Hasselblad and Mamiya RZ67

[desmond_kidman]

Hello all,

 

I have read some interesting responses to questions on this forum, so

I thought I'd get imput on a change I'm thinking of making.

 

I entered the Hasselblad system as it seemed to be a system that did

it all in 1 camera: hand holdable, tripod use with mirror lock-up,

travel, portrait, candid, etc......not perfect at all uses, but a

good overall compromise.

 

Now that I have 35mm and 6 x 7 rangefinder systems, I find that I'm

only using he Hasselblad in the studio or on a tripod in the field.

Therefore, being hand holdable is no longer a big deal. I wonder if

I'm better served with a RZ67 since I love large negs.

 

My questions:

 

1. Is there depth of field info on the RZ, or do you have to use a

chart?

 

2. The best Zeiss lenses are certainly great. My favorites are the

100CF for its great overall sharpness and good balance, 250 CFI

Superachromat for its incredible saturation, very good bokeh, and

superb detail, 120CF Makro for great close range detail and gorgeous

bokeh.

 

Is there anyone with experience with these lenses and with the latest

RZ? I especially would want to know about the apo 210, I am quite

sure I would not be interested in the standard teles after being used

to the superachromat.

 

I only care about the latest lenses, I would buy new.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Armando

[john_bellenis]

I feel pretty qualified to answer this question as I used Hasselblads for 12 years and switched to Mamiya RZs 9 years ago. I now have two RZs and one RZ Pro II.

 

I bought Hasselblads straight out of college (knee jerk reaction - we used them in college and they were "the best") and I used them almost every day for all my commercial MF work for the next 12 years. I traded them in 1992 and have never looked back, after finding the system limited and restricting for my style of working and uses.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that the RZ lenses are every bit as good as the Hasselblad lenses. They may be a tad more contrasty which I like also.

 

Due to the bellows focusing there is no traditional depth of field scale as such, you can use on the chart beside the bellows though. I tend to use the stop down preview button and polaroids if DOF is critical. For what it's worth I find almost almost all lens depth of field indicators very optimistic anyway.

 

I can't speak specifically for the 210 APO lens, but image quality has simply never been an issue for me with any of my RZ lenses. The improved functionality has been amazing though and you couldn't pay me enough to go back to Hasselblads. This is not as sweeping a statement as it may sound because the nature of my work and my style of working just doesn't play to the Hasselblads strengths. It is obviously a superb sytem for many people, just not a good fit for me.

[vartan_grigorian]

I don't think you will gain much by changing system. After all both are MF SLR's with much the same limitations. The bellows focussing on the RZ may be useful for close-ups but you could always get extension tubes or bellows for your Hasselblad. What can the Mamiya do that the Hasselblad cannot? If you really want or need larger negs consider a large format system which will give the benefit of movements. Generally speaking you should only change system if it is really unsuited to what you do. Otherwise the only people to gain will be the dealer and / or the person who buys your Hasselblad system.

[eric friedemann]

Echoing what has been said above, I've owned Hasselblad and currently own RZ67. In my opinion, the current RZ lenses are every bit as good as the Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad. However, the main problem I had with Hasselblad was the square format. I thought I'd get used to it, but never did and usually wound up cropping down to 6x4.5cm. The 6x7cm format is the best single format I've used. It makes perfect 8x10s.

[moses_sparks]

My experience was much the same as John's, bought Hasselblads early in my career because I saw so many pros using them, but when I got out into the world of commercial photography I found myself fighting with the system too often.

 

Lenses that were stiff and hard to focus, and which wouldn't focus close enough without extension tubes, jammed bodies, film inserts that remind me of Chinese finger puzzles, having to take off the viewfinder just to shoot Polaroids, and inconsistent shutter speeds...these things did not endear the system to me.

 

The RZ feels like a bigger, smoother, simpler version of a Hasselblad to me.

 

Much easier to focus, backs and lenses interchange easily, and when you look in the finder...there's your picture. No mental cropping gymnastics required.

 

The lenses are great. Period. The five that I own (50,65,110,180,250) are all surgically sharp, and the color match and shutter accuracy between them is perfect.

 

All this Zeiss vs Mamiya stuff is great fodder for internet conjecture, but in the real world, both are so good it just doesn't matter.

 

The RZ's revolving back, bellows focus, and electronic flash sync from the body are huge advantages for me (you don't know what a time and stress saver it is to change lenses and never have to worry about re-attaching the PC cord until you've experienced it).

 

You pretty much have to use it on a tripod (although mine comes off quite often, and I've gotten used to it) but then that's true with any MF SLR made. Take it off the pod and you have greatly compromised the image quality you use MF for to begin with.

 

You should seriously evaluate the kind of work you do, not just the format difference, and then try out the RZ system to see if the difference in functionality really warrants an expensive change.

 

Good luck!

 

 

P.S. The Hassy Brotherhood is no doubt meeting at this very moment to discuss we infidels and issue an appropriate response...beware.

[_____133]

I'll add some fuel to the fire. Since it being hand-holdable is no longer a consideration and you're after the big negative, won't you give the Fuji 680III a thought?

 

The colour consistency from lens to lens is great, the lenses are sharp and their bokeh is beautiful. You get tilt/shift capability. The image area is 56mmX76mm which is about 10% larger than the 56mmX69mm.

 

I wonder why the 'APO' appellation holds such appeal to you that you won't consider the standard teles? Have you tested the standard teles to see if colour fringing is a problem at all under the loupe or at the sizes that you usually print them?

[enrico_pocopagni1]

Ciao, Armando

I have no experience with Hasselblad system (a single roll I shoot several years ago doesn't matter). I am an enthusiast non professional Mamiya RZ user. I follow last message to say that Mamiya standard tele are great performers, far beyond my expectations when I decided, with some exitation, to buy a couple (180 W-N and 360).

Here are some samples: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=149561.

Greetings. Enrico Pocopagni

[philip_tilton]

Although I am no photography expert, I have owned both Hasselblad and Mamiya RZ systems for years and feel qualified to comment on their respective performances. Like many photographers before me, my decision to buy Hasselblad equipment was initially motivated in large part to get the best of the best in terms of optics. I have invested a small fortune in lenses. I own the 50, 60, 100, 180 and 250SA. I have never been sorry about the decision to buy Hasselblad equipment, but I had a difficult time adjusting to the square negative. I felt uncomfortable printing in squares and composing a shot with a view toward cropping out a portion in the printing process seems ridiculous, at best. For that reason I eventually bought a Mamiya RZ and three lenses (65, 110 and 250 APO). In my view, the quality of both the Ziess and RZ lenses is superb - and indistinguishable. Were I in a position to start over, I might start with the RZ and dispense with the privilege of buying a Hasselblad. However, I retained my Hasselblad equipment (I have a phobia about trading in or selling equipment - I almost always regret it) and, eventually, I gained comfort with printing in squares and began using the Hasselblad on an equal basis with the RZ.

 

Having said all this, I feel compelled to report that my curiousity recently gained the best of me and I bought a large format (4x5) system. Notwithstanding my love of my Hasselblad and RZ, I have concluded that neither can compare to a large format camera in circumstances where a large format system is feasible. The sharpness, ability to render contrast and tonality and other fine qualities of the Zeiss and Mamiya lenses simply cannot make up for the image quality boost gained by moving up to such a large negative. Since most of my work is in landscapes and other forms of "still lifes," the 4x5 will be used more often than any of my medium format cameras.

 

Hopefully, this was of some use to you.

 

Philip Tilton