hasselblad vs RZ67 size, weight and viewfinder

[pete_gregar1]

I am currently using a Mamiya RZ67 with 150mm/3.5 AE magnifier hood

and left hand grip. Sometimes with waistlevel finder.

 

I was looking for something a bit smaller and lighter...

 

I have been through the 645 cameras, since I tend to shoot verticle, I

always had the camera on its side. This is hard to do with a waist

level finder. The RZ rotating back makes this nice.

 

Is the hasselblad smaller and lighter? It looks like it

I would probably get the 80mm/2.8 and 150mm/4.0 lenses

Is the waistlevel dimmer then the RZ?

 

just wondering, before I purchase one to try out.

[gpdno]

I have used both and prefer the RZ67. The waist level view finders looked the same to me.

Personally for studio work the extra weight of the RZ is not any issue for me. For me the

rotating back of the RZ is a huge advantage. I actually sold the Hasselblad and bought the

RZ67 as a replacement because I preferred the 6x7 format to the square 6x6 format.

[pete_gregar1]

Was the hasselblad lighter?

 

I tend to like to handhold the camera.

 

It is a bit easier to handhold that camera for small children

[simonpg]

There is no comparison. The Hasselblad is much smaller; much lighter; and IMHO more ergonomic and intuitive to use that the Mamiya.

 

In the field I found the Mamiya very cumbersome and annoying to use its controls.

 

Naturally the lenses again are slightly smaller and lighter on the Hasselblad, which is a direct consequence of the smaller (6x6 vs 6x7) image circle they produce.

 

Of course, none of my comments in answering your question are to denegrate the Mamiya. Its 6x7 image is of very high quality and there are many who love 6x7 as an image format.

 

If you're selecting beteween cameras, my best suggestion is to firstly select the image size you want to work with, the select the manufacturers/systems offering that format of image.

 

For me I wanted 6x6 square; the Hassy system suited my needs and I just loved the design and quality which adds to the joy of using it.

 

The Mamiya has features that add to its quality as an instrument which you have noted. These posed design limitations resulting in what some call a "clunker". But its build quality is quite enduring.

[john_amiet2]

'Blad is definately lighter, smaller, more ergonomic. The advantage of the square format is that to crop vertical or horizontal is only a 'mental' process, not a physical(slower) process. I happen to favour the square format when possible (subject driven) so that is a bonus for me. As a hand held camera, the Blad is excellent, especially when used with a 45Deg. prism and winder. It can be as fast as a 35mm. camera.

[blakley]

If you're shooting handheld there's no comparison; the Hassy is VERY much lighter and easier to use handheld.

 

Both viewfinders are IMHO not very good unless you install aftermarket brightscreens. With the RZ this has a downside - the indicator symbols are lost and you have to remember what the various colors of lights mean (when you forget to take the darkslide out, or the battery starts to die, for example).

 

For studio work, I wouldn't even consider the Hasselblad. The rotating back is a must-have when you're working on a tripod.

[squareframe]

> The rotating back is a must-have when you're working on a tripod.

 

hmmm ... I rotate the back on my Hasselblad and it doesn't appear to do much. what is wrong? if your true requirement is smaller and lighter, you should probably consider going digital. the Hasselblad is a lovely camera, but certainly could not be considered 'fast, light, or accomodating' to handheld work. the comment that it can be as fast as 35mm is specious and comical.

 

the evolving reality is that purchasing a Hasselblad and a few lenses might not be the wisest choice with newer digital alternatives emerging that better fit your metrics.

[desmond_kidman]

It will be impossible for you to really know without using the Hassy yourself. I'm 6'1", have large (but XL)hands. The Hassy, which I used for 20 years, fits my hand perfectly, and I can palm it and hold it at all angles with no feeling of ever dropping it. The RZ is just enought bigger that I'm not as comfortable with it. I'd never be able to make that distinction without owning both. That having been said, it would probably be a different ballgame if I had the grip for the RZ.....I just have not gotten it, most of my work is on tripod.....but I spend a lot of the time holding the camera exploring angles and composition before the pod comes out, so I end up handling the camera a lot.

 

With the prism, however, I found the Hassy much less comfy to throw around, so this would minimize the differences a bit, at least for me.

 

You asked about the hoods: I have the best Hassy screens, but I find the WL snaps into focus much better for me on the RZ. So much for the crazy expensive screens on the Hassy! I was shocked how good the screen is on the RZ.

 

As for lenses, unless you are willing to spend dearly for the BEST hassy lenses (100,250 Superachromat) the RZ lenses, I have to say, are just better. Anyone who says "Well, you just don't like the Zeiss look" I would respond "Then why do the best Zeiss lenses (120 Makro, 50 Fle, 100, 250SA) look so much like the better RZ lenses?" The best optical qualities are simply less expensive with the RZ, unless you like the "older" look of the Zeiss 80, 150, regular 250.

 

The larger film area and the super lenses mean that for pure image quality I prefer the RZ. But I guess your focus is not on image quality.....you mentioned weight and size. So to come back around to that specifically, the Hassy is more "handy" to throw around. If that outweighs the RZ strengths (larger image, killer lenses for much less money) then you may fall in love with the Hassy, especially if you find youself often wishing the RZ were not quite as big.

[pete_gregar1]

I currently own the mamiya 150mm/3.5 lens..

This lens is amazing sharp and gives a nice 3d image.

Much better then my DSLR with 85mm lens.

 

I am going to purchase a Hasseblad with 150mm/4.0

Probably the older chrome lens.

 

I will have to shoot these side by side....

[pete_gregar1]

How would you describe the older look??

 

The best optical qualities are simply less expensive with the RZ, unless you like the "older" look of the Zeiss 80, 150, regular 250

[christopher perez]

A 'blad would be a bit smaller and lighter. But not by as much as previous comments might indicate. The more compact size of the 'blad makes it "feel" lighter.

 

If you get a chance, take your RZ down to a local photo shop and handle it and a 'blad side by side to see if the differences attract you to the Swedish camera.

 

I find the 'blad "fiddly". The RZ is much a more straight forward implementation with "lock outs" that actually work (thus keeping you out of trouble). But such things are beyond simple size and weight comparison.

[desmond_kidman]

Someone after my response asked how I would define the "older look" Hassy lenses. I would define this look as the lens rendering a softer, more pictorial, less contrasty look. I've heard some folks stating that they love this look. I guess I can somewhat understand some folks favoring this look, especially for portrait work. For me, especially for travel and product work, I'd often be saying "now why is this not critically sharp? Did I slightly miss focus? Can I get a sharper film?" With my favorite Zeiss lenses, the 50 FLE, 100, 120, 250 SA I would no longer be asking these questions. Hope this clears it up.....I was not throwing a rock at Hassy/Zeiss lenses.

[john_amiet2]

Daniel, you said "the Hasselblad is a lovely camera, but certainly could not be considered 'fast, light, or accomodating' to handheld work. the comment that it can be as fast as 35mm is specious and comical."

 

I don't know what you experience or expertise is, but mine is something like 30+ years doing just what I stated. For a great part of that time I extracted a very comfortable living by competing against photographers using 35mm whilst I used an assortment of Blads configured in different ways, and winning most of the time. My decisions were 'survival driven' and effective. I know what I stated to be dead accurate because I did it for so long.

 

My original comment was NOT a blanket statement, as I feel you may have assumed, but an indication of a possibility regarding the Blads versatility, in competent hands. It was not intended as a put down of 35mm which I do use extensively in certain situstions.

 

I could reciprocate and say that your remark was specious and comical, but will prefer to assume you did not read the original statement with careful understanding.

 

With regard to all comments, it is clear that everyones mileage is different and we must all accept each others experiences as real, whether they work for someone else or not, which clearly they need not.

[squareframe]

John,

 

stating "It can be as fast as a 35mm. camera" brought forth an image of my Hasselblad compared to my Canon EOS-1v that blazes away at 10 frames-per-second. I love my four Hasselblad's, and they excel in many areas. claiming them as 'fast' cameras, or on equal-footing with the latest state-of-the-art 35mm film and digital equivalent cameras did indeed seem laughable. it still does. not a personal slight against you John ... just an observation of what thirty years of advancing technology affords us.

 

my sincerest apologies are offered, if you can get ten frames-per-second (or per-minute) from your Hasselblad's and I won't mention the time it takes to change film-magazines or load another roll of 120 film.

 

I concede, 'fast' is a relative term. it's just not one that I would associate with any Hasselblad photography.

[john_amiet2]

Dan, I am sure we are both 'right' in what we believe/practice. Certainly no Blad is as fast as the latest 'you beaut' digital machine gun. My point, in part, is that I could/did 'get the picture', not by rapid fire (but not slow either), but by judging 'the moment' + good follow up, where practical. There are few times when 10 frames/sec are really necessary, but when so, Blad is out, obviously.

 

Speed of film changes: I carried up to 6 mags loaded, 3-220 and 3-120. There is ALWAYS time to gauge opportunity and actually change.

 

Curiously, today my main shooting is a pair of Leica M6's and I still outshoot/outdeliver my digital competition in my main area of expertise. To qualify that, I operate my own processing facilities for both B/W and colour. Using outsourced labs would kill my time and profit margins.

[markusglueck]

Pete, did you take a look at the Rollei 6008?<br><br>

 

I currently own a RZ too, and have the same thoughts than you. The problem with the RZ is its ergonomics. It is not made for handholding. The I hav owned the lefthand grip and sold it, because was not designed to be used by a human hand (at least not mine). Additionally the RZ tended to rotate to the right (maybe my left arm wasn't strong enough).

 

Another point against handholding is the cubersome mirror pre-release. It's a camera that has to be used on a tripod. But even then the MLU isn't the best feature. Others do this with the press of a button.

The Mamiya lenses are very good at least the focal length from 90-250mm. Especially the 50mm and the 65mm took some iterations to get to the current quality . The 360mm I own isn't a performer either (it's an old non APO, non W lens).

 

After I decided to sell the RZ (it took me almost 2 years) I took a close look at the following cameras in this order: Contax 645, Hasselblad (H1,503, F-Series), Mamiya 645AF, Rollei 6008<br><br>

 

Here's my decicion path (for those who are interested):<br>

 

Contax 645 - Great camera, superb lenses, sadly discontinued<br>

Hasselblad H1 - insanely expensive, nice features<br>

Hasselblad 503 - for me: to mechanical, no comfort, but light<br>

Hasselblad F203/205 - insanely expensive, small range of lenses,

doubtful future<br>

Mamiya 645AF - nice camera, but no aperture rings (killer for me)<br>

Rollei 6008i2/af - impressive features, superb lenses (schneider!),

cheaper than Hasselblad (Germany), metering without

prisma, not actual light (with 80mm lens as much as

the RZ-body only), but great ergonomics (MLU, Grip)<br><br>

 

I've not decided yet which of the Rolleis (AF or not), but definitely a Rollei.

 

Just my to cents.

 

Markus

 

P.S.: This is no Mamiya/RZ bashing, just my opinion. I own a Mamiya 7 and love it. :)

[desmond_kidman]

Great point about the mirror pre-release on the RZ....what a pain! The pre-release on the Hassy can be used hand-held (at least I was able to comfortably use it) and even on tripod is much more handy.

 

In the studio the pre-release on the RZ just gets me crazy.....be sure to actuate the shutter within 60 seconds after releasing the mirror or it beeps and will release itself. Then there is the bulb mode on the RZ.....another ridiculous design. This is an aspect of the camera I will never find intuitive. It is still my camera of choice due to lenses, neg size, rotating back, breech lock lenses (love that), but it shows no system is perfect and you have to pick for yourself. This forum will at least let you be aware of what others feel are the strong and weak points so you can look for them when you try, but your own "weighting" of these points, plus others you will discover, will be your data points to form your own individual conclusion. For me, it still comes down to these 2 systems in MF SLR's that I would choose from.....both proven, both out there in huge quantities if you ever need used, both ubiquitous enough on the US market that even if discontinued there is a great chance of being able to maintain them (something that would worry me about Rollei and Contax MF SLR's). Good luck!

[pete_gregar1]

I see the standard 500CM kit 80mm/2.8 weights 3 lb 7 oz and the standard Mamiya RZ67 kit 110mm/2.8 weights 5 lb 8oz.

 

2lb's seems like a lot..

 

I just need to get my hands on a hasselblad, to see how the viewfinder is.

[blakley]

<i> >The rotating back is a must-have when you're working on a tripod.

<p>

hmmm ... I rotate the back on my Hasselblad and it doesn't appear to do much. what is wrong?</i>

<p>

Sorry; I wasn't clear.

<p>

I sometimes use a Hasselblad (handheld) for shots off a tripod because I can use "loose" framing and worry about cropping (if necessary) later.

<p>

When I'm in the studio I like to take full advantage of the format and crop tight so I can print full frame.

<p>

For this purpose I like the rotating back; I very seldom print square-format images square.

[pete_gregar1]

I picked up a 500C camera

It is much smaller/lighter then my RZ67

<p>

Going to sell the RZ67

 

<p>

<img src=http://home.comcast.net/~gregarpp/ebay/rzHasselblad.jpg>