can't decide between rolleiflex 3.5f and hasselblad

[david_smith35]

<p><em>Hassy is smaller.</em> No it isn't - there's no significant difference in size or weight between the Hasselblad and the Bronica.<br>

BTW, surely it's <em>a </em>Hasselblad?</p>

[vladimir_m]

<p>@<strong>David Smith</strong>,<br>

On a paper - probably, but I had a chance to compare them side-by-side and Bronica <em>felt</em> bulkier to me. <br>

I'll be seeking a Rolleiflex 2.8E or F in a decent condition.</p>

[xenophon_costeas]

<p>Similar predicament here: started with an RZ in 2010, was envious of a Hasselblad's form factor and got a Bronica GS-1 in 2012, then became enamored with TLRs and recently got a 2.8C for my daughter.<br /> I, too, have adopted the WLF approach as the least threatening, but admit that I'm always glued to the magnification loupe. Still, it's a very non-intimidating posture and I am now a WLF evangelist.<br /> Hassie, Rollei, Bronica and the RZ - the experience is totally different with each, although this is not news to anyone in this thread.<br /> A 3.8F is a classic, as is the RZ. Can't say the same for the Bronica GS-1, but it's my favorite (a Jap Hassie, to my mind).<br>

<br /> Bottom line - a clean Rolleiflex 3.5F is probably the most solid purchase (the top of the line in the used market), whereas a Hasselblad 500 is not: its shutter is significantly harsher than all the other candidates, and it's (to my mind) the least refined system handling-wise. The Zeiss lenses, obviously, are stellar, as I understand.<br /> <br />Hope this rant helps.<br>

<br />With greetings from Athens,<br />Xen</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>Vladimir, I'm puzzled how one camera can <em>feel</em> bulkier, although of similar dimensions to the other. Take a ruler with you next time!<br>

Still, it's of no importance if you are buying a Rollei.</p>

[vladimir_m]

<p>@<strong>Xenophon Costeas,</strong></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hassie, Rollei, Bronica and the RZ - the experience is totally different with each, although this is not news to anyone in this thread.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree. For me (as amature) it's important how the camera looks, feels and operates. And it affects the shots I make. If I were a professional I would probably not be concerned at all.</p>

<p>@<strong>David Smith</strong>,<br>

I'm not sure why you are trying to argue about my personal experience (not a scientific measurement by any means), but I'm not interested.</p>

[david_smith35]

<p>Wow Vladimir, you are a little bit touchy aern't you? I was only posing a question, sorry if it's upset you.</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p>@Mag Miksch,<br />C330 is not different in weight and size than my RZ67. Looking for something more compact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the body alone is more compact and together with some lenses the package is much smaller.</p>

[danielheller]

<p>Hasselblad.<br>

Lot more to choose from on the market, a much larger lenses selection, and a lot less delicate then Rollei TLR. And yes, it is heavier and less portable.</p>

[Aoresteen]

<p>I own a Rollieflex 2.8C, two Hasselblad 2000FC/Ms, and a Hasselblad 500C. Given what you have said get the Rolleiflex. I had Harry Fleenor overhaul mine and install a Maxwell screen in it. It has replaced my 500C as my "walk around camera". In fact, I took it on my last combat tour to Iraq in 2010 as it is super reliable.</p>

<p>Both systems are great cameras. Each has it's limitations and advantages. Both will deliver superb results. Good luck!</p>

[todd_k.]

<p>How much stuff are you willing to lug around? With the hasselblad you have to deal with film backs, dark slides, lenses, and you have to make sure you do everything in the correct order. If you don't plan on doing that, and will likely just be shooting with a normal lens, then the hasselblad is a lot of hassle for no reason. With the a TLR, you throw in some film and go take pictures. Next question, what kind of photographer are you? Do you enjoy general photography (TLR), or do you plan on spending time setting up a shot, and don't mind carrying tripods, lens hoods, a spot meter and a box of filters and a few few film backs, then the hasselblad is for you. Or are you a hipster wannabe who plans on shooting nothing but color images of flowers with a ton of lens flare, or moody pictures of fire hydrants and tattooed women smoking cigarettes? If so you want a holga or lubitel. </p>