Hasselblad SLR or Rollei TLR

[wee beastie]

For travel photography, since buying a Rolleiflex, my Hasselblad hasn't seen daylight. The Rollei is much more useable, carryable, convenient and quick on the road.

It's limited by the non-removeable lens but that's a limitation I can personally live with. I guess it depends what you want it for.

[tariq_gibran]

True of course about the lenses but the 4 element Tessar/Xenar is a very good performer,

particularly stopped down. I wonder CPeter, if you might share exactly how you held your

Rolleiflex as I could never figure out how to support the camera with one hand only. I always

found that I had to change camera support from left to right hand when cocking or focusing

with a Rolleiflex. Is there another solution? This is also one thing, incidently, which makes

the Hasselblad quicker for me when shooting. I can cradle the camera with the Left hand

with the left index finger on the shutter release in front while my right hand is left to crank

AND focus(which is very easy using a quick focus handle).

[emile_de_leon9]

The Rolliecord 4/5 models w/Xenar are sharper(higher resolution) than the 3.5f planar at f8/11. The only advantage to the planar is it is more contrasty wide open. Emile

[christopher perez]

A nice Rollei might help you concentrate on making images. Hassy's are nice, but a bit "fiddly" as there are many parts and things and bits and... well, you get the picture.

 

I did a study of a c.1956 and c.1966 Rolleiflex E and F and compared these single coated Xenotar and Planar optic cameras against a 1980's vintage multi-coated Hasselblad 500CM and a Mamiya 7 (also multi-coated).

 

Believe it or not, I found the Rolleiflex'n to be sharper than the 'blad Planar 80mm T* as well as being contrastier too. The Rolleis weren't quite as outstanding as the Mamiya 7. But the shocker for me was the performance of the Rolleis compared to the 'blad, not that a 'blad can't help you make exceedingly fine images, thank you very much. :-)

[tariq_gibran]

The Planar as used on a Hasselblad versus the Rolleiflex is of a different design which may

account for some of the performance differences(as well as sample variation as I have used a

few different blad 80mm Planars and some are better than others). The blad Planar uses a

slight Retrofocus modification of the design because the body is so deep whereas the

Rolleiflex Planar does not and is a "purer" original design. And of course, later Rolleiflex

Planars added an additional lens element which some claim improved things even more. I'm

sure others could state exactly what serial number/model that occured with.

[stewart_s]

Both are good, buy the Hasselblad if you want a "system" camera. I've used Hasselblad for a number of years - two bodies, several lenses. Number of jams - zero.

[bob_the_builder1]

Mike, sharpness is a much overrated quality in images IMO but the image you posted doesn't

seem to have much in focus at all to actually examine sharpness for... particularly in the

corners where the Tessar is know to be a poor performer compared to post 1950 Planars,

etc.

[christopher perez]

<i>sharpness is a much overrated quality in images IMO</i>

<p>

Indeed. The resolution differences I saw were visible at 160x magnification. The contrast differences were apparent on the contact sheet - and are most likely related to 'blad's internal light baffles (or lack thereof).

<p>

At normal working image sizes, who could tell the difference? It's really a matter of one's own vision. Right? :-)

<p>

The point I was attempting to make was counter to what people said earlier on: That someone said early Rolleis aren't as good as 'blad gear. To which I heartily disagree. By the 1950's it looks like everything worked out just fine between Rollei and Schneider and Zeiss.

<p>

Oh, and don't count the Schneider Xenar (on MX-EVS and 'cords) out of the running. Have you seen how SHARP and CONTRASTY those lenses are wide open? OK, so it's a center weighted kind of thing at those apertures... still, these are brilliant! By f/8 I would challenge anyone to show me the difference between a Xenar and Planar. Seriously. :-)

[bob_the_builder1]

Christopher, I saw your tests but my experience is that the T* Muticoated Planar is

contrastier than any TLR Rolleiflex I have ever owned (and I have owned many). Just as, by

your own admission, you didnt "get" Rolleiflex TLRs immediately I suspect the same is going

on for you with Hasselblad. Personally I'm smitten. The 500CM with 80/2.8 Planar only

weighs 250 grammes more than a 2.8F, they are just as portable, but the Hasselblad

provides much more options...

[christopher perez]

<i>...but my experience is that the T* Muticoated Planar is contrastier than any TLR Rolleiflex I have ever owned (and I have owned many).</i>

<p>

I was puzzled by the results I experienced. So I checked my Rolleis against two newer than the CT* I had. They were 80mm CF and CFi modeled 'blads. Same results. The difference in actually in the 'blad body type. They've reworked the internal baffling on the newer models.

<p>

Now it's important to note that I was looking and comparing a 15 zone range. So it's unlikely that some (many?) folks would even be able to tell a difference in normal 6:1 contrast ration scenes.

<p>

<i>Just as, by your own admission, you didnt "get" Rolleiflex TLRs immediately I suspect the same is going on for you with Hasselblad...</i>

<p>

Well, my mint like new 500CM was in the shop 4 times in 6 months for various reasons. I'd never experienced anything like this before. And I've been through a TON of camera gear in my day. So I sold the fetid beast and bought a Mamiya RZ. What I didn't "get" about 'blad was it's lack of reliability under kind but rigorous use. Wedding photographers I know in my home town used to keep a pair and a spare so that they're never out of action. This before they all went digital. The b*st*rds! :-)

<p>

Tools. That's what we're talking about here. Some prefer Craftsman. Others prefer Snap-On. Similarly with cameras I suspect.

[bob_the_builder1]

<I>Believe it or not, I found the Rolleiflex'n to be sharper than the 'blad Planar 80mm T* as

well as being contrastier too </I>

<p>

Looking at your test I see no such evidence. Overall the USAF Resolution Test charts on your

site for your tests the Hasselblad Planar shows higher resolution overall. And your findings

abut contrast are in relation to the Mamiya 7 vs the Hasseblad, not the Rolleiflex TLRs... I

have owned over a dozen Rolleiflex TLRs with single coated lenses and also the SL66 non

HFT - the difference in contrast is clearly visible.

[mskovacs]

Bob, there isn't much in focus anyway because it was shot wide open. I do like the image quality of the older Tessars. My Xenotar has a harsher look to it in the out of focus areas.

 

I never said that the Planar/Xenotar aren't better (I own those too), rather I make the point that Rolleiflex's reputation was established with the Tessar and they are hardly to be discounted out of hand.

[bob_the_builder1]

Mike,

 

I like Tessars too :-)

[enw]

I knew this was going to be an interesting series of posts as soon as I saw the title... In any event, Michael, the Rollei and the Hasselblad are both fine cameras and either would serve you well. Handled properly, the Hasselblad is not subject to jamming. I've owned Hasselblads since the late 60's and never had a jam, not one. I do carry a simple unjamming tool that is widely available, but I've never had to use it. But more to the point, you need to decide if you want system flexibility. Do you see yourself wishing to employ a variety of lenses at some point; if not now, but at some point? Could you use the interchangeable back feature to your advantage? Pre-loaded backs allow you to switch film quickly and also permit you to switch back and forth between color and black & white, negative and chrome, etc. What about viewfinders? Would you like the advantages of a variety of viewfinders, prism, chimney, metered and sports? If the answers to any of these questions are yes, then the Hasselblad is the obvious choice between the two. If no, then the Rollei may be just as well suited. Although they shoot the same format, they are really very different cameras. My suggestion is to consider the points above regarding flexibility (the Hasselblad is a system camera, the Rollei is not) and also to try both and see which one you prefer. Happy shooting!

[kparratt]

Yes Marc, you are right on with: "Some people are a lightening rod for problems."

 

The most 'civilised' and even politically correct term I can think of is: "mechanically challenged" ( ... but even this will offend some.)

[bob_the_builder1]

I have yet to come across a Rolleiflex that was 100% trouble free. These machines, well built

as they are, are now over 40 years old in many cases. Folks are deluding themselves they can

just pick up one off eBay and not have any issues at all. And as for mechanics, the Rolleiflex

is FAR more complicated than the Hasselblad, just have a look inside. The Rolleiflex has

1000's of tiny parts that can and do fail!!

[mikhail_iakovlev]

Hi Michael. I purchased Rollei TLR F3,5. Very nice camera, but... If you use it in the studio for portrait shooting, it a bad choise, unless you are not interesting to shoot "head and shoulders" or only "head" portraits. I used one B/W film and I wasn't satsfied with results. Now I purchased Hasselblad 500CM with 80mm and 150mm lens. This is a right choice! You can find now Hassy for low price and in good condition. Take your time, add little bit more money and you will be happy!