How great is Hasselblad REALLY?

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
OK, a ludicrous question even to think let alone ask…

But seriously…is it a Merc / BMW / Audi thing?

Is it the Zeiss glass?

Really lusting over a RB67 and I must wonder if it is “inferior” to similar Hasselblad cameras in any way?
 
Years ago, went into a camera shop to get my first MF camera. Expected to walk out with a Hasselblad. Handled one; handled a RB67; Sue (wife) handled both. We both agreed, and I left with a Mamiya.

I've never had problems with image quality, prefer the larger negative as I don't "see" square images and would need to crop. Yes, the RB67 is bigger and heavier, but if size and weight matter I can use a Bronica ETRS and save size and weight and still get the same effective film area.

Others will disagree :( but they are wrong :p
 
Last edited:
I sold my RB67 and replaced it with a 503CW. From the Hasselblad point of view...

[opinion]
The Good
- Weight & handling . The Hasselblad is much smaller and much much lighter and easier to manhandle & operate - apart from focussing (see below)
- Build. Hasselblad feels just better made than the RB. Film advance levers on the RB backs can be a bit "dodgy" and I had one fail on me completely.
- Film advance and shutter cock with a single operation. Dual operation on the RB67 which can be a pain in the bum.

The Bad
- Focus throw on the 80mm is ridiculous compared to the relatively short bellows on the RB. Can't speak for other lenses. If you live at f/11 & infinity though, this isn't an issue.
- Focus was easier on the RB and it was much easier to hold the camera and focus at the same time (although it was still awkward)
- The price

The Indifferent
- I can't distinguish image quality. I got exceptional images off both cameras.
- Accessories. Both have prism finders, chimney finders, hoods, handles and all the stuff you might need. The RB stuff is bigger, heavier and cheaper, but not any "better" per se. I had the "grip" for the RB and it was just ridiculously heavy.
- 6x7 vs 6x6. 9 shots vs 12 per roll. Depends on the photographer.
[/opinion]

For me, I prefer the square format, and having a camera I can carry for long periods of time. If I were purely studio shooting, I think I'd go back to the RB, but for general photography, the Hasselblad is much better. I prefer the build quality and the weight. I couldn't really managed the RB in one hand in any way. Once I sort out my focussing "issue" (which is down to my eyesight more than anything else) and pick up a couple more lenses I think I'll be happy with it.

I toyed around with Bronica for a while (as something more comparable to the Hasselblad) and having had a go with Chris' last year, I reckon the Hasselblad has a brighter viewfinder and slightly better build quality (but not £000's better). Lens quality is unknown, but to be honest, at 120 film sizes, and with decent scans, I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between any of them.
 
Cheers Guys!
 
Ian's points are valid, but ultimately it will be a subjective opinion. I've seen a lot of comments about certain Hasselblad quirks (such as film inserts having to be paired with the backs) that made me think it could be minefield I'd rather avoid.

On the size/weight issue, I should perhaps, in the spirit of full disclosure, say that I originally got into LF photography after using a Mamiya RZ67 with shift lens around Wells (cathedral and churches) for a day, and got my first LF camera 2 or 3 days later to save weight...
 
You went LF to SAVE weight from a MF system??:naughty:
 
Hasselblad weight savings are twofold, the camera is lighter and your wallet is lighter too.

As for LF being lighter than MF, yes. My Intrepid + Lens is about 1.4KG, 5x holders (a lot) is about a kilo, so 2.4KG in total. An RZ with a shift lens is about 4KG. The 5x4 is considerably more balanced feeling when slung over my shoulder on a tripod as well.
 
FruitFlakes said:
Hasselblad weight savings are twofold, the camera is lighter and your wallet is lighter too.

As for LF being lighter than MF, yes. My Intrepid + Lens is about 1.4KG, 5x holders (a lot) is about a kilo, so 2.4KG in total. An RZ with a shift lens is about 4KG.
Click to expand...
Not too far off a 1D with 300/2.8…
FruitFlakes said:
The 5x4 is considerably more balanced feeling when slung over my shoulder on a tripod as well.
Click to expand...
 
antonroland said:
You went LF to SAVE weight from a MF system??:naughty:
Click to expand...

My first LF camera was heavier than the weights I'm about to quote, but Intrepid state that their black edition 5x4 weighs 1 kg (I have one, but haven't weighed it). A standard lens such as the Rodenstock Apo Sironar weighs 230 gms ( I have a different lens, but probably the same sort of weight). My 450mm lens weighs 285 gms. I suspect Hasselblad lenses may weigh more.

The shape is different, but a 5x4 LF camera folded, with the lens inside, will occupy a smaller volume than my RZ67 with a shift lens. Note that the shift lens is what makes the really big difference, so not a fair comparison if you don't need it.

I still wouldn't part with my Mamiyas though!
 
Last edited:
I own or have owned a number of 6x6 cameras (e.g., Hasselblads, Bronicas, Rolleiflexes, and more). Unless I needed a specific lens or accessory that was unique to Hasselblad (Hasselblad system is more extensive than competitors), for a 6x6cm system camera, I’d take a Bronica SQ-A any day of the week over a Hasselblad. Better ergonomics, grip, focusing screen, film back, and so on for the SQ-series cameras. Hasselblads are probably prettier, but generally fussier and just don’t work as well in my experience.

I don’t see anything wrong with using a RB67 or any other medium format camera if they’re better suited to your needs.
 
Last edited:
antonroland said:
But seriously…is it a Merc / BMW / Audi thing?
Click to expand...
In a word: "yes".

None of the roll film SLR systems were good value, when bought new. The best value roll film system of all was the Mamiya C, twin lens system. It was half the price of most of the SLR roll film systems, more reliable (having almost nothing to go wrong) virtually silent and even had the neat Paramender accessory, which allowed you to ignore parallax error at the push of a lever, when used on a tripod.

I liked using my Hasselblads but they were noisy, sometimes temperamental and would have cost a fortune if I'd bought them new. More to the point, they didn't take better pictures than the Mamiya kit.
 
StephenM said:
And, if I remember correctly, didn't bother to bring it back...
Click to expand...
Apparently a dozen of them Stephen, but not much use without the film backs that were brought back. ;) It's a nice little bit of film history though.

Hasselblad in Space

www.hasselblad.com www.hasselblad.com

I recall a BJP comparison of the 501C against the entry level Bronica SQ-B which I could just about afford, and the conclusion was that either would greatly improve my photography. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
skysh4rk said:
I own or have owned a number of 6x6 cameras (e.g., Hasselblads, Bronicas, Rolleiflexes, and more). Unless I needed a specific lens or accessory that was unique to Hasselblad (Hasselblad system is more extensive than competitors), for a 6x6cm system camera, I’d take a Bronica SQ-A any day of the week over a Hasselblad. Better ergonomics, grip, focusing screen, film back, and so on for the SQ-series cameras. Hasselblads are probably prettier, but generally fussier and just don’t work as well in my experience.

I don’t see anything wrong with using a RB67 or any other medium format camera if they’re better suited to your needs.
Click to expand...
Years ago I used Hassleblads and Nikons (F3) provided at work , I didn't get on with either because largely the ergonomics but liked the performance of both plus the Hassleblad was very pretty for my personal stuff I bought Bronica SQ-Ai and Canon F1, I got the same results but enjoyed using them more. When I got back into MF film shooting I went straight to Bronica SQ-Ai again, I kept one of my original Canons. It's all down to subjectivity and how you gel with the ergonomics IMO.
 
Harlequin565 said:
I toyed around with Bronica for a while (as something more comparable to the Hasselblad) and having had a go with Chris' last year, I reckon the Hasselblad has a brighter viewfinder and slightly better build quality (but not £000's better). Lens quality is unknown, but to be honest, at 120 film sizes, and with decent scans, I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference between any of them.
Click to expand...
That's odd Ian, one of the main issues I had with the work Hasseleblad was the dim focussing screen, I believe there was an aftermarket "brightscreen" available at the time for the Hassleblad (expensive though) but the screen on the Bronica was much brighter than the standard one on the Hassleblad.
 
Last edited:
Used mamiya and briefly a hassy.

Handling, I preferred the former.

Glass, I couldn’t see any significant differences / improvement between them.

The sekor lenses rendered very good quality images.
 
antonroland said:
You went LF to SAVE weight from a MF system??:naughty:
Click to expand...
I’ve had several outfits that have been a pig to lugg around compared to LF.

I can even take a 10x8 with one lens and one dds and carry no more weight than I was with an rz67

Peoples views on LF and weight are often mislead in the same way as they are with cost.

LF doesn’t have to be any heavier or more expensive than many other togging outfits.
 
Asha said:
LF doesn’t have to be any heavier or more expensive than many other togging outfits.
Click to expand...
I used to find that carrying a dozen double dark slides made me tilt to starboard! :naughty:
 
I carry mine in my Billingham waistcoat; the front pockets are large enough for 5x7 film holders, so the weight is spread on both sides Any tendency to stoop forwards is easily corrected with a back pack with tripod attached. If a large number are needed, a Grafmatic holds 6 sheets in the space of two film holders, which is a saving on weight and space.

These days though I tend to avoid miniature sizes and stick with 5x7 and 10x8. Amusingly, my heaviest 10x8 camera weighs the same as my original 5x4 - a concession to having left my 30s behind. :)
 
Switching back to the actual point of the thread, and leaving aside handling characteristics which are subjective anyway, my thoughts would be:

The Mamiya is undoubtedly bigger and heavier. Do you prefer something small and light, and would a heavier camera sooner or later be left at home?

On the other hand, if Hasselblad prices are much higher than Mamiya (I haven't checked), would this make buying additional lenses problematic, assuming that you felt the need for them? I have a full range of lenses from 15mm to 300mm for 35mm cameras, and a range for LF from 65mm to 600mm; but with my RZ67 I effectively only use one lens (the 110mm). The shift lens was sidelined as LF meets that with less weight, and I don't use a wide angle enough to make much use of a 50mm lens. Hence my wondering if one lens would actually suffice for you, and reduce any issue of prices being higher for Hasselblad. And I didn't realise when I first got a Mamiya that one lens would be all I needed.
 
StephenM said:
Hence my wondering if one lens would actually suffice for you, and reduce any issue of prices being higher for Hasselblad. And I didn't realise when I first got a Mamiya that one lens would be all I needed.
Click to expand...
This is a debate that I remember going back to the 1960s. There were several specialists in feature photography who argued that a Rollei twin lens reflex was all that anyone required to earn a good living. If you're a pessimist or want to make colour and monochrome images at the same time, carry two.

I tried this theory out for a year or so when I was doing local press stuff in the '70s and it turned out to be not entirely silly.

Just another thought for the pile...

Rollei and Minox manual dust jackets DSC01408.JPG
 
I've been round in circles regarding medium format and always wind up back with Hasselblad.
They look uber cool and you automatically get bragging rights.
The system is truly vast and if you can't get something for a Hasselblad then it probably doesn't exist. That said, no amount of ebay searching has turned up the admiring glances meter.

Regarding lenses, there are good ones and really great ones but as far as I know, no bad ones.

As others have said though, final image quality is unlikely to be light years ahead of Bronica/Mamiya/Contax and the likes.
 
StephenM said:
Switching back to the actual point of the thread, and leaving aside handling characteristics which are subjective anyway, my thoughts would be:
Click to expand...
But if a number of people express the same or similar opinion, is it still subjective?;)
StephenM said:
The Mamiya is undoubtedly bigger and heavier. Do you prefer something small and light, and would a heavier camera sooner or later be left at home?
Click to expand...
I am very much lusting over the RB67. I believe in MF this is as heavy as it gets?

To me the whole weight thing is subjective and actually the least of a consideration.
StephenM said:
On the other hand, if Hasselblad prices are much higher than Mamiya (I haven't checked), would this make buying additional lenses problematic, assuming that you felt the need for them? I have a full range of lenses from 15mm to 300mm for 35mm cameras, and a range for LF from 65mm to 600mm; but with my RZ67 I effectively only use one lens (the 110mm).
Click to expand...
I am working on a range of wide primes for my M645J system and will probably want something fairly identical for the RB when I get it…question in my mind is whether I will actually use both systems…
StephenM said:
The shift lens was sidelined as LF meets that with less weight, and I don't use a wide angle enough to make much use of a 50mm lens. Hence my wondering if one lens would actually suffice for you, and reduce any issue of prices being higher for Hasselblad. And I didn't realise when I first got a Mamiya that one lens would be all I needed.
Click to expand...
Many many ways this could go. I reckon we will only really know in good time when I have made many more posts in the GAS thread…

And as for the original thread idea…I reckon I could spend the rest of my days without owning a Hasselblad system and without crying myself to sleep too frequently.:)
 
antonroland said:
And as for the original thread idea…I reckon I could spend the rest of my days without owning a Hasselblad system and without crying myself to sleep too frequently.:)
Click to expand...
To be fair, carrying an all black Hasselblad over your shoulder can boost the ego just a little bit. (Chrome is so crass)... :naughty: :coat:

Camera Hasselblad 500cm Black TZ40 1010530.JPG
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
To be fair, carrying an all black Hasselblad over your shoulder can boost the ego just a little bit. (Chrome is so crass)... :naughty: :coat:

View attachment 347788
Click to expand...


I’ll have to settle for the manly lump of RB and practice my Tarzan impersonation…:naughty:

The Hasselblad is pretty, fair enough…;)
 
Last edited:
Personally I don’t see where all the hype comes from tbh.
Same with rolleiflex.

Mindst, I’ve never been one to chase fashions (be it with cameras or any other item.)
There are plenty of other brands that offer just as good results , are sometimes easier to operate and are often just as pretty .

And no i am not envious of those who have hassleblads and Rollieflexes !
 
Asha said:
And no i am not envious of those who have hassleblads and Rollieflexes !
Click to expand...
You know we really, really do believe you... :naughty: :coat:
 
skysh4rk said:
I own or have owned a number of 6x6 cameras (e.g., Hasselblads, Bronicas, Rolleiflexes, and more). Unless I needed a specific lens or accessory that was unique to Hasselblad (Hasselblad system is more extensive than competitors), for a 6x6cm system camera, I’d take a Bronica SQ-A any day of the week over a Hasselblad. Better ergonomics, grip, focusing screen, film back, and so on for the SQ-series cameras. Hasselblads are probably prettier, but generally fussier and just don’t work as well in my experience.

I don’t see anything wrong with using a RB67 or any other medium format camera if they’re better suited to your needs.
Click to expand...

This.
 
skysh4rk said:
I own or have owned a number of 6x6 cameras (e.g., Hasselblads, Bronicas, Rolleiflexes, and more). Unless I needed a specific lens or accessory that was unique to Hasselblad (Hasselblad system is more extensive than competitors), for a 6x6cm system camera, I’d take a Bronica SQ-A any day of the week over a Hasselblad. Better ergonomics, grip, focusing screen, film back, and so on for the SQ-series cameras. Hasselblads are probably prettier, but generally fussier and just don’t work as well in my experience.
Click to expand...
Whilst I understand it's all down to personal preference the Hasselblad has, to my mind, advantages over the Bronica.
The Hasselblad is not dependent on a battery, and it does not need to transmit data through electrical contacts.
Regarding ergonomics, the Hasselblad winder CW is beautifully crafted from a comfort and stability point of view plus it doubles up as an IR remote.
Plus, having owned both of the above cameras I can say the Hasselblad acute matte D screens are peerless.
As for film backs they're more of a matter of something to get used to.

Understand these are just my thoughts.
 
I went for the Hasselblad partly because it was all mechanical and could be fixed if anything went wrong. I think the Mamiyas and Bronicas all have electronics and if they fail, they become bricks?
 
The RZ67 minus battery has a single speed of 1/400th. The other BIG downside of the RZ67 for me is that to save battery power, once the mirror lock up has been activated, you have to release the shutter in the next 60 seconds. No waiting, cable release in hand, for the clouds to move...

The RB67 on the other hand is purely mechanical.

I have one of each (or possibly 2 RB67s - one has been on loan for over a decade).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top