hasselblad and Rolleiflex

And I want square format.
What else could I buy? Bronica SQ?
No, because:
- its quality isn't at the top
- its quite difficult to find used components and lenses. Here in
Italy NO one use Bronica S system

Exakta?
- difficult to find and expensive

Mamiya C?
- difficult to find (at least here) and priced about as Rollei

Yashica A,B,C,D,124
- why not a Rolleicord Vb?

etc.



......................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it

I have a hassy set and also a simple Rolleiflex Tessar.
The Rolleiflex T is my favorite and I use it 9 times over 1 for the
Hassy, because of it's lightness and simplicity.
As the Rolleiflex Tessar allready give oustanding results, it will only
be better with the more expensive Rolleiflex types.

On my last vacation to South East Asia, I was in deep thoughts of which
camera to take with me (I've got 18 camera's).
I ended up with a Konica Hexar and the Rolleiflex T, the 'flex performed
superb and I made best pictures of my collection.

My Hassy is resting in it's case a few years allready and maybe it's
time to give it a chance as well.

André

I have a hassy set and also a simple Rolleiflex Tessar.
The Rolleiflex T is my favorite and I use it 9 times over 1 for the
Hassy, because of it's lightness and simplicity.
As the Rolleiflex Tessar allready give oustanding results, it will only
be better with the more expensive Rolleiflex types.

On my last vacation to South East Asia, I was in deep thoughts of which
camera to take with me (I've got 18 camera's).
I ended up with a Konica Hexar and the Rolleiflex T, the 'flex performed
superb and I made best pictures of my collection.

My Hassy is resting in it's case a few years allready and maybe it's
time to give it a chance as well.

André

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html - I did a blind lens test
including ~identical shots using rolleiflex 3.5f zeiss planar lens against
hasselblad zeiss 80mm lenses, and there was no statistically significant
preference for either lens. In fact, if you exclude the 3 element TLR and
chinese seagull lenses, there was no stat. signif. correlation between
price and lens rating! ;-)

so this would support the recommendation to pick a MF camera based on
other considerations, such as ergonomics, or needed features or
accessories, or price, since the lens performance on pro MF gear is so
close that most users can't tell them apart on side by side shots...

hth bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/blindresults.html - I did a blind lens test
including ~identical shots using rolleiflex 3.5f zeiss planar lens against
hasselblad zeiss 80mm lenses, and there was no statistically significant
preference for either lens. In fact, if you exclude the 3 element TLR and
chinese seagull lenses, there was no stat. signif. correlation between
price and lens rating! ;-)

so this would support the recommendation to pick a MF camera based on
other considerations, such as ergonomics, or needed features or
accessories, or price, since the lens performance on pro MF gear is so
close that most users can't tell them apart on side by side shots...

hth bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...

quoting zeiss lens expert and author Marc J. Small:

Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )

as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...

regards bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though they
are in performance in my experience)...

quoting zeiss lens expert and author Marc J. Small:

Zeiss has used the "Planar" name a gazillion times, beginning with
Rudolph's symmetrical six-element design of 1896. In the 1930's, Ernst
Wandersleb, who began his career as Rudolph's assistant, assigned to HIS
assistant, Dr Hans Sauer, the reworking of the Planar to accomodate the
existence of new optical glasses and lens coatings. Sauer worked on this
for fifteen years, a decade at Jena and, following the division of the
Zeiss entities, at Oberkochen. The result of his work was TWO lens
designs, one being the 5-element design used in the Rolleiflex TLR from
1955 until 1996 and the other the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad
C system and the Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.
endquote (from http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/hassy.html )

as Mr. Small notes, some authors such as the notable Kingslake have
claimed otherwise, so it may be worthwhile to pass on this correction...

regards bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Hi Bob,

Recently, Bob Monaghan posted:

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though
they are in performance in my experience)...

You're right... I should have been more clear in my statement. On the one
hand, I *was* referring to performance, and on the other, I was referring
to the SLR lenses for Rollei and Hasselblad, as below:

the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad C system and the
Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Still, the distinctions are worth noting in the TLR vs. SLR versions.

Thanks!

Neil

Hi Bob,

Recently, Bob Monaghan posted:

Hi Neil,

I'm not sure the lenses are "equivalent" in a technical sense (though
they are in performance in my experience)...

You're right... I should have been more clear in my statement. On the one
hand, I *was* referring to performance, and on the other, I was referring
to the SLR lenses for Rollei and Hasselblad, as below:

the 6-element Planar used on the Hasselblad C system and the
Rolleiflex SL66 and 600x systems.

Still, the distinctions are worth noting in the TLR vs. SLR versions.

Thanks!

Neil

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.

Some people might agree with you, many others would disagree and say that
there isn't any single "top brand for lenses." I'm in the latter category.
In my experience you will see no consistent, recognizable difference in the
quality of images produced by lenses of the same format and design from any
of the major manufacturers. The biggest difference is often in prices.
However, prices of lenses made by the major manufacturers today are mostly a
function things like the number of middlemen involved in getting the lens
from manufacturer to photographer, the profit margins of the various parties
involved, labor and material costs in the country of manufacture, taxes,
import duties, desired profit margins, etc., not the quality of the
photograph the lens is capable of producing. In medium format photography
Pentax, Mamiya, and Zeiss lenses are all capable of producing technically
excellent photographs.

For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?

The reason why you might think of other brands is that the six specific
cameras you mention fall within three fairly distinct categories of medium
format cameras. Among these categories the size of the negatives is
different, the aspect ratio of the negatives is different, the features of
the cameras are different, their size and weight are different, and their
primary intended use is different. While the brand of lens is also
different, that's one of the lesser important differences among them. Of far
greater importance is the type of photography you plan to do and how well
the characteristics of these different cameras fit that type of photography.

"whitewave" wrote in message
...
Il Tue, 07 Sep 2004 15:38:32 GMT, "Shelley" ha
scritto:

I'm considering only zeiss (or Schneider on
Rolleiflex),

Why?

Because it's the top brnd for lenses and because in ebay era a 500cm
or a Rolleiflex is only a bit more expensive than Mamiya 645 and
RB/RZ, Pentax 645 ecc.
For quite the same price you can have a 80 made by zeiss, and e
reliable body, so why should I look to other brand?
.....................................
Marco Baldovin
www.whitewave.it