appropriately fast film), I simply preferred the ergonomics of the Rollei. So if occasional handheld photography is a part of your style, sure, you might very well like a TLR.

 

But my decision was also based on economics and needs. I could afford a Rollei TLR more easily than a Hasselblad. And I have absolutely no need for interchangeable film backs. Those Rollei TLR users who do need a ready choice of films generally carry more than one camera.

 

However a possibly more important concern may be the ease of reloading the camera. Even if you use only one type of film and don't need interchangeable backs for access to a variety of films, you might prefer those backs for ease of reloading on the go. I find it a bit trying to reload the Rollei while standing - I prefer to find a place to sit with the camera in my lap for reloading.

 

Since I've always felt comfortable with a "normal" lens for any film format, the noninterchangeable lens is not an issue for me. It might be for some folks. Whenever I read about people asking the wide angle or telephoto adapters for TLRs, or about the availability of the Rolleis with tele lenses, I wonder whether they're into the wrong camera.

 

At the risk of offering what might at first seem to be a silly suggestion, you might consider first buying a very inexpensive TLR like a Rolleicord, Yashica, Minolta Autocord, etc., for around $100. Try it, see if the handling characteristics suit your style. If so, then invest in a better model. If not, nothing lost - it can easily be resold.

 

This is among the few medium format cameras where you can afford to try on a style of camera at a low price. There is no $100 entry level equivalent to a medium format SLR with interchangeable lenses and film backs.

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8F Planar and Hasselblad 503CW with the 80 CFE. These lenses share maximum aperture, focal length, and the name, but nothing else. The Hasselblad is much more contrasty, less subject to veiling glare, and sharper out to the corners at the wider apertures. Perhaps the latest Planar on the GX series is more like the Hasselblad Planar, I couldn't say as I'd never even think of spending that much money on a fixed-lens TLR. The Rollei's only advantage for me is its hand-holdability. I can not get a satisfactory shot with the Hasselblad without a tripod, except indoors with flash.

Thanks to everybody who responded! That's a real lot of practical advice.

In fact I'm not the newbiest TLR-er I've been using some TLR-s for a while (Ljubitel 2, Mamiya C2), but never held a Rollei TLR in my hands. No chance, as the narrow choice of 2nd hand stuff here doesn't include any Rolleiflexes.

It's a temptation, while I believe the Rollei will be lighter than my Hasselblad (which I have with a prism, no WLF) and obviously every different brand handles differently.

What seems most inspiring is the shutter release and quietness.

I'll be sticking to the normal lens anyway as I am not wealthy enough to buy a wide angle for the Hasselblad, esp. the one, I'd like to use(40 mm floating lens Distagon).

Well, I'll see - a nice clean Rollei E or F isn't a bargain either.

Thanks to everyone anyway!

 

Peeter Vissak