Hasselblad or Rolleiflex?

[NigelC]

I've been thinking about getting a medium format film camera again. Not for regular use, just a supplement to other (digital) kit. Partly nostalgia, partly stripping everything down to one camera/magazine/lens, black and white only, processsed by myself and scanned with a decent flatbed, then printed on my 3800. Would only use WLF

Previous MF experience limited to P67 and one weekend hire of Hassy 501 but I wouldn't go back to P67, partly because want leaf shutter for handholding. Question is, is there any very significant difference in output quality between Rollei with either Planar or Xenotar and Hassy Zeiss 80mm. Due to budget, it is probable I'd be buying fairly old equipment so would probably be in market for early "post" chrome Zeiss 80, rather than latest CFi.

Rollei is appealing as quite discrete when shot from waist; Hasselblad has theoretical advantage of ability to put a digital back on, although its v.unlikely I'd ever go down that route. My recollection of using 501 some 11 years ago was that its quite clunky to use, although big advantage in being able to insert short extension tube. I've no idea how close the Rollei focusses. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Which Rolleiflex you have in mind? Twin-lens or one of many 6x6 SLR models?

[EricWHiss]

I've been thinking about getting a medium format film camera again. Not for regular use, just a supplement to other (digital) kit. Partly nostalgia, partly stripping everything down to one camera/magazine/lens, black and white only, processsed by myself and scanned with a decent flatbed, then printed on my 3800. Would only use WLF

Previous MF experience limited to P67 and one weekend hire of Hassy 501 but I wouldn't go back to P67, partly because want leaf shutter for handholding. Question is, is there any very significant difference in output quality between Rollei with either Planar or Xenotar and Hassy Zeiss 80mm. Due to budget, it is probable I'd be buying fairly old equipment so would probably be in market for early "post" chrome Zeiss 80, rather than latest CFi.

Rollei is appealing as quite discrete when shot from waist; Hasselblad has theoretical advantage of ability to put a digital back on, although its v.unlikely I'd ever go down that route. My recollection of using 501 some 11 years ago was that its quite clunky to use, although big advantage in being able to insert short extension tube. I've no idea how close the Rollei focusses. 

One of the most enjoyable cameras I've used in a long time was the Rolleiflex 2.8F that I borrowed from a friend last summer.   So light and small, so quiet, no batteries but meter still worked and was pretty accurate still. I felt I could carry it everywhere.  People either didn't notice it or thought it was interesting and didn't mind their picture being taken.   Superb lens and sharp images.  Loved it!     

[NigelC]

Which Rolleiflex you have in mind? Twin-lens or one of many 6x6 SLR models?

TLR, sorry I should have made that clear. You could say that its illogical to be only considering Rollei TLR against Hasselblad 500 series, but Rollei 66/6006/8 are pretty rare used in the UK, so I've discounted them. Also, I know nothing about what they are like to operate.

[EinstStein]

For the lenses that were produced about the same time, the optical quality would be the same.
But generally Hasselblad has a lot more choices, and has a lot more new generation designs.
The difference even between the Hasselblad are not insignificant.
Don't assume the differences is only for digital application, although it is more obvious than the film application.
So would be between the old Rollei and  the new Hasselblad.

Between the Hasselblad and Rollei, when the optical quality are the same,
I found Rollei has the advantage due to the lack of flopping mirror.

[Gigi]

The Rollei TLR has some appeal, as do the V Hassy's.

Don't discount the 6008 series - while not so readily available, they have their particular strengths as well and some wonderful lenses, both Zeiss and Schneider.

As to adding digital, there are a bunch of us who have added it to the Rollei 6008 series, with satisfaction. There are previous threads on this.

Of course, the most simple (in this group) is probably the Hassy V + CF back, but not without some issues.

[John R Smith]

Nigel

I have used Rollei TLRs and Hasselblad 500s extensively over many years. For handholding, the Rollei wins hands down due to its lack of moving mirror. You can shoot at 1/30s with the Rollei which you will never manage with the 'Blad and the 80mm PLanar. But, and it is a big but, the Rollei 2.8 E and F models are now much more expensive than a 'Blad 500 C/M from the same era. And probably somewhat harder to find in good condition.

As far as the lens question goes, I found no difference worth worrying about between the Schneider Xenotar and the Zeiss Planar 80mm. Although, strangely, the Xenotar cameras always fetched less money second-hand. Both lenses are stunning in use. The Haselblad Zeiss 80mm Planar is just as good.

Both cameras (Rollei and 'Blad) are curious, irrelevant relics from the past. Which makes them a lot of fun to own and use. And they were both made to the highest possible standards, by real people with files and screwdrivers, regardless of cost. We will never see their like again, sadly.

John

[Rob C]

For the original spec: one body and standard lens, go for the Rollei.

Having had both, I agree with the other people who found the same thing: no mirror equates with big advantage!

One drawback: you may get hooked on 6x6 and then regret no interchangeability... I sure did.

Rob C

[NigelC]

For the original spec: one body and standard lens, go for the Rollei.

Having had both, I agree with the other people who found the same thing: no mirror equates with big advantage!

One drawback: you may get hooked on 6x6 and then regret no interchangeability... I sure did.

Rob C

Also one advantage - no dark slide to have to mess about with

[John R Smith]

Also one advantage - no dark slide to have to mess about with

The dark slide is not really the problem some people make out. If you are shooting with just one magazine, you can take the dark slide out and treat the camera as one unit, just like the Rollei. When you reload the film, you simply pull out the mag insert, reload, but leave the magazine in place. No need to mess with the slide.

The advantage of magazines is that you can carry one or more spare mags pre-loaded, if you wish. Which you can't do with the Rollei. And the film magazines can be picked up very cheaply these days. At one point I had six . . . this is the major advantage of the 'Blad, that it is a true system camera. By combining various bodies, lenses, backs and finders, it can be almost any camera you want it to be.

But the Rollei is a lovely beast, provided you don't mind just having the one lens. And you can get a prism for it, although I understand you wish to work with the WLF (and good for you). Both cameras have really nice features, like quick-lock straps, bayonet filters and lens hoods, and that aura of old-world quality.

I wish I still had both, actually. But I think that, in practise, these days I would use the 'Blad more often.

John

[IanB]

One other thing that may force the choice - here in the UK ex-pro Hassy film equipment is quite widely available for reasonable prices, and some of it can be in very good condition, too. Rolleiflexes in good condition, on the other hand, are increasing in value faster than the best savings accounts and sell very quickly by word of mouth only - that makes them hard to find, and sometimes a little too conspicuous.

I have a 2.8FX I bought new a few years ago - probably outside the OP's price range, but I'm very pleased to have it. The lens is an 80mm Zeiss Planar design manufactured by Rollei under license with modern coatings, and it's good. I think the camera is now worth several hundred pounds more than I paid for it, though. I was recently using it in central London and a member of the Rollei Collectors Club approached me and gave me an unwanted lecture about how irresponsible I was to use it at all! I guess that's the way things are now. Ho hum...

[ondebanks]

And they were both made to the highest possible standards, by real people with files and screwdrivers, regardless of cost. We will never see their like again, sadly.

John

I agree, John.
Mark Twain said: "Buy land - they're not making it anymore." Similarly: "Buy quality old MF cameras: they're not making them anymore." 

Ray

[NigelC]

The dark slide is not really the problem some people make out. If you are shooting with just one magazine, you can take the dark slide out and treat the camera as one unit, just like the Rollei. When you reload the film, you simply pull out the mag insert, reload, but leave the magazine in place. No need to mess with the slide.

The advantage of magazines is that you can carry one or more spare mags pre-loaded, if you wish. Which you can't do with the Rollei. And the film magazines can be picked up very cheaply these days. At one point I had six . . . this is the major advantage of the 'Blad, that it is a true system camera. By combining various bodies, lenses, backs and finders, it can be almost any camera you want it to be.

But the Rollei is a lovely beast, provided you don't mind just having the one lens. And you can get a prism for it, although I understand you wish to work with the WLF (and good for you). Both cameras have really nice features, like quick-lock straps, bayonet filters and lens hoods, and that aura of old-world quality.

I wish I still had both, actually. But I think that, in practise, these days I would use the 'Blad more often.

John

Good point, I'd forgotten how the dark slide worked, other than never having anywhere convenient to put it! If I recall, there is a secondary shutter in front on the magazine interface so you don't have to put it in to change lenses (although I wasn't planning to do that!) I'd also overlooked the advantage of being able to change magazines at will, so could swap 100 and 400 ASA film - advantage Hassy. It's still harder to handhold than the the Rollei, I imagine (which I've never used) but at least I know from experience it can be done, whereas it was at best a dubious proposition with the P67, which once put me in a a very dodgy situation when the noise of the mirror/shutter stampeded some horses I was trying to photograph.

As someone said, finding something in excellent condition at the right price will probably be the determinant - quite a few Rolleis I've seen advertised at £700 upwards still mention scratched front elements or cloudy optics.

One other thought, which has zero tactile appeal, but satisfies the one camera/one lens, hand-holdable brief is the Mamaiya 7 - I know the lenses are brilliant but I've just never warmed to it.

[John R Smith]

Yes, you only need to use the dark slide to change magazines. With the 80mm Planar, you can hand-hold the 'Blad at 1/125s perfectly well, and at 1/60s too if you are careful. But obviously, the shutter/mirror is a lot noisier than the Rollei, although I've never found that to be a problem.

The Rolleis do seem to be prone to separation of the cemented elements of the 80mm lens, so this is something to check very carefully. My 2.8F had this very problem. Although the 'Blad Planar also has two cemented pairs, I have never seen any separation problems on the various 80mm Planars I have used and examined. I'm really not sure why there should be a difference.

PS Another thought. The modular nature of the Hasselblad means that you can send any individual bit of it away for service or repair - lens, magazine, body - rather than the whole camera. I have a spare one of everything 

John

[Dick Roadnight]

Having had both, I agree with the other people who found the same thing: no mirror equates with big advantage!

Could you not use the 'Blad with the mirror locked up and with the wire frame view finder?

[John R Smith]

Could you not use the 'Blad with the mirror locked up and with the wire frame view finder?

Yes, you can, and I do this for portrait format shots. But Nigel did say he wanted to use the WLF.

Just for fun, here is a picture of Mr Heidecke and Mr Hasselblad taking pictures of each other with their cameras.

John

[NigelC]

Yes, you can, and I do this for portrait format shots. But Nigel did say he wanted to use the WLF.

Just for fun, here is a picture of Mr Heidecke and Mr Hasselblad taking pictures of each other with their cameras.

John

Methinks Herr Heidecke has discovered how to wear trousers without a belt

[ericpmoss]

Here's a plug for Rollei: http://fstoppers.com/street-photographer-discovered-a-few-days-after-her-death/