New to medium format - Hasselblad or Rolleiflex?

[wayaken]

I have been shooting 35mm so far and I want to move to medium format and I am

having a really hard time deciding which camera to buy? Should I go for a

Hasselblad or should I go for Rolleiflex(twin lens). I like the idea of

removable backs for Hasselblad but I also like the silence of the Rolleiflex. I

am shooting mostly people, portraits and landscape.

Any input is appreciated.

Thanks

Andreea

[charles_stobbs3]

I think there are Hasselblads with leaf shutters which eliminate some of the noise.

[db1]

I've never had a Rollei so I can't really say how they are but I do own a few Hasselblads.

 

Here are some of the differences.

 

Rolleis have one lens, Hasselblads have many.

You can change a film back on the Hasselblad and go from B&W to color or vice versa.

With a Hasselblad, you can change the prism to a WLF, 45 or 90.

 

The list goes on.

 

If you want to buy a camera and not have many other things to buy for it, then buy the rollei.

 

If you want to buy a camera and have a choice of lenses and accessories, they buy a Hasselblad.

 

Both are square, both have superb optics.

[vick_ko]

ditto...

 

And more for the Hasselblad (I have both):

- [plus] you can get interchangeable screens on the Hasselblad, with very bright Acute-Matte screens

 

- [minus] Hasselblad mirror noise is louder than the Rollei, and the mirror slap will affect which lowest shutter speed you can use on the Hasselblad. You will be able to handhold the Rollei at lower speeds.

 

I shoot more with my Hasselblad. I think its ergonomics are closer to that of my 35mm cameras (i.e. lenses focus on their barrel, iris adustment is on the barrel) than the Rollei.

 

...Vick

[vince_n.2]

Buy both if you have money. If you have more money, then buy Rollei SLR 6x6

[leicaglow]

My need for a TLR disappeared after buying my first Hasselblad<g>. They are both great cameras, but somewhat different purposes. The interchangeable lenses on the Hasselblad are a clear advantage to me, but they both take great images.

[eric_brody]

They are apples and oranges. The Rollei is a TLR, no interchageable lenses, or much of anything else interchangeable for that matter, so wide angle and tele shooting are out. Closeups are also a compromise. You do avoid mirror slap vibrations and attendant noise, so can probably hand hold at lower shutter speeds and more surreptitiously. I suspect the Rollei would be good for portraits, I'm not sure about landscape, and may or may not be cheaper depending on age and condition. The Rollei TLR might be a terrific way to start in the slower more fastidious world of MF.

 

The Hasselblad, on the other hand, is part of the largest system in MF photography. You can get lenses from 30mm fisheye to 500mm tele. There are prisms and metered prisms, extension tubes for closeups, and of course interchangeable backs with the ability to switch to color or do roll film zone system with backs for different development. Except for the ancient 1000F, 1600F, and newer 200 and 2000 series, which I would avoid, all the bodies use the leaf shutter in the lens to expose the film. It will flash synch to 1/500. The Hasselblad used market is huge and relatively cheap right now since many of the wedding pros have switched to digital.

 

If you plan to shoot black and white with either, you should have either your own darkroom or a high quality film scanner, both are serious investments of both money and time.

 

As you can tell, I do not have an answer for you but consider renting a Hasselblad if you can. Spend at least a weekend with it, or find a friend with one of these cameras and get an opinion from someone you actually know. All the opinions here will be strongly biased by things you and I probably don't know. I currently use cameras that range from digital SLR to 4x5, including Mamiya 7 and Hasselblad. I shoot almost exclusively black and white. I have said that if I could have only one film camera, it would be a Hasselblad, that's my bias.

 

Good luck.

 

Eric

[brian.]

Go with the Hasselblad.

 

Looking to your future photography, keep in mind you can put a digital back on a

Hasselblad, even an old basic 501cm.

[q.g._de_bakker]

<i>even an old basic 501cm</i><br><br>Ouch! There's me, considering the 501 CM as being a quite 'newish' model...<br>;-)

[brian.]

Did I say "old", I meant classic.

[ivan_shukster1]

I have owned a Rolleichord for 25 years and this last six months have been able to use a Hassleblad with lenses from 50 to 500mm (have not yet used the 250 or 500). As also have large format I probably would not buy the Hasselblad but since I have been using it I have really enjoyed it and it is a wonderful camera to use. Also have access to a Rolleiflex but do not see the reason to use it. If you are sure that you want to get into medium format the Hasselblad is certainly the more complete system (can you call a Rollei TLR a system?) and more like 35mm is use than is the Rollei. If uncertain and you seem to be deciding between two completely different types of cameras I would suggest looking at a Rolleichord or Yashika (spelling?) or similiar less expensive TLR because if you end up enjoying the larger film you might want to plunge into the blad but you can keep the TLR for a backup, when you wish to travel light, or to take advantage of the TLR . I often take my Rollei when I am out shooting large format or even off with the DSLR but have never taken the Hasselblad as a tag along camera.

[d_purdy]

I think there is a basic personality difference between hasselblad users and

Rolleiflex users. It is hard to define though.

 

I have used both extensively and hate the hasselblad and love the Rolleiflex

TLR best of all my cameras. I like working with the one very excellant lens

and close up lenses. I like the one lens because I am able to so thoroughly

ingrain into my mind/eye what I am working with and I think it gives me greater

strength of vision. I never crop but the lenses are so sharp that you can crop

enough to make it a telephoto lens. Also I love using the TLR in studio for

portraiture because I get closer to my subjects and it is more intimate and

personal and you can use the slight distortion of the closeup lenses to great

advantage. Ocassionally I take out the Pentax 67 for landscape work but I

can't bring myself to leave most the lenses behind .. so I always bring along

the wide angle and the telephoto and the macro and the normal and the bag

of gear ends up killing me with weight.

 

I personally think The Rollei is more of an art camera and more personal as

such. While the Hasselblad is more of a commercial camera with rather a

cold technical feel about it

 

That is my opinion.

[rustys pics]

I have both a Rollei E2 Planar and a Hasselblad 501c.

If I had to pick one it would be the Rollei. It's quiet, portable, and the lens is ultra sharp.

The TLR is oddly the most natural way to frame a picture and hold a camera to me. Unless

you're getting a Hasselblad kit with an extra back and lens, the Rollei will do everything the

basic 500 series Hasselblad will do, and for less weight and cost.<div></div>

[bueh]

Some things to consider, Andreea: Why a <abbr title="twin-lens reflex camera">TLR</abbr>? In my humble opinion, a <abbr title="twin-lens reflex camera">TLR</abbr> is not a good <abbr title="medium format">MF</abbr> beginner camera. Minimum focus distance is poor, the different angle between viewing and taking lens is annoying when focused close, the perspective of the pretty low taking lens is unfavorable with some subjects (portrait). Also, despite what some people here say, inconspicuous street photography is hardly possible with a <abbr title="twin-lens reflex camera">TLR</abbr>. First, the shutter is not "silent" (there is a noticeable metallic <i>*click*</i>), due to the small depth-of-field you need quite some time to accurately focus, and third, people <i>will notice</i> such an odd-looking vintage camera. See <b><a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00HdCU" target="_NEW">this thread</a></b> for some user experiences.

<p>

If you want a professional <abbr title="twin-lens reflex camera">TLR</abbr>, why not a Mamiya C330? Sure, they are bigger, heavier and a bit more complicated than the Rolleis, but thanks to their bellows they can focus very close, have interchangeable optics (instead of an oh-so-boring standard lens) and are pretty affordable nowadays.

<p>

Some thoughts on the Hasselblad: Removeable backs are "nice", but have very little value for amateur photographers. Trust me, you will not use this feature much in real-life photography. Additional lenses are VERY costly for the Hasselblad. Keep in mind that there are tons of other 6x6 <abbr title="single-lens reflex cameras">SLRs</abbr> (i.e., Bronica) that are much less expensive than a Hassy, if money is an issue.

<p>

Lastly, a medium format camera is not so hot for street photography due to the weight and bulk, <abbr title="depth-of-field">DOF</abbr> issues, and the eye-catching look of the camera and its operation. A 35mm rangefinder with a wide angle (Yashica electro 35 CC for example) is much better suited for this kind of stuff. If you definitively want a <abbr title="medium format">MF</abbr> for street photography, check out the excellent (but rather expensive) rangefinders from Mamiya, Bronica and Fuji that all have a wide angle option.

[Ed_Ingold]

Medium format photography is a more "contemplative" endeavor than 35mm or with a DSLR. The Rolleiflex (I have an E2) is capabile of exquisitely sharp images, is small and quiet. It is not, however, the camera I would choose for street photography (12 shots/roll are expensive and limiting). Once you see what medium format can deliver in terms of sharpness, tonality and detail, your appetite will be whetted for something more - like interchangeable lenses and backs.

 

A Rollei was designed for news photography to replace the Speed Graphic - f/8+ and 1/60+ and the same film day in and day out (e.g., Tri-X). For a brief time, say 1954 to 1962, the Rollei was king. Then came the Nikon F, the Leica M2 and better film.

 

An Hasselblad is primarily a studio camera, but rugged enough and compact enough for field use. The body and back is about the same size as a Rollei on its side, but the lenses are huge and the mirror makes a lot of noise. I like it for landscapes and architecture, but then trees, rocks and bricks can't be spooked. Equipment is cheaper than it was, but still expensive - you can get a D200 for the price of an used Distagon CF 50/4 in excellent condition. It's all relative, I guess. But the most expensive thing I ever did was to dig my Rollei out of retirement and develop a taste for medium-format imaging.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

"Lastly, a medium format camera is not so hot for street photography due to the weight and bulk, DOF issues, and the eye-catching look of the camera and its operation."

 

Well, there are some nice MF rangefinders that work well for street photography - Mamiya 6/7, Bronica RF645, Fujis. But you do need to stop down more than with 35mm. And the depth of field is fantastic compared to LF!

[bueh]

Well, Robert, I did not forget about them rangefinders (read my last paragraph again). Large format street photography... now that must be a challenge, especially in "available light"! On the other hand, I often ponder if a nice 24x24 Robot camera with a wide angle lens would be best for street, as the DOF is even larger than 35mm format and the square format looks very artsy, of course. But damn those Robot collectors who drive prices up for this beautiful cameras...!

[savagesax]

One of the big differences, if it matters to you, is going to digital in the future. I've kept my hassy's for that reason alone. Good luck and welcome to medium format. You will love it!

[pics]

TLR's are great niche cameras but I don't know if I would recommend one to someone looking to get into MF. Eventually you will want the ability to use different lenses, interchangeable backs etc.. in which case you will end up buying into an SLR system like a Hassleblad anyway. If you can afford it, get the H-Blad system and later on you can experiment with a TLR if you want. TLR's are "neat" but not necessarily the best tools for many jobs and IMO you will be better served in the long run by a well rounded SLR system.

[kelly_flanigan1]

TLR's were marketed as SPORTS cameras in the late 1930's, and were radically quicker to shoot than other MF cameras.

[kelly_flanigan1]

MF was once know as the Brownie format, what KIDS used. Until film quality improved, it was an amateur format.

[jorge_jimenez1]

Here is the last word on this subject: Buy a Rolleiflex SLR 6003 It is 1000 times better than any Hassleblad (or however you spell that stupid name) You can use it like a TLR, the accessories for the Rollei are far superior to the Blad, and the ONLY reason for ANYONE to buy a Blad are the ZEISS lenses. Rollei has them and some super Schneider lenses also. AND talk about Digital. Rollei is the MF leader in MF digital. There... I said it. Noe sit back and smile.

[jrjacobs]

Why limit yourself to just Rolleiflex and Hassleblad?

 

There are many other MF format systems out there from Mamiya, Bronica, Pentax, Fuji, Kowa, etc. Each one has it's strengths and weaknesses.

 

Personally, I would consider the Rolleiflex to start out. Much less money to invest to see if you like the "contemplative" style of MF shooting. If you decide later on you want an SLR, you can always easily get your return investment on a Rolleiflex.

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

Yes, Bueh, you had the rangefinder niche covered. But I had to chime in as I use a Bronica RF645. Nice camera and eay to carry about, if you accept the limitations of a rangefinder.

 

I don't use LF for street photography - yet. But I have a restored Crown Graphic (Fred Lustig in Reno) on the way, so who knows?

[richard_fateman]

If you buy an SLR and you use it for taking a portrait, you will not know if the subject closed his/her eyes when the shutter was open.

With a Hasselblad, the mirror doesn't return until after you wind the film.

 

There are other medium format SLRs to consider, as well as rangefinder cameras. If you have a 35mm SLR, I think that the change for a twin lens reflex will be educational in many ways, and probably less expensive for a working setup.