Well I Had a Surprise Today at a Camera Store Looking at Hasselblads and RZs...

[steve williams]

Well, I finally looked at a Hasselblad 501CM today at a camera

store. I also looked at a Mamiya RZII. I was surprised to have liked

the RZ better. I felt the Hasselblad was harder to focus. I also

like the features of the RZ better PLUS the larger format. This will

be for landscape photography, so the size is not a big put-off

(yet...). And lenses are cheaper to boot...

 

I also looked at the Pentax 645NII and the Contax 645AF, for a

smaller AF for family, children, etc. I found that I liked the feel

of the Contax better.

 

I'm going to take advice I've received here and rent each one over

the course of several weekends and see how I like them. After

reading about Zeiss lenses, I found myself thinking there was a

magical 3-D dimension to pictures from them and was trying to make

myself to like the Hasselblad, but I think I'm leaning towards the

RZ. I'll know better after I actually try them.

 

Thanks for all the help. This is a great forum.

 

Steve

[Jerry_]

It is also the 'investment' factor. A used Hasselblad (undamaged, but used) will generally be worth more than the Mamiya RZII. The Zeiss glass is very, very good, but in the end it is the skill of the user that makes the 'system' work or not work.

[alex_z]

Steve, don't forget to share your experiences/opinions with us once finishing your "try before buy" round.

I did quite a research online (unfortunately in my country there is no posibility for "try before buy" approach, neither renting for MF gear) and finally went with Bronica GS-1 bought used at Ebay.

Frankly, a Mamiya RB series was aslo my consideration, but Bronica won after long thoughts.

Are you going to fork out a heavy $$$ for a brand new stuff ?

Wouldn't you be willing to consider a used gear saving lots of your hard earned cash ?

[nick roberts]

Also, the RZ II is just about to be replaced - by the RZ IID, a slightly more digital-ready version. So it might be worth waiting or haggling.

If you like Zeiss lenses but can't get on with a Hassle (many can't), there's always a Rollei - and they have the advantage of also using the even better Schneider lenses as well.

[frdchang]

if you want the best of hasselblad and mouth watering zeiss glass that is kinda over-rated....then you'll have to get one of these lens's.

40mm-IF, 60mm, 100mm, 180mm, or 250mm SA.

 

but i think the differences are very marginal between hasselblad and mamiya glass... so its best to purchase that accomodates your workflow the best. (which i'm glad you are renting the cameras first)

 

i personally enjoy the square format... so a hasselblad was my answer... but if you like the rectangular format... then a mamiya is the way to go...

 

oh yeah... the only thing i envy the mamiya for is the bellows focusing system..... sigh. but then again my body is lighter... but then again...the lenss (whats the plural of lens? lensi?) are all freakin heavy so it doesn't matter...

 

when people ask when do i get that 3-D dimension... i think what they really means is, do i have high contrast lighting..and is my lens sharp wide open.

 

that zeiss 100mm is pretty damn sharp wide open.

[eric rose]

I have a Blad and a good buddy of mine has an RB. We both backpack them. Pics are stunning from both cameras. He gets a better work out than I do as his has to be at least twice the weight of my Blad.

[christopher perez]

I started out using Hasselblad but dumped it (fine glass and all) for a Mamiya RZ. I've never been happier, nor more disappointed. Happy at the quality, durability, resolution, contrast, fit and finish of the Mamiya. Disappointed with reliability and finicky film loading of the Hasselblad.

 

After having used both, you won't be able to tell the difference between images taken using Zeiss lenses (which are quite good) and Mamiya lenses (which are also quite good).

 

You're doing the right thing by renting first. Good luck.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Most things (glass, build quality) becoming equal once they have passed through the filtering of my technique (or lack thereof) I considered two main points ... the size and shape of my hands, and the weight of the camera. I bought s/h Hasselblad because it was so darned comfortable.

[brooks short]

I've used a Hasselblad for many years but switched to a Mamiya RZII about 4 years ago. The bellows focusing on the RZ is very convenient. The lenses are cheaper and of course the format is larger. The RZ also has 1/2 shutter speeds which help in bracketing available light shots while keeping the same f-stop for convenient depth of field control. The RZ is much larger and heavier than the Hasselblad so that may be a concern if you plan on backpacking.

 

I do love the square format of the Hasselblad but the maintenance, lens jamming and film magazine loading was getting old.

 

My wife now used the Hasselblad for her personal BW work.

 

The new RZ body sounds interesting though I've been using a ProBack Digital back with the RZ II for sevral years now and it works well. If Mamiya were to put swings and tilts on the front standard of their new camera, I'd have one right away.

[fred_mueggelhopper]

If you really would like to see the Zeiss lenses produce the"magical 3-D dimension",

shoot some 120 slow speed transparency film, then mount and project the images.

You will find what you are looking for. If you buy the Mamiya you WILL get tired of

lugging it around, and sooner or later you will regret not buying the Hasselblad.

[andreas_carl]

Just one question: if you are doing landscape work (I assume you will want to put your camera on a tripod), then why not use LARGE FORMAT? You get better quality and more flexibility for far less money! You can always use it with a rollfilm back, 6x9 is gorgeous! If on the other hand you want a camera that you can use both handheld and for landscapes, then I would choose the Hassie.

[gene m]

If a Hasselblad is a "Hassie" or a "Blad," why isn't a Mamiya a "Mammie" or an "Eye-ya ?" Shouldn't a Pentax be a "Pentie" or a "Tax ?"

[._._z]

Weeks and weeks of queries from you about camera bodies (FA vs. FM3A vs. F3HP vs.

F4s, Pentax vs. Contax lenses, Fuji GA645zi lens vs. GA645i 60mm, Fuji GA645zi vs.

Pentax 645NII, Contax 645 vs. Hasselblad, etc, etc, ad nauseum) and you FINALLY put

bodies in your hands?!?!?!?!?!

[jay_.]

<<This will be for landscape photography, so the size is not a big put-off (yet...)>>

 

I'm 6'5" and weigh 260 lbs and am in great shape, and I wouldn't consider for a split second dragging an RZ or RB into the field for landscape photography...don't forget, you add the weight of a couple extra backs (re-loading a back while the light is fading fast is not pleasant, I had a Pentax 67 and lost countless great shots reloading), 3-4 lenses, and a heavy enough tripod and head to support it solidly. You may come to be very, very sorry you made that choice. If you can possibly take a full outfit out for a hike before committing to buy it, by all means do so. Hoisting it around for a few minutes in the store is *not* a fair test.

[gary_woodard]

Is a Canon, a Con?

[robert_ardinger]

WARNING-Long post but with a point (sort of)

 

I am rediscovering medium format. Over the years (near 25) I have used/owned a Mamiya TLR, a Pentax 645 (1st version) and a Hasselblad 501c/m. I have had a 4x5 field camera for a few years. The pentax was very easy to use. I liked the 645 negative size but decided to move to 4x5 (bought into the benifits of that much larger negative), It was easier to hike with the pentax but the 4x5 set really did not weigh too much more (was bulkier). I did slow down to compose with the 4x5 but I also found I was bored with the static nature of many of my images. I have always also used 35mm (and now digital) for a lot of my photography and found I liked the images from my hikes with a 35mm camera +/- tripod better than much of the 4x5 stuff (which for me tended to be limited to shorted walks/out of car use, I guess I am not all that strong).

 

I still wanted that larger negative size so to get portability and a larger negative I tried a Hasselblad after getting sold on the lens quality. Did not work well for me. Not really fond of the square format (I sort of knew that from the TLR), the cameras and lenses are dense (heavy). I did manage to jam it once (bizarre combo of hiting all the wrong release buttons in the wrong way, fixable with a special tool). I did like the quality of the equipment but as I was also progressing into digital I felt that the hasselblad (and medium format) would be outdated soon and the value of the camera would drop swiftly so I sold it. I spent the last nearly 2 years with only 35mm film/digital, mostly DSLR digital.

 

Actually very happy with that choice for much of what I like to do BUT (and here is the reason for this post) I missed some of the older craft of photography. I doubt I will ever try color printing in the darkroom again but I was a fairly good B&W printer, I enjoyed it and I missed it. I had kept the darkroom intact and in the last few months have been migrating back to doing some traditional B&W. I started to miss the larger negatives provided by past cameras (The 4x5 was also sold a few years ago)so I looked into buying another MF set.

 

I wanted portability, durability, affordable lenses, at least 645 negatives (really wanted 6x7). I looked at, played with , read about, the RZ Mamiyas (way too heavy/bulky for long walks), the Mamiya 7 rangefinder but I wanted a SLR for the images I had in mind) (I use a 35mm rangefinder extensivly and feel that landscapes, on a tripod are not where that camera works best, very hard to get close ups and near-far perspective to work out well).

 

I was correct (as were many) that the prices of many MF cameras fell over the last couple of years. I started to compare realiable used (KEH and others) with new and was amazed at the differences, espicially with some Bronicas, some Mamiyas and even Hasselblads.

 

I decided to go with the Mamiya 645 sytem, buying all used. I do not have a local resource to try/rent these things out so will likely but a bit more then I will keep and sell the rest (any loss would be the "rental fee"). I picked up a 645e and then a 645proTL with waist level finder and 120 back along with a set of lenses (45mm C, 80mm CN and 150mm CN) and a few other accesories. Likely one of the camera will not stay (likey the 645e but it is a nice light camera but the pro with waist level is more compact and feels more solid). I like the mirror lock up both bodies offer. The lens are the same lengths as I had with the Pentax set and I knew I liked those focal lengths. When all is said and done I think the rediscovery of MF will only cost a total of about $950 to $1200 (depending on which camera I decide on) for a camera and 3 lenses.

 

Point of post: Think hard about what you actually like to do and buy a camera accordingly. I like to hike a lot and the RZ was too big and heavy. A rangefinder type was not precise enought for some landscape image I like. I never print square, do not like most images I see square so the only advantage of a 6x6 camera is not having to turn it for a verticle image as I would always crop the image to a more rectangular format. I am hoping the new (to me) 645 set will be that mix of larger negative, portability, affordablity that will be something I will want to use trip after trip for what I hope will be some nice B&W images. We'll see.

 

[k._rivkin]

Zeiss glass is very good but not _that_ much better rather then other glass on the market.

 

My 150$ Koni-Omega used to be sharper in the center (and much softer in corners) rather then Blad.

[pavelp]

My wife refers to my Mamiya C330 as "Big Rollie". My son calls it "TurboFlexaret" or "Coffee Grinder" (because of the crank). No such thing as "Mammie".

[ike k]

Just to add some,

 

Rolleiflex is "Rollei" or "Rollie", Nikon is Nikki :)

[akajohndoe]

Any links to the RZ Pro IID mentioned earlier in this thread?

[lucas_griego]

"It is also the 'investment' factor. A used Hasselblad (undamaged, but used) will generally be worth more than the Mamiya RZII."

 

All of which means diddley-squat unless you are a camera polisher or a camera trader. Don't buy a camera on the thoughts that you may be able to get a good resale value later.

 

Buy it for what it will do for you while your using it.

[jay_.]

Unless of course you aren't independently wealthy in which case resale value is of concern to many of us who are not camera polishers. That said, buying any film camera, and MF in particular, is not going to return much if anything in a couple years hence.

[mark houtzager]

RZ Pro IID:

 

 

http://www.photoscala.com/node/view/200

[jack_carlton]

"Is a Canon, a Con?"

 

No, a 'non, as in non-MF.

[jay_de_fehr]

Although I am a slight 6'2"/200# man, I have no trouble packing my RB67, which is heavier than the RZ. As for the hassy/RZ debate, the biggest factor for me is format. If you like the square format, and print square, it's a more level playing field. If, however, you prefer to print on standard paper sizes, any percieved advantages in lens quality that the Hassy might have enjoyed become meaningless, as the 6x6 negative effectively becomes a 645 negative. Undoubtedly, some will claim that they see no difference in prints made from 645 negatives and prints made from 6x7 negatives, to which I reply that they probably can't tell the difference in prints made with Zeiss glass from prints made with Mamiya glass either, and in that case one could save a lot of $$ by buying a Mamiya 645 system rather than either a hassy or an RZ. In the end, I would recommend none of the above, but rather a 4x5 field camera as another poster has suggested. I think far too much is made of the nominal differences in the performances of top lenses by any manufacturer, which are only valid for identical formats in identical circumstances. The difference in quality between formats is far greater than any differences in the lenses in question, and when 4x5 is considered in comparison to the formats in question, there simply is no comparison. For portrait photography an SLR has virtues that no field camera can match, but for landscape work, a field camera is the obvious tool of choice. While you're renting equipment, you might consider renting a 4x5 field camera outfit. I hope that you will enjoy whatever you finally choose. Good luck.