Seems like every successful and world famous Rollei user eventually switched to Hassleblad. That includes Penn and Avedon. I watched a video of Helmut Newton the other night, guess what, using a Hasselblad. You know with a hasselblad you are getting absolute top optics.
The problem with range finders is that you must look through a window and the problem with SLRs is you must deal with the mirror. A Rollei offers range finder quietness and shutter as well as viewing through a lens like an SLR. Of course it's downfall (?) is noninterchangeable lens. You could go with a Mamiya TLR but it is IMO ugly and heavy. So go with a Hasselblad and use a tripod and lock up the mirror.
. You could go with a Mamiya TLR but it is IMO ugly and heavy.
LOL - I'm convinced that the design team at Mamiya had the goal of making every one of the MF cameras HEAVY and UGLY. RB67, the TLR's, and the Mamiya Press cameras - all way heavier than their counterparts. That being said, there is no arguing that the are solid dependable cameras.
I think it boils down to format - if you want 6x6 square in an SLR, then Hasselblad is definitely the one to go after. I prefer 6x7, so I use the Pentax, and use my Rollei for when I am in a square mood.
If I was buying MF gear right now I'd probably go with the RB67. I like the 6x7 aspect ratio, the optics are great, and the camera looks like a 70s sci-fi plasma cannon. Much cheaper than Hasselblad and similar quality (just not as flashy). How can you go wrong with that
But why not just skip the MF and go to 4x5? You'll get movements for perspective and focus control, easy film handling (sheets are simple to deal with in the dark), impressive scans of 40 to 200 million pixels, and the ability to dabble with contact printing methods like cyanotype, salt printing, van dyke brown, etc.
Oh, and phenomenal optics with little distortion and corner to corner sharpness.
If you're already scanning your film anyway, you may also consider keeping your nice L lenses to put on a, well, another small format 35mm-compatible body that is forbidden to discuss here at APUG. A lot of us do secretly use them from time to time, you know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonjoo
Hey folks,
I've recently been using both a Canon EOS 3 with a 17-40L, 135L, and very rarely the 70-200 f4 IS. I'm not sure why, but I just cannot get a decent scan from my 35mm negatives, no matter what I try. My 120 roll film scans are coming out BEAUTIFULLY. But I digress...
I'm on the fence right now, but I'm 75% sure that I will sell off my 35mm gear. This should free up roughly $2000. I wouldn't mind saving some of this, but then again, I wouldn't mind investing in a solid MF setup either. I have 2 Rolleiflex 3.5E TLR's (one is currently unusable, but a CLA should put it in tip-top shape) and really do love the TLR form factor, but I really find myself wanting to have an interchangeable back and interchangeable lens system. I don't mind letting one of these go (probably the one that needs a CLA), so this may few up a few hundred more dollars.
Anyways, I'm currently looking at the Hasselblad system. Perhaps a 501C with a few lenses and a few backs but I have also heard great things about the Pentax 6x7 II system. I am open to the Mamiya 7 series as well, but while the rangefinder seems great, I think I would prefer to have a SLR type camera.
Any suggestions? My budget is around $2000, give or take $200 (or even more on the minus side). I do not want to spend any more than this.
Thank you for your help (and sorry for my brief rant in the beginning )
Jason
Edit: Sorry, a choice of lenses with either setup would be helpful as well. I shoot mainly landscapes and portraits (I know this is quite diverse, but the longer lenses for portraits could double as a landscape lens!).
__________________
The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
.
The Hasselblad 501c kit with 80mm lens should go for about $1100.
A 50mm CF lens is about $700 and a 150mm CF is about $500
That's a great travel kit. Buy another back when you can for about $200.
This is exactly the kit I travel with. Weight wise it's about the same as a 35mm body and a bunch of prime lenses. I've never been a fan of zooms. Maybe you should try using primes on your 35 rather than zooms and see how your scans turn out.
If I don't take the Blad then the Linhof gets to go.
Given the resale value of 35mm gear these days you might be a bit optimist about the value of your existing equipment. If this turns out true then your best off keeping what you have and just save up for a larger format.
Walter mentioned the RB67. Great camera and if you are not traveling with it or backpacking (unless your a tri-athlete or sucker for pain) it's a great system. The glass is first rate and much cheaper than Blad glass. Personally I prefer the look of Zeiss glass but that's just a personal thing. A Shen-Hao 4x5 with a couple of lenses and some film holders would weigh less than an RB.
__________________
Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins
they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service. - Willard
Maybe you should try using primes on your 35 rather than zooms and see how your scans turn out.
Eric, I don't think this will make any difference. In my experience anyway, it's hard to get acceptable scans from 35mm (though I have printed a few nice ones from my epson flatbed scanner). And his optics are some of the best Canon produces, only a hair behind really top end primes - though he mentions the 135L which is pretty much the top end prime, on any system, period.
Quote:
Given the resale value of 35mm gear these days you might be a bit optimist about the value of your existing equipment. If this turns out true then your best off keeping what you have and just save up for a larger format.
His 17-40L, 135L, and 70-200L IS will fetch pretty close to new values. There's very little depreciation of these lenses given their high quality and utility on current digital SLR gear.
Quote:
A Shen-Hao 4x5 with a couple of lenses and some film holders would weigh less than an RB.
Very true. I lugged around MP_Wayne's RB for an afternoon and it was a beast. I guess the advantage over 4x5 is the cheaper roll film it uses and it's low cost, but that's about it.
As mentioned though, I'd seriously consider 4x5.
__________________
The universe is a haunted house. -Coil
.
Seems like every successful and world famous Rollei user eventually switched to Hassleblad. That includes Penn and Avedon. I watched a video of Helmut Newton the other night, guess what, using a Hasselblad. You know with a hasselblad you are getting absolute top optics.
That was true in the past but not so sure today. The Rollei 6000 system is more reliable than Haselblad and in many ways is easier to use. New and used prices are comparable (except for lenses, which are more for the Rollei new) and you can actually save money in some way swith the Rollei system (e.g. film inserts don't need to be matched to a specific back.
For what its worth. When I made the jump to MF after studying all the options I chose the RB67 over the Hassy because I wanted big negatives (the real reason to go MF). The RB had some options I liked, such as: flash sync at any shutter speed, aspect ratio (up to 6x8), revolving back, and the film holders are known to hold film very flat. The Hassy is really a 645 when cropped and not a great deal lighter, IMO. The Mamyia KL lenses are as good as the German glass - any difference is insignificant these days - don't kid yourself! Also, to those who think that an RB is too heavy, tell that to the women who carry them. The extra mass also allows the use of very slow shutter speeds, hand held
Regards,
Paul
__________________ "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." S. J. Gould
Last edited by panastasia; 04-08-2008 at 03:00 PM.
Linear Mode
