'I have shot hundreds of rolls', at last a reviewer that can draw on a lifetime of experience, many thanks for a great review, my two regular in use cameras are my Rolleiflex and my M2
I’ve used both and for me the Rolleiflex is somehow beyond photography, taking a photo becomes some sort of Zen experience …you think an image and somehow it appears, usually better than you imagined.. The Hasselblad is an incredible camera system but so is the Mamiya RB6x7 (and so is the Nikon D850)…but they all require too much technical thinking! So for me the magic of Rolleiflex will always be my choice!
...this guy definitely shares my ideas on the best way to live life - an upright, a brass instrument (cornet, flügelhorn, trumpet or...erm, bugle?), a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. Bad-ass content, too. You just got a new subscriber. Keep up the good work.
Bravo! Love the comparison. I have been a commercial photographer and educator for 30 years, using Hasselblad film and digital cameras. Love them because I built my career with them (and Linhof too). My grandfather made many beautiful images with his Rolleiflex, and I wanted to get one in his memory. I could not afford the beautiful model you have. Instead, I have a Rolleiflex T in grey color. It is a nice camera, but I do not shoot it as often as possible. Your videos are awe-inspiring; thank you for creating them. I enjoy hearing you say: "cam er-ra." 😁
Thanks, thanks. I think the T mode is every bit as good as any other Rolleiflex. It actually may be the best value at the moment. Also, a bit simpler so less can go wrong!
I watched the 'Finding Vivian Maier' and decided I would acquire a Rolleiflex camera. While I didn't have it, I trained myself to shoot from the hip using the monitor display of a Samsung NX300 mirrorless camera. At first, it was hard to control it. And, by accident, as I was checking out some lenses in a store, the owner offered me a Rolleiflex camera with a big leather case that contained many original accessories near mint condition. Later, I found out it was a 2.8c. Then, I could check if my self training was good and it was! I only used one roll of film so far and one of the pictures is of my mom who recently passed away. The ability of the Hasselblad of allowing pictures with no haze while pointing at very bright objects gaves those wonderful pictures of the Earth on those memorable Apollo missions. Great video.
I have both. I love them incredibly. My Rolleiflex is my primary shooter cuz how much quicker I am with that camera setup vs my Hassy. Def a factor when shooting a family party vs traveling
I'm just learning about the 'Haze' problem you mention when shooting into the sun with the Rollei. (I got a 3.5 F a few weeks ago). I really like this camera though.
@@ShootOnFilm Ari - Just FYI: I inspected the lens of my Rollei and saw that there was some internal haze, so I got it cleaned and so far, the photographs I get from it are much cleaner. Cheers.
Agreed, Hasselblad wins hand down in most categories in my opinion too. I had two Hasselblad 500C/M myself before. However, Rolleiflex is a lovely beast, the leaf shutter is so quiet, even more quiet than the Hasselblad’s planar leaf shutter from my own experience, I used to sell both when I was working in a camera shop before. You won’t regret owning either one for sure, they are truly a masterpiece in all respects.
Excellent comparison, Mr. Ari, with his great experience in handling the two cameras. Well done. Thank you for recomendation Camera Store. Kind Regards from México.
Very good practical comparison, but consider the Rollei SL66: More versatile than my 2.8F. Interchangeable lenses and film magazines. Focal-plane shutter, so no need to "buy" a shutter with each lens. Totally mechanical. But like the Hasselblad, it's big, heavy, needs a carrying case. You undoubtedly know the story about Hasselblad and Rollei agreeing not to compete, but after Viktor died, Rollei built the SL66.
A great comparison of great cameras! I am calm about it because both of them are unattainable to me. In the early 1980s, I borrowed a Rolleicord camera for my street project while studying design at the Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts. It's a bit more simple and popular Rolleiflex TLR. I fell in love with the quality of that machine and understand that the Rolleiflex is even better. The Hasselblad was something out of space for me, although I saw individual pieces at professionals, but even our photography studio equipped with SLR 6x6 was "only" Pentacon SIX TL. Fortunately, in my professional work I was able to use a 35mm SLR camera and in the late 1980s and early 1990s it was the Praktica B100, an aperture priority automatic machine, which was enough for me. After that, I was just as happy to go digital because I had a nasty allergy to chemical reagents used in photography. Today I am slowly returning to medium format photography, but with a simple box camera (my first own camera) and folded ones with bellows - with great pleasure.
I am a Rolleiflex user, never touched a Blad because of what you say about complexity. With my Rollei, I only think about the picture I want to take, no procedures. Great video indeed.
@@ShootOnFilm With a non interchangeable lens I have the angle of my 3.5F & square format permanently in mind, no hesitation on available lenses and no back problem. This is the minimalist’ camera.
@@pkvideo354 That also is a good point. You look at your surroundings always knowing the focal length and then you learn to see the world through that lens even without looking at it through the view finder. I know what you mean and I agree totally.
The 500cm was once my dream camera. Sadly when I bought it from eBay many years ago, the mirror was dim and it wasn’t so fun to shoot with until I got myself a new bright 3D popping screen! Everything looks so yummy since then! I also have a Rolleicord VA which also captures lovely pics! I agree the weight of the cord is so much better for my shoulder than the blad. But I also have my fun with the blad. It has taken many lovely memorable pics I still look back at. Yes, I don’t need a flex as I’m happy with my cord
Don't forget the Rollei Mutars that increased our decreased the disk length. (0.7x and 1.5x). The results are excellent AND you can watch the picture whilst it's being taken, unlike th 'blad, where the viewing image vanishes, during the exposure. As per versatility, I would give the Rollei a mark of 4. Re the flare - I don't find this an issue with the Schneider Xenotar but I do find it a slight issue with the Zeiss Planar. I use my Rolleiflex 2.8F with the Xenotar for outside work and the one with the Planar for indoor work.
Great comparison Ari. I have both a Hasselblad 500 and Rolleiflex 2.8. In fact, I inherited two Rolleiflexes. I am slightly, ever so slightly more partial to the Hasselblad. But you’ve encouraged me to spend more time with the Rolleiflex.
Very nice to hear! In my hands, they seem to take me to slightly different places and viewing angles. Which is good. Hasselblad -- to me -- is a bit more serious tool, in good and bad.
Well done on a great review! I have a Rollei 2.8F and would love a Hasselblad for ergonomics and all the differences you mentioned. I'm looking at the Rollei SL66 which in my mind is a combination of the two. Have you ever tried the Rollei Mutar extension lenses or Rollei pistol grip?
Fun Idea and very well thought out. I happen to agree, the rolleiflex is much more a “pick up and go” camera. I’ve never shot a hasselblad, but they appear to be large and bulky, not exactly what you want to take some quick snaps. Lack of lens options on the Rollei does work to its disadvantage though. One last thing, the Rollei draws eyeballs! People LOVE to ask about it when you’re shooting. It’s fun!
I agree. However, in some cases the fact that you CANNOT change lenses forces you to work a bit harder for the composition. And then, sometimes that yields to better results. IMHO.
This was fun to watch. Having had both systems it’s an interesting comparison. I just used them very differently. I agree the Zeiss 100mm is the best. Don’t have a Hasselblad any more, but my Rolleiflex f3.5 planar is maybe my all-time favorite camera. An absolutely amazing lens, so beautiful in style, a pleasure to work in my hands, and yes a truly solid build camera.
When I did my photography apprenticeship in the 80s of last century, I did a lot of work with those Hasselblads. What I remember most however, is that all the time around every third of our bodies, lenses and magazines was away for repair for the one or other reason. Later I stayed away from Hasselblad for this reason. I don't have lots of experience with Rolleiflex, though. And - actually, the Rolleiflex 2.8 is still made.
Nice that someone use still use this cameras. I have a Nikon FE2 and F100 that I use very seldom. (not so much). Not to be critical, but two comments on Hasselblad. 1. The 2000 fc/m or 2003 f are maybe top of the line? Or if you want the Compur Shutter the 503 cx? 2. Hasselblad have now release a digital camera back, so you could convert your Hasselblad into a digital camera. It's compatible back to the 1000 f. Very impressive. Thanks anyway!! Or kiitos..
Thanks, thanks! You may be right about what is the top of the line in general. For me, 500c/m topped it, because later they just added stuff that I really don't need. The same goes for later Rolleiflexes. And about the digital backs, I briefly mention them here: th-cam.com/video/4q5ugi2mosY/w-d-xo.html
Awesome video thank you! One thing I’m struggling with about the Rollei is the perspective of the shot. I have a 3.5A and seems to have parallax compensation. But the pov of my final image still seems to be different from what I see in the finder. Any tips or experience with this?
Yes, a 3.5A has parallax compensation. In my experience, it is fairly accurate. Do you see it moving through the focusing glass when you focus the camera close?
@@ShootOnFilm yes I do see the frame shifting through the glass! I will pay more attention to it when framing. I am also noticing some of my images seem to be a tad soft, especially at infinity. I am only 10 rolls in on my rollei, so very new to medium format but really loving it. Do you think this is just some user error to work on? Or is it worth sending the cam in for a CLA in case things are out of alignment? I’m fairly confident I’m nailing focus in the viewfinder and often shooting around f5.6-8
This week I have seen a couple of pictures shot by Earl Moran, BW in the early 40 of a not yet populair Marilyn Monroe. I was so overwhelmed with the microcontrast, the fall off of the focus, and sharpness, so I started an investigation of what camera has been used. Based on the available camera's in that time I would put my money on a Rolleiflex F 2.8 80mm So now I am making up my mind to purchase one (and looking for reviews on YT Great review and this is a great help. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you thank you. I believe that the fall off of the focus, indeed, is something really unique. Here is one of my pictures where I like that: instagram.com/p/CEiszsRHj24/?igshid=7n0oair79v1b
It depends on the model you have. But most of them gas a little lever next to the film advancing crank that rotates with the crack. There is a little arrow there push that in the direction of the arrow and you can rotate the crank backward. It engages the shutter without advancing the film.
I was just given a Rolleiflex 3.5. It has a Zeiss/Planar lens. It has a leather straps attached to the body and may be an automat. It has a light meter stationed on the focusing knob on the left side. Where can I find out more information on this relic? I have the urge to try photographing with it. thanks
Love the video! Did you ever consider or try the Rolleiflex SL66? I've been using it of a while now and I absolutely adore this system! I always wanted a Hasselblad but saw some reviews of the SL66 and got a great offer and got it.
My Rolleicord Vb has the same issue as the Rolleiflex. Actually I have had some good results from the Holga 120 for direct sunlight into the lens. I’m looking at a Mamiya 220 with the 55mm wide angle lens. I have a feeling it might have the same issue as my Rolleicord in direct sunlight. Do you think the issue of direct sunlight is common among all TLR cameras?
I don't know. It should not have anything to do with having two lenses. It is just a characteristic of a lens. And Rolleicord and Rolleiflex are very very similar!
@@ShootOnFilm I found a very nice C220 with the wide angle included so I think I will buy it. It’s potentially an inexpensive wide angle camera for me since the Hasselblad super wide is out of my price range. It will be interesting to test out the Mamiya. With film camera prices go up every day, I can always sell the Mamiya if it doesn’t work out for me. I don’t think a person can go wrong buying a very good quality film camera at a reasonable price. As you have said, the digital cameras will go down in price but the good film cameras will go up. They aren’t making them anymore. At least not yet 🙂
Jos ajatellaan tuota vertailtua settiä vaikkapa tuolla yhdellä linssillä ja vaikka parilla eri perällä, niin Rolleiflexin. Mutta jos ajatellaan, että lisätään siihen sitten vaikka 50mm Distagon ja vaikka 250 mm päälle, niin siitten Hasselblad. Mutta sitten tulee hintakysymys vastaan .... :-)
@@ShootOnFilm niinpä, mutta kyllä Hasselilla pidemmälle pääsee, Rolleiflexiä kunnioittaen, on todettava. 60-luvulla Rolleiflexillä vielä elätti perheen, sen jälkeen taisi Hasselblad ajaa ohi. Luultavasti Neil Amstrong vaikutti vahvasti tähän?
Wow! Great review. Really great. The one thing you did not talk about was ability to compose looking at the screen. When I used my fathers Rollei in the 1960s it was very dark. The slr cameras were much easier to use. Maybe the high end Rolleis have bright finders... Again , a great review. Personally, I find the Fuji gfx more easily to use Abx yeh had many of the things I loved about the Pentax 67. I realize we are talking apples, oranges and grapes here but one of the issues of film cameras is that over their life they are actually MUCH more expensive than film. Sad but true. Still if I were to back to rigid body film I’d want a Rollei for portraits and street and a Hasselblad for everything else. The Rollei is a unforgettable magical camera!!
Thank you Ari. Might as well own them both right. I never understood or noticed about the sun artifacts with the Hasselblad, vs. the Rollieflex very interesting.
@@ShootOnFilm - partly, but I have dozens of cameras and each one makes me feel a certain way when I use them. The Rolleis and the Leicas feel extra special in my hands. So maybe more emotional than lazy.
@@qnetx I agree!!! The beauty of analog photography is that each different camera affects you and your work. I believe in a very visible way. I made a short rant about that, too: th-cam.com/video/lSDv3svOpa4/w-d-xo.html
love the hassy but I don’t use it anymore outside without tripod: 1) mirror shack: you need to retract it and so you took picture blind. 2) precision of the focus: hassy are nightmare….and this is due to mirror and geometry. plus the focus screen: old dark one are more easier to focus than the bright accumate. 3) dark miror: you don’t see what you rake as the mirror stay up when you shoot. 4) weight and noise: hassy are not for street at all. 5) price: you want a rolleiflex? buy a rolleicord for 200€ and you get the exact same quality and more versatility….but this is a secret.
A nice review from a professional, Sir. Well done. I own both. Shooting only B/W. Still doing my best to obtain the best result, experiencing I’m still not a professional ;-) Belgian greetings to Finland. Nice you mentioned Kamerastore. A way for us to find reliable sources. Have a nice weekend.
I have both and i totally agree with this analysis. Suppose you simply want to outside and take some innocent pictures. Suppose you are kind of tired. If you own a Hasselblad there is a bigger chance you give up than if you own a Rollei. That counts immensely
Viewing this video and reading some comments I just had to add my thoughts. As a commercial photographer, Hasselblad wins the contest. As a street photographer, Rollei comes in first. Actually as you say, "Apples and oranges,"--comparing the two cannot be done seriously without including the photographic situation and, of course, the singular peculiarities of the photographer. I will say that in my studio and on location, the Hasselblad and my large format cameras were the backbone of the shop. Oh and perhaps you forgot the shutter/mirror sound of the Blad against the shutter of the Rollei. And I found that Rollei shutters seemed to be more prone to sticking.
Great! I also have a 2.8F & a 500cm- it’s hard to pick one over the other, but I also prefer the Rollei, but just barely. I only recently got my 500cm though- I love it, but the Rollei is just more fun to use, even though I love switching between lenses with the Hasselblad.
This gives you a good summary: camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleiflex_2.8_series#Rolleiflex_2.8F So, for example: -Lighmeter system (when present): coupled, Selenium photo element, meter in the Focus knob -Coupled Depth of Field indicator. -Removable finder hood
I am lucky enough to own a Rolleiflex 2.8c and I think it is one of the greatest cameras ever made, even now, because there aren't many sensors as big as true medium format. You forgot to mention that the Rolleiflex has another advantage. Most people will use it with the case, and when you flip open the case to take a picture, the red velvet inside appears and hangs below the camera. This red velvet lure, plus the the beautiful camera itself, makes people unable to resist posing for a photo 😂
I have a 503CW and a Rolleiflex 3.5F and I don't see a way to compare them. Each one is superb in their clearly defined lanes. The nimble and quiet Rolleiflex is great for street and cityscapes, and the heavier Hasselblad with interchangeable backs is perfect on sticks for landscapes. Both are 10 in my opinion.
Hasselblad lenses are also made by Schneider; the Varigon 1 : 5,6 140 -280 mm Zoom There are Hasselblad Zeiss Planar and Sonnar optics with automatic light exposure. I can mount any optic brand to a Hasselblad body: Goerz, Schneider, Laack, Boyer, Meyer, Fuji, Berthiot, Rodenstock, Ektar, Kilfitt, Taylot Taylor&Hobson etc. I mount a Hasselblad to any View Camera 6 x 9 and 4 x 5. The Hasselblad is a Puch Skyrider; 3 speed gear. The Rolleiflex is a Puch Maxi; no gear.
Thank you I learnt a lot. I would say that the hassleblad would be the better studio camera. In a demanding professional shoot being able to change film backs ect.
I’ve always been a user of Hasselblad when you pay $1500 for a lens 150mm you’re expected to be great , and I have images to prove it! Thanks for the video!
A good comparison which you explained so well (I could see your didactic training). My handheld kit is generally Rollei and my bag always has a Rolleiflex 3:5 (xenotar) and a Rolleiwide or a SWC-M depending on subject and perspective. The normal lens for familiar perspective and a wide lens to perform its magic. I’ve used a lot of Hasselblad cameras and lenses and they’re great (I like the 50 and 100 mm lenses). So, two competing kits might look like a Rolleiflex 2.8F and a Rolleiwide vs. a Hasselblad with an 80/2.8 or 100/3.5 and 50/4. I find it more convenient and safer just to grab dedicated lens cameras.rather than to change lenses on the fly. There must be many cheaper ways to go but I already have the cameras. The point is to make photographs. I’m an inveterate darkroom rat.
Love the Hasselblad 500 C/M. Agree with all the points here and most of your rating. One thing I don't like is the often present pentagonal bokeh with Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Because the lenses have a limited number of aperture blades. Light leaks, system jamming etc are things I all experienced. Prices for the Rolleiflex have gone through the roof for a fixed lens system even more so than the 500 C/M. Just the option to change lenses makes the Hassy much more suitable for my style. I also found that the Hasselblad-Zeiss lenses are very flare-controlled and maintaining the high contrast. Great photo examples! One other advantage of the Hasselblad system is that you can potentially add a digital back.
Zeiss lenses are incredible, but imho Schneider lenses are often slightly better, and with Rollei you often have the possibility of use both Schneider and Zeiss
The main difference is that with the Rollei you can watch your subject right through the exposure. Handy for portraits to avoid people with their eyes closed because they blinked when the mirror on the Blad was up. The Rollei cameras were the mainstay of wedding, portrait and press photographers back in the 1950s and1960s. Rolleicords were often used too. Leica rangefinder cameras were used for the same reasons as the Rollei. Then in the 1970s it was 35mm Slrs that blew everything away for press. Nikon forr war, Canon for sport and Pentax for compactness.
Use of additional lenses? The Rollei can join the party to an extent. Didn't mention the Rollei (Zeis) Mutar 1.5 and the .7. Both produce amazing results from the camera loaded with 120. Same user 'effort' to change out hardware. And neither will break the bank as there is not a shutter mechanism.
As an experienced user of high end medium format film cameras I'd like your opinion on the rollei 6008 src1000. I bought a mint example with a PQS 90mm Planar lens which let's me shoot with flash sync up to 1000th sec. Many thanks for your thoughtful advice accompanied with such a diverse taste in music. Well done!
Rich, Unfortunately, all I've done with a Rollei 6008 is that I've held one in my hand and really liked the way it felt. Seems like a very nice camera. But there is no way I can provide my opinion on it because I have not really used it. Congrats, though. It is one of those cameras that I also would like to own!!
Maybe you could help me with another conundrum, which item would you buy for the rollei 6008. A 90 degree prism to change the viewing angle or a wide angle lens to play with perspective and emphasis it.. Greetings to you and your musical hound.
@@sailingandpaintingtheworld538 I would definitely go with the lens. But it is my personal preference. I use eye glasses and don’t like prisms. I’m a fan of the standard “looking down” view finder.
I realize this is an older video, but I wanted to say that, based on owning and using both cameras, I broadly agree with your assessment. That said, I love the older look of the images from my Planar 3.5 F Rollei--also the bokeh from the rounded shutter blades. The images from the Hasselblad 80mm, T* coated, are not quite as pleasing to me. I did wondered if you would mention the flare issue--at least my Rollei does not like being pointed toward the sun. On the usability front, I think you might have mentioned weight. Most often I use my 501 C on a tripod. When I want a camera for walking around, I choose the Rollei. Thanks for the informative vids.
I do not like range finder cameras and I do not like twin lens cameras. I do like Single Lens Reflex Cameras ! I worked with Hasselblad Cameras for 16 years, both as a professional photographer and as a hobby photographer, I do not like the old 500 C and 500 C/M Hasselblad Cameras, because I do a lot of Macro and Tele Lens photography and the upper of the image in the viewfinder gets dark because the mirror are too short. I loved my Hasselblad 2000 FC because you can use both Lenses with built-in shutter and Lenses without shutter. I think the very best Hasselblad Lenses are Zeiss Distagon 50mm 2.8, Zeiss Planar 110mm 2.0, Zeiss Macro Planar 120mm 4.0, Zeiss Tele Tessar 350mm 4.0 and Zeiss Mutar 2x, I very often used the Mutar 2x with the Planar 110mm 2.0 which are a great combination.
Been shooting my Hasselblad 503 for about 5 years now. For me it is darn near perfect. Sometimes I do miss the bellows focusing on my old Mamiya RB67 though.
As a working professional there is no comparison between a blad and the rollie. If I was going on holiday the rollie is an awesome camera - as a professional on a shoot I would only use the blad as my 90's blad still uses either my phase one back or leaf back - both of these are still commercially relevant. The real question is do you want a hobby camera or a commercial shooter.
I have both and hasselblad is difficult to carry is more like a studio camera. The cassette changing is not that easy due to light leaks and frame distance issues . The rollefleix has parallax issues since you view the frame through another lens. For TLR I reccomend Mamiya c330 it is cheap has interchangeble lenses has macro cpabilities out of the box and I can t see any differnece in picture quality vs hasselblad
Mamiya's are excellent. I own a C220. The major issue with Mamiya's for me is the lack of an easy dept-of-field indicator as found in Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. I use that in probably 60% of my shots and do not focus through the screen.
I love them both but for me the Hasselblad 500CM is the king. That shutter sound is the most beautiful. I love being able to switch lenses and film backs.
Helas, you did not understand me. I mount lenses of different brands on my Hasselblad 500 C/M. The lenses have a focus of 500 mm or even longer and have a leaf shutter.
I love your videos, but it clearly shows your personal preference for Rolleiflex. You forgot to say that every Hasselblad can turn into a 6x4.5 camera capable of taking as many as 16 exposures, with the dedicated back. Not to mention that the Hasselblad accessories range is almost ENDLESS. I would say that this is a decisive superiority :) however your videos are great, I love them.
This is a very thoughtful in deph comparison of both systems and beautiful images. I would add my 2 cents. The necessity to do maintenance of multiple shutters also might be seen as a redundancy, though lenses alone for blad costs a lot. Switching of backs is a very neat feature if you on a shooting scene by scene with different films (ISO or color/b@w). Native focusing screens of hasselblad are noticebly brighter, for rolleiflex I needed a custom focusing screen the originsl was too dim for my eyes. Hasselblad lenses T* coating in my experience are indeed more flare resistant and usually contrast in same condition is higher (I shoot mostly in color). With Rolleiflex I have a trouble of protecting both lenses with glas at the same time, know only filters on taking lens not a viewing one. Rolleiflex have an silent shutter and cause also no shock (mirror lock up feature doesn't equal it on hasselblad). I know I can go with longer shutter speed handheld with Rolleiflex. Rolleiflex doesn' need seals and I have never experianced light leakage as on Blad. Also I have never had an overlaping of exposures on Rolleiflex with Hasselblad's filmback it might be an issue over time (could be fixed though). All in all two beautiful cameras. I enjoy shooting Rolleiflex more, I do prefer image rendering of my 3.5 planar more to all of Hasselblad's. People also look more relaxed when being photographed with Rolleiflex and mine camera is so compact that I can put in in a back up toghetr with my 35mm setting easily. But I would give it to Hasselblad that it can do what Rolleiflex cannot. And still if I would pick only one film camera, then it would be my trusty canon eos3, 35mm:)
Can I put it to you that the 80mm Rolleiflex lens is equivalent to a 35mm (actually 34mm) lens in the 35mm format ? Duplicating the same view from the same spot to achieve the same print, you need a 35mm lens. The 50mm lens will severely crop the top of the image. ATB.
A chart is not of much use if it's wrong. Maybe if you tried it, or iced a focal length calculator for the angle on the short side of the 35mm frame, you'd change your opinion based on fact. To be clear, I'm stating that to get the exact content of a 6x6 frame onto a 35mm frame from the same position only with a 35mm lens.
@@Super.Quasar I still disagree with this based on my own experience, comparing side to side and just... well.. mathematics. Here is more from others: This is very good from Hasselbad: www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx As we can see, it depends because we are comparing different aspect ratios. Still .... Also, eg: www.anatomyfilms.com/medium-format-lens-vs-35mm-lens/ Of course, one of our challenges here is that medium format comes in many shapes and forms. If we compare regular 35mm and its aspect ratio 3:2 to a standard same-shaped medium format (like my Moskva I introduced..) the right medium size film comparison is 9:6. It is the same aspect ratio and direction. Then the numbers go even further, meaning that a 50mm (normal lens) in a regular 35 mm / full sensor is comparable to about 110mm. in 6x6 the only sensible comparison really is on the horizontal angle which equals 50mm in full sensor == 80 in medium format 6x6 cm.
...I love my Rolleiflex 3,5 C (Xenotar) and my K4a (Tessar). In this Filmformat is enough place/space for cropping, so In don't need a telelens...In this special case of direct sunlight I love to use my rolleiflex k4a with the Tessar. It has only 3 lensgroups and a 10 piece-Aperture. So I have a wonderful sun-star and much less flare/lens-reflections.
Build quality of both is first rate. With the possible exception of Alpa I don't think any other camera maker achieved higher tolerancing. That said-I disagree that a Rolleiflex is "built like a tank". They are a brilliant precision instrument but can certainly be damaged by careless handling or abuse. Backs can be bent easily when changing films, the lens mounting is vulnerable to alignment problems from impact-the gleittplätchen at the front of each cam follower may collapse after a shunt, and re-setting parallelism to factory specifications (plus/minus 0.05mm across diagonal lens board corners, whilst not difficult, per se, is nevertheless tedious and potentially time consuming. Having carried out this task on several occasions, I speak from experience. I adore both my own 500C/M and my various Rollei TLRs immensely and strive to keep them in fine condition for future generations of photographers after I am dead. But if I had to drop one, it would without a doubt be the Hasselblad-one can take a hit, better than a Rollei. It's worth noting that whilst the Rolleiflex lenses cannot be changed, per se, the wide and tele Mutars available were of extremely high quality and usable with negligible loss of image quality. Thanks for an interesting review. I enjoyed it, found it refreshingly down to Earth and free of hype. Didn't agree with all your points, obviously, but did find myself in agreement with much of what you said. Best Regards, Brett
Thanks. Very valuable feedback. And I actually agree with you on the tank comparison. With the leather cover a flex is well protected and survives even a drop but without .....
Well, yes one has to be careful when changing film with a Rollei and if you should happen to have a flash unit screwed on it !!...forget it ! But I have shot hundreds of rolls with my Rollei ( in Weddings environments) and never had any damages. It is still beautiful after some 65 years in my possession ( 20-30 years of use)
The "built like a tank" expression is very worn out anyway. Every other camera review compares cameras that have some heft to it to tanks. It's just like you put it, they're precision instruments. And they're both very well built. Take good care of them.
Keep in mind that Hassys were a mainstay of commercial photographers for decades and Rollei TLRs were not. From the point of view of a commercial photographer, the Rollei TLR has nearly zero usability. Proofing with Polaroid was a big reason Hassys were popular and a must to set lighting and show previews to the art director/clent. Having an assistant feed you backs with fresh film allowed for continuous shooting. And being able to change quickly between b/w and chrome or use a different film type (e.g. daylight vs. tungsten) or different speed film was mandatory. FWIW I switched to the Rollei 6006 because Hassys were too slow for me. I had 6 lenses 40 to 350, 2 bodies and 6 film backs and needed them all. Precisely focusing any of those 6x6 cameras (e.g. on eyes of a moving model) was not easy. Many missed shots. I had the eyelevel prisms, smokestacks too. Special brighter screens helped when they became available. As for Rollei TLR...very slow camera handheld because the focus is on the left and the film winding is on the right. You have to switch hands on every shot if your focus is changing. And you have to remove it from the tripod after 12 shots, then slowly change film instead of popping on a fresh back.
Did you consider comparing apples with apples? The Rollei SL-66 'system' - similar Single lens reflex system - easily detachable lenses, variety of film back options, variety of viewfinder options... etc... would be the winner in this comparison test. It has way better engineering, far better features than the Hassy.... Nevermind, it is better that the SL-66 lies undiscovered and eclipsed by the mirror/shutter in a box Hassleblad - that way when I want to expand my lens collection - prices are reflected thus.
Awesome video thanks. I wanted a blad back in the day for my wedding work no way was I paying the amount wanted so went with the Bronica ETRSi used it then and use it now love it to bits. If forced Id take the rollei over the blab if for nothing else than it looks so much cooler 😂📷. New sub for ya mate regards Paul
as a staff professional photographer at Allied signal Hasselbad was the only camera we used! to do the job. but when I first stared there the boss had Rolleis we did shot photos for the engineer's of test equipment for aerospace ( an amazing photo dept. ) eventually the Rollei's were never used macro photography portraits products Rollei wasn't the tool. in time because of digital The Hasselblad wasn't doing the job either and over time Hasselbled was collecting dust for a (pro) But now because the resurgent of the trendy film community Hassies have become popular once again . I do have a Rollie because they are so beautiful 3.5 and I just got a Mamiya 6x4 pro super sharp. Anyway I don't think I'd want another Hasselblad I used them all 38mm 40 mm 50mm 60mm 120mm was a excellent wedding camera in the day A beautiful.
'I have shot hundreds of rolls', at last a reviewer that can draw on a lifetime of experience, many thanks for a great review, my two regular in use cameras are my Rolleiflex and my M2
I’ve used both and for me the Rolleiflex is somehow beyond photography, taking a photo becomes some sort of Zen experience …you think an image and somehow it appears, usually better than you imagined..
The Hasselblad is an incredible camera system but so is the Mamiya RB6x7 (and so is the Nikon D850)…but they all require too much technical thinking!
So for me the magic of Rolleiflex will always be my choice!
The Mamiya RB67 is gigantic. It’s a studio camera. It’s a bad experience using that in the field.
good luck hand holding an RB67 500cm is a breeze..
Best review between Hasselblad and Rolleiflex!
Oh wow. Thanks!!
@@ShootOnFilm :-) and never try the Pentax 6x7 ?
...this guy definitely shares my ideas on the best way to live life - an upright, a brass instrument (cornet, flügelhorn, trumpet or...erm, bugle?), a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. Bad-ass content, too. You just got a new subscriber. Keep up the good work.
A very informative and entertaining video, without unnecessary music etc etc. Thank you!
Bravo! Love the comparison. I have been a commercial photographer and educator for 30 years, using Hasselblad film and digital cameras. Love them because I built my career with them (and Linhof too). My grandfather made many beautiful images with his Rolleiflex, and I wanted to get one in his memory. I could not afford the beautiful model you have. Instead, I have a Rolleiflex T in grey color. It is a nice camera, but I do not shoot it as often as possible. Your videos are awe-inspiring; thank you for creating them. I enjoy hearing you say: "cam er-ra." 😁
Thanks, thanks. I think the T mode is every bit as good as any other Rolleiflex. It actually may be the best value at the moment. Also, a bit simpler so less can go wrong!
I watched the 'Finding Vivian Maier' and decided I would acquire a Rolleiflex camera. While I didn't have it, I trained myself to shoot from the hip using the monitor display of a Samsung NX300 mirrorless camera. At first, it was hard to control it. And, by accident, as I was checking out some lenses in a store, the owner offered me a Rolleiflex camera with a big leather case that contained many original accessories near mint condition. Later, I found out it was a 2.8c. Then, I could check if my self training was good and it was! I only used one roll of film so far and one of the pictures is of my mom who recently passed away. The ability of the Hasselblad of allowing pictures with no haze while pointing at very bright objects gaves those wonderful pictures of the Earth on those memorable Apollo missions. Great video.
Both are excellent cameras. And finding a mint 2.8 Rolleiflex is an awesome thing! Congrats!
I have both. I love them incredibly.
My Rolleiflex is my primary shooter cuz how much quicker I am with that camera setup vs my Hassy. Def a factor when shooting a family party vs traveling
I agree. Rolleiflex is so fast and usable!
I'm just learning about the 'Haze' problem you mention when shooting into the sun with the Rollei. (I got a 3.5 F a few weeks ago). I really like this camera though.
Yeah, it is a lovely camera -- and you learn to live with the haze. :-) Congratulations on your new camera!
@@ShootOnFilm Cheers Ari.
@@ShootOnFilm Ari - Just FYI: I inspected the lens of my Rollei and saw that there was some internal haze, so I got it cleaned and so far, the photographs I get from it are much cleaner. Cheers.
Ari, this is an excellent comparison. Thank you!
Thanks thanks. Nice to hear!
I like the hazy flare! Each lens has its own signature. I embrace it.
I love the hazy flare from my Holga. I don't want it from all my cameras.
Agreed, Hasselblad wins hand down in most categories in my opinion too. I had two Hasselblad 500C/M myself before. However, Rolleiflex is a lovely beast, the leaf shutter is so quiet, even more quiet than the Hasselblad’s planar leaf shutter from my own experience, I used to sell both when I was working in a camera shop before. You won’t regret owning either one for sure, they are truly a masterpiece in all respects.
Excellent comparison, Mr. Ari, with his great experience in handling the two cameras. Well done. Thank you for recomendation Camera Store. Kind Regards from México.
Thank you thank you!!! Very nice to hear.
Very good practical comparison, but consider the Rollei SL66: More versatile than my 2.8F. Interchangeable lenses and film magazines. Focal-plane shutter, so no need to "buy" a shutter with each lens. Totally mechanical. But like the Hasselblad, it's big, heavy, needs a carrying case. You undoubtedly know the story about Hasselblad and Rollei agreeing not to compete, but after Viktor died, Rollei built the SL66.
Finally a camera comparison that makes sense! Well done!
A great comparison of great cameras!
I am calm about it because both of them are unattainable to me. In the early 1980s, I borrowed a Rolleicord camera for my street project while studying design at the Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts. It's a bit more simple and popular Rolleiflex TLR. I fell in love with the quality of that machine and understand that the Rolleiflex is even better. The Hasselblad was something out of space for me, although I saw individual pieces at professionals, but even our photography studio equipped with SLR 6x6 was "only" Pentacon SIX TL. Fortunately, in my professional work I was able to use a 35mm SLR camera and in the late 1980s and early 1990s it was the Praktica B100, an aperture priority automatic machine, which was enough for me. After that, I was just as happy to go digital because I had a nasty allergy to chemical reagents used in photography. Today I am slowly returning to medium format photography, but with a simple box camera (my first own camera) and folded ones with bellows - with great pleasure.
Great history! Pentacon SIX is actually a very nice camera!
Excellent video. Not so much a camera comparison as a demonstration of personal choice of the tool to realise ones creative vision. Brilliant!
Great review! I own a 500cm but have been longing/lusting after a Rolleiflex for some time now. This hasn’t talked me out of it 🙇♂️
Ha! This is a bottomless swamp:-)
I am a Rolleiflex user, never touched a Blad because of what you say about complexity. With my Rollei, I only think about the picture I want to take, no procedures. Great video indeed.
I miss photo opportunities when switching between lenses on my Hasselblad. :-)
@@ShootOnFilm With a non interchangeable lens I have the angle of my 3.5F & square format permanently in mind, no hesitation on available lenses and no back problem. This is the minimalist’ camera.
@@pkvideo354 That also is a good point. You look at your surroundings always knowing the focal length and then you learn to see the world through that lens even without looking at it through the view finder. I know what you mean and I agree totally.
@@ShootOnFilm I have to mention the sound. The noise of a Blad and his moving mirror is nothing to compare with the discreet clic of the Rolleiflex.
@@pkvideo354 but hey, what if you like the sound ;-)
Great review. Both great camera, I enjoy both of them. As a landscape and studio portrait shooter, Hasselblad as my work horse for more than 30 years.
Thank you. Another educational session. Excellent.
RS. Canada
Thanks!
The 500cm was once my dream camera. Sadly when I bought it from eBay many years ago, the mirror was dim and it wasn’t so fun to shoot with until I got myself a new bright 3D popping screen! Everything looks so yummy since then! I also have a Rolleicord VA which also captures lovely pics! I agree the weight of the cord is so much better for my shoulder than the blad. But I also have my fun with the blad. It has taken many lovely memorable pics I still look back at. Yes, I don’t need a flex as I’m happy with my cord
:-) It sounds like you're having fun. Excellent!
Don't forget the Rollei Mutars that increased our decreased the disk length. (0.7x and 1.5x). The results are excellent AND you can watch the picture whilst it's being taken, unlike th 'blad, where the viewing image vanishes, during the exposure. As per versatility, I would give the Rollei a mark of 4.
Re the flare - I don't find this an issue with the Schneider Xenotar but I do find it a slight issue with the Zeiss Planar. I use my Rolleiflex 2.8F with the Xenotar for outside work and the one with the Planar for indoor work.
Erg goede uitleg! Fijn om naar te zien.
Great comparison Ari. I have both a Hasselblad 500 and Rolleiflex 2.8. In fact, I inherited two Rolleiflexes. I am slightly, ever so slightly more partial to the Hasselblad. But you’ve encouraged me to spend more time with the Rolleiflex.
Very nice to hear! In my hands, they seem to take me to slightly different places and viewing angles. Which is good. Hasselblad -- to me -- is a bit more serious tool, in good and bad.
Well done on a great review! I have a Rollei 2.8F and would love a Hasselblad for ergonomics and all the differences you mentioned. I'm looking at the Rollei SL66 which in my mind is a combination of the two. Have you ever tried the Rollei Mutar extension lenses or Rollei pistol grip?
Thanks thanks. I have not tried other than Rolleinar lenses, but I tried the pistol grip. Not for me, though :-)
Fun Idea and very well thought out. I happen to agree, the rolleiflex is much more a “pick up and go” camera. I’ve never shot a hasselblad, but they appear to be large and bulky, not exactly what you want to take some quick snaps. Lack of lens options on the Rollei does work to its disadvantage though. One last thing, the Rollei draws eyeballs! People LOVE to ask about it when you’re shooting. It’s fun!
I agree. However, in some cases the fact that you CANNOT change lenses forces you to work a bit harder for the composition. And then, sometimes that yields to better results. IMHO.
Well said! Merry Christmas 🎁🎄
@@jcollins1305 you too!!!
Best review of these two legends, glad I subbed from the last Hasselblad/holga video
Thanks. Appreciated!!!
Thats true!
Thanks for the detailed explanation between the 2 with examples. Using specific examples i understand your explanation.
Thanks for your feedback. Glad if it helped.
This was fun to watch. Having had both systems it’s an interesting comparison. I just used them very differently. I agree the Zeiss 100mm is the best. Don’t have a Hasselblad any more, but my Rolleiflex f3.5 planar is maybe my all-time favorite camera. An absolutely amazing lens, so beautiful in style, a pleasure to work in my hands, and yes a truly solid build camera.
Indeed, excellent tools. And more and more, I seem to gravitate toward my Rolleiflex -- just like you!
No Contax 120mm? I liked the Rollei, but if I recall, the Yashica version had various lenses available from wider angle to "telephoto".
...that was a Mamiya. th-cam.com/video/ptLDYQzq87o/w-d-xo.htmlsi=8GwuQ4WtYJGIe7RF
@ShootOnFilm Yes, you are right. Our store used to sell all 3 brands and my memory failed.
When I did my photography apprenticeship in the 80s of last century, I did a lot of work with those Hasselblads. What I remember most however, is that all the time around every third of our bodies, lenses and magazines was away for repair for the one or other reason. Later I stayed away from Hasselblad for this reason. I don't have lots of experience with Rolleiflex, though.
And - actually, the Rolleiflex 2.8 is still made.
Thanks for you interesting feedback. The last Rolleiflex btw was made in 2014. :-)
Nice that someone use still use this cameras. I have a Nikon FE2 and F100 that I use very seldom. (not so much). Not to be critical, but two comments on Hasselblad. 1. The 2000 fc/m or 2003 f are maybe top of the line? Or if you want the Compur Shutter the 503 cx? 2. Hasselblad have now release a digital camera back, so you could convert your Hasselblad into a digital camera. It's compatible back to the 1000 f. Very impressive. Thanks anyway!! Or kiitos..
Thanks, thanks! You may be right about what is the top of the line in general. For me, 500c/m topped it, because later they just added stuff that I really don't need. The same goes for later Rolleiflexes. And about the digital backs, I briefly mention them here: th-cam.com/video/4q5ugi2mosY/w-d-xo.html
A very interesting view. Many thanks for this.
Awesome video thank you! One thing I’m struggling with about the Rollei is the perspective of the shot. I have a 3.5A and seems to have parallax compensation. But the pov of my final image still seems to be different from what I see in the finder. Any tips or experience with this?
Yes, a 3.5A has parallax compensation. In my experience, it is fairly accurate. Do you see it moving through the focusing glass when you focus the camera close?
@@ShootOnFilm yes I do see the frame shifting through the glass! I will pay more attention to it when framing. I am also noticing some of my images seem to be a tad soft, especially at infinity. I am only 10 rolls in on my rollei, so very new to medium format but really loving it. Do you think this is just some user error to work on? Or is it worth sending the cam in for a CLA in case things are out of alignment? I’m fairly confident I’m nailing focus in the viewfinder and often shooting around f5.6-8
Great review. Did you use the lens shade of the Rolleiflex?
Thanks. No. I know it would help in some cases but I don’t like it. Cannot use leather case with it. :-)
@@ShootOnFilm I just put it in my pocket. It´s light in not bulky. I would consider it as much as you use the Rolleiflex.
Thanks so much for this Ari, very helpful and great video
:-). Thanks thanks. And thanks for watching!!
This week I have seen a couple of pictures shot by Earl Moran, BW in the early 40 of a not yet populair Marilyn Monroe.
I was so overwhelmed with the microcontrast, the fall off of the focus, and sharpness, so I started an investigation of what camera has been used.
Based on the available camera's in that time I would put my money on a Rolleiflex F 2.8 80mm
So now I am making up my mind to purchase one (and looking for reviews on YT
Great review and this is a great help.
Thanks for sharing.
Thank you thank you. I believe that the fall off of the focus, indeed, is something really unique. Here is one of my pictures where I like that: instagram.com/p/CEiszsRHj24/?igshid=7n0oair79v1b
Still use my Rolleiflex 3.5E with the xenotar lense, love it
I am not too sure about this, but the 2.8F white face Rollei with newer coatings should have better flare control, very similar to the Hassie.
It is possible. Coating affect flare, among other things!
Such a professional review, thank you!
Thank you thank you. And you are welcome. :-)
Hey! Thanks for your awesome videos, very inspirational😊
also, I have a question about the camera. how to make multiple exposures on the Rolleiflex?
It depends on the model you have. But most of them gas a little lever next to the film advancing crank that rotates with the crack. There is a little arrow there push that in the direction of the arrow and you can rotate the crank backward. It engages the shutter without advancing the film.
@@ShootOnFilm it's 2.8d I will try. Thank you
I have both cameras and all he he says is true, great video!!!
:-) Congrats and thanks!!
I was just given a Rolleiflex 3.5. It has a Zeiss/Planar lens. It has a leather straps attached to the body and may be an automat. It has a light meter stationed on the focusing knob on the left side. Where can I find out more information on this relic? I have the urge to try photographing with it. thanks
Congrats!! I'm not sure what kind of information you are looking at? But this is a good place to start: rolleiclub.com/cameras/tlr/info/index.shtml
@@ShootOnFilm thanks. I started with a TLR in high school, although a mirrorless user, I miss the TLR.
Excellent comparison. Many thanks. My taste sees me preferring the Yashica!
Love the video! Did you ever consider or try the Rolleiflex SL66? I've been using it of a while now and I absolutely adore this system! I always wanted a Hasselblad but saw some reviews of the SL66 and got a great offer and got it.
Nailed it. No way Hassy can compete :)
My Rolleicord Vb has the same issue as the Rolleiflex. Actually I have had some good results from the Holga 120 for direct sunlight into the lens. I’m looking at a Mamiya 220 with the 55mm wide angle lens. I have a feeling it might have the same issue as my Rolleicord in direct sunlight. Do you think the issue of direct sunlight is common among all TLR cameras?
I don't know. It should not have anything to do with having two lenses. It is just a characteristic of a lens. And Rolleicord and Rolleiflex are very very similar!
@@ShootOnFilm I found a very nice C220 with the wide angle included so I think I will buy it. It’s potentially an inexpensive wide angle camera for me since the Hasselblad super wide is out of my price range. It will be interesting to test out the Mamiya. With film camera prices go up every day, I can always sell the Mamiya if it doesn’t work out for me. I don’t think a person can go wrong buying a very good quality film camera at a reasonable price. As you have said, the digital cameras will go down in price but the good film cameras will go up. They aren’t making them anymore. At least not yet 🙂
Hieno vertailu, kiitos siitä. Jos pitää valita vain yksi systeemi niin kumman ottaisit?
Jos ajatellaan tuota vertailtua settiä vaikkapa tuolla yhdellä linssillä ja vaikka parilla eri perällä, niin Rolleiflexin. Mutta jos ajatellaan, että lisätään siihen sitten vaikka 50mm Distagon ja vaikka 250 mm päälle, niin siitten Hasselblad. Mutta sitten tulee hintakysymys vastaan .... :-)
@@ShootOnFilm niinpä, mutta kyllä Hasselilla pidemmälle pääsee, Rolleiflexiä kunnioittaen, on todettava. 60-luvulla Rolleiflexillä vielä elätti perheen, sen jälkeen taisi Hasselblad ajaa ohi. Luultavasti Neil Amstrong vaikutti vahvasti tähän?
Wow! Great review. Really great. The one thing you did not talk about was ability to compose looking at the screen. When I used my fathers Rollei in the 1960s it was very dark. The slr cameras were much easier to use. Maybe the high end Rolleis have bright finders...
Again , a great review. Personally, I find the Fuji gfx more easily to use Abx yeh had many of the things I loved about the Pentax 67. I realize we are talking apples, oranges and grapes here but one of the issues of film cameras is that over their life they are actually MUCH more expensive than film. Sad but true.
Still if I were to back to rigid body film I’d want a Rollei for portraits and street and a Hasselblad for everything else. The Rollei is a unforgettable magical camera!!
Thanks thanks! Yeah, the beauty of film cameras is that they are all very different!
Thank you Ari. Might as well own them both right. I never understood or noticed about the sun artifacts with the Hasselblad, vs. the Rollieflex very interesting.
Excellent comparison. I've used and owned both. Currently I also prefer the Rolleiflex. Mainly for its simplicity. Easier for me to grab and go.
So then we agree :-). Are we just being lazy?
@@ShootOnFilm - partly, but I have dozens of cameras and each one makes me feel a certain way when I use them. The Rolleis and the Leicas feel extra special in my hands. So maybe more emotional than lazy.
@@qnetx I agree!!! The beauty of analog photography is that each different camera affects you and your work. I believe in a very visible way. I made a short rant about that, too: th-cam.com/video/lSDv3svOpa4/w-d-xo.html
love the hassy but I don’t use it anymore outside without tripod: 1) mirror shack: you need to retract it and so you took picture blind.
2) precision of the focus: hassy are nightmare….and this is due to mirror and geometry. plus the focus screen: old dark one are more easier to focus than the bright accumate. 3) dark miror: you don’t see what you rake as the mirror stay up when you shoot. 4) weight and noise: hassy are not for street at all. 5) price: you want a rolleiflex? buy a rolleicord for 200€ and you get the exact same quality and more versatility….but this is a secret.
I have a cord and it shoots beautiful pics!
A nice review from a professional, Sir. Well done. I own both. Shooting only B/W. Still doing my best to obtain the best result, experiencing I’m still not a professional ;-) Belgian greetings to Finland. Nice you mentioned Kamerastore. A way for us to find reliable sources. Have a nice weekend.
Thanks. Appreciated. :-)
I have both and i totally agree with this analysis. Suppose you simply want to outside and take some innocent pictures. Suppose you are kind of tired. If you own a Hasselblad there is a bigger chance you give up than if you own a Rollei. That counts immensely
Very well said. Hasselblad is great, but you really need to be intentional with it!
@@ShootOnFilm that said, i would never sell mine. I have one Hassel and 5 Rollei.
@@zarrir that’s an excellent start!!
Viewing this video and reading some comments I just had to add my thoughts. As a commercial photographer, Hasselblad wins the contest. As a street photographer, Rollei comes in first. Actually as you say, "Apples and oranges,"--comparing the two cannot be done seriously without including the photographic situation and, of course, the singular peculiarities of the photographer. I will say that in my studio and on location, the Hasselblad and my large format cameras were the backbone of the shop. Oh and perhaps you forgot the shutter/mirror sound of the Blad against the shutter of the Rollei. And I found that Rollei shutters seemed to be more prone to sticking.
Great! I also have a 2.8F & a 500cm- it’s hard to pick one over the other, but I also prefer the Rollei, but just barely. I only recently got my 500cm though- I love it, but the Rollei is just more fun to use, even though I love switching between lenses with the Hasselblad.
:-). It is a close call!
02:50 So, that's um, Hassle Versatility Blad . Right?
*What's the difference between Rolleiflex 2.8F & Rolleiflex 2.8E?*
This gives you a good summary: camera-wiki.org/wiki/Rolleiflex_2.8_series#Rolleiflex_2.8F
So, for example:
-Lighmeter system (when present): coupled, Selenium photo element, meter in the Focus knob
-Coupled Depth of Field indicator.
-Removable finder hood
I am lucky enough to own a Rolleiflex 2.8c and I think it is one of the greatest cameras ever made, even now, because there aren't many sensors as big as true medium format. You forgot to mention that the Rolleiflex has another advantage. Most people will use it with the case, and when you flip open the case to take a picture, the red velvet inside appears and hangs below the camera. This red velvet lure, plus the the beautiful camera itself, makes people unable to resist posing for a photo 😂
Very good point. A Rolleiflex really interests people a lot!
What about comparing to the Rolleiflex SL66?
I have a 503CW and a Rolleiflex 3.5F and I don't see a way to compare them. Each one is superb in their clearly defined lanes. The nimble and quiet Rolleiflex is great for street and cityscapes, and the heavier Hasselblad with interchangeable backs is perfect on sticks for landscapes. Both are 10 in my opinion.
:-) There is always a way to compare!
Hasselblad lenses are also made by Schneider; the Varigon 1 : 5,6 140 -280 mm Zoom
There are Hasselblad Zeiss Planar and Sonnar optics with automatic light exposure.
I can mount any optic brand to a Hasselblad body: Goerz, Schneider, Laack, Boyer,
Meyer, Fuji, Berthiot, Rodenstock, Ektar, Kilfitt, Taylot Taylor&Hobson etc.
I mount a Hasselblad to any View Camera 6 x 9 and 4 x 5.
The Hasselblad is a Puch Skyrider; 3 speed gear.
The Rolleiflex is a Puch Maxi; no gear.
Older Hasselblada, yes, with curtain shutters. But for the 500 series and up, you need optics with shutters.
You did not understand me..
Is framing harder with the twin lens?
No, i don't think there is any difference.
Thank you I learnt a lot. I would say that the hassleblad would be the better studio camera. In a demanding professional shoot being able to change film backs ect.
well I own 3 hasselblads and I am crazy in love with them. But this video pushed me to buy Rolleiflex 2.8gx
:-). I’m really sorry. -- just kidding. Congrats!!!
Not to mention how quiet the Rolleiflex shutter is without a mirror that flips, allowing for better hand held images...
That is a very good point I forgot to emphasize. Hasselblad sounds like a garage door. And rolleiflex goes easily to 1/30 handheld ...
I’ve always been a user of Hasselblad when you pay $1500 for a lens 150mm you’re expected to be great , and I have images to prove it! Thanks for the video!
:-). They may be overpriced but they sure perform!
That DTLA shot is lush
A good comparison which you explained so well (I could see your didactic training). My handheld kit is generally Rollei and my bag always has a Rolleiflex 3:5 (xenotar) and a Rolleiwide or a SWC-M depending on subject and perspective. The normal lens for familiar perspective and a wide lens to perform its magic. I’ve used a lot of Hasselblad cameras and lenses and they’re great (I like the 50 and 100 mm lenses). So, two competing kits might look like a Rolleiflex 2.8F and a Rolleiwide vs. a Hasselblad with an 80/2.8 or 100/3.5 and 50/4. I find it more convenient and safer just to grab dedicated lens cameras.rather than to change lenses on the fly. There must be many cheaper ways to go but I already have the cameras. The point is to make photographs. I’m an inveterate darkroom rat.
Haa. Yes the gear is more than a tool. I believe that enjoyable tools show in the results. They make better photos.
Love the Hasselblad 500 C/M. Agree with all the points here and most of your rating. One thing I don't like is the often present pentagonal bokeh with Hasselblad Zeiss lenses. Because the lenses have a limited number of aperture blades. Light leaks, system jamming etc are things I all experienced. Prices for the Rolleiflex have gone through the roof for a fixed lens system even more so than the 500 C/M. Just the option to change lenses makes the Hassy much more suitable for my style. I also found that the Hasselblad-Zeiss lenses are very flare-controlled and maintaining the high contrast. Great photo examples! One other advantage of the Hasselblad system is that you can potentially add a digital back.
Thanks, thanks. Yeah, Hasselblad certainly is more versatile.
Zeiss lenses are incredible, but imho Schneider lenses are often slightly better, and with Rollei you often have the possibility of use both Schneider and Zeiss
The main difference is that with the Rollei you can watch your subject right through the exposure. Handy for portraits to avoid people with their eyes closed because they blinked when the mirror on the Blad was up.
The Rollei cameras were the mainstay of wedding, portrait and press photographers back in the 1950s and1960s. Rolleicords were often used too.
Leica rangefinder cameras were used for the same reasons as the Rollei.
Then in the 1970s it was 35mm
Slrs that blew everything away for press. Nikon forr war, Canon for sport and Pentax for compactness.
Yes. There is a certain finesse in Rollei that is not found in a Hasselblad.
Use of additional lenses? The Rollei can join the party to an extent. Didn't mention the Rollei (Zeis) Mutar 1.5 and the .7. Both produce amazing results from the camera loaded with 120. Same user 'effort' to change out hardware. And neither will break the bank as there is not a shutter mechanism.
Still use and love my Mamiya RZ 67 Mk II. A bit bulky, but excellent results.
As an experienced user of high end medium format film cameras I'd like your opinion on the rollei 6008 src1000. I bought a mint example with a PQS 90mm Planar lens which let's me shoot with flash sync up to 1000th sec.
Many thanks for your thoughtful advice accompanied with such a diverse taste in music.
Well done!
Rich, Unfortunately, all I've done with a Rollei 6008 is that I've held one in my hand and really liked the way it felt. Seems like a very nice camera. But there is no way I can provide my opinion on it because I have not really used it. Congrats, though. It is one of those cameras that I also would like to own!!
Maybe you could help me with another conundrum, which item would you buy for the rollei 6008.
A 90 degree prism to change the viewing angle or a wide angle lens to play with perspective and emphasis it..
Greetings to you and your musical hound.
@@sailingandpaintingtheworld538 I would definitely go with the lens. But it is my personal preference. I use eye glasses and don’t like prisms. I’m a fan of the standard “looking down” view finder.
Thanks for the help. Keep up the good work
By the way, I bought the carl zeiss f4 40mm Distagon. |m waiting for it to be delivered.
I realize this is an older video, but I wanted to say that, based on owning and using both cameras, I broadly agree with your assessment. That said, I love the older look of the images from my Planar 3.5 F Rollei--also the bokeh from the rounded shutter blades. The images from the Hasselblad 80mm, T* coated, are not quite as pleasing to me. I did wondered if you would mention the flare issue--at least my Rollei does not like being pointed toward the sun. On the usability front, I think you might have mentioned weight. Most often I use my 501 C on a tripod. When I want a camera for walking around, I choose the Rollei. Thanks for the informative vids.
I do not like range finder cameras and I do not like twin lens cameras. I do like Single Lens Reflex Cameras ! I worked with Hasselblad Cameras for 16 years, both as a professional photographer and as a hobby photographer, I do not like the old 500 C and 500 C/M Hasselblad Cameras, because I do a lot of Macro and Tele Lens photography and the upper of the image in the viewfinder gets dark because the mirror are too short. I loved my Hasselblad 2000 FC because you can use both Lenses with built-in shutter and Lenses without shutter. I think the very best Hasselblad Lenses are Zeiss Distagon 50mm 2.8, Zeiss Planar 110mm 2.0, Zeiss Macro Planar 120mm 4.0, Zeiss Tele Tessar 350mm 4.0 and Zeiss Mutar 2x, I very often used the Mutar 2x with the Planar 110mm 2.0 which are a great combination.
"image in the viewfinder gets dark because the mirror are too short". And I didin't know that is the reason why!! Thanks for this. So now I know!! :-)
Been shooting my Hasselblad 503 for about 5 years now. For me it is darn near perfect. Sometimes I do miss the bellows focusing on my old Mamiya RB67 though.
Yeah, bellows add flexibility --- but hey, how about them extension rings?
@@ShootOnFilm I picked up the 120mm Makro Planar and the three extension tube set. They took care of my close focusing needs 👍🏻
As a working professional there is no comparison between a blad and the rollie. If I was going on holiday the rollie is an awesome camera - as a professional on a shoot I would only use the blad as my 90's blad still uses either my phase one back or leaf back - both of these are still commercially relevant. The real question is do you want a hobby camera or a commercial shooter.
I have both and hasselblad is difficult to carry is more like a studio camera. The cassette changing is not that easy due to light leaks and frame distance issues . The rollefleix has parallax issues since you view the frame through another lens. For TLR I reccomend Mamiya c330 it is cheap has interchangeble lenses has macro cpabilities out of the box and I can t see any differnece in picture quality vs hasselblad
Mamiya's are excellent. I own a C220. The major issue with Mamiya's for me is the lack of an easy dept-of-field indicator as found in Hasselblad and Rolleiflex. I use that in probably 60% of my shots and do not focus through the screen.
He reminds me of Walter White from Breaking Bad! Nevertheless, great review!!! Made me decide which one to get :)
Are these books in the background glued together? How come they don’t fall down?
It is a miracle!
I love them both but for me the Hasselblad 500CM is the king. That shutter sound is the most beautiful.
I love being able to switch lenses and film backs.
yeah, and that is an important point: it all depends on your personal preferences!
Aren't digital backs available for these as well? And if so, are they worth checking out?
Helas, you did not understand me.
I mount lenses of different brands on my Hasselblad 500 C/M.
The lenses have a focus of 500 mm or even longer and have a leaf shutter.
What really annoys me about hasselblad is you need fast shuttercspeed at least125th of a second,handheld , to avoid camera shake due to mirrorslap.
Excellent review. Thanks
Thanks Thanks!!!
I love your videos, but it clearly shows your personal preference for Rolleiflex. You forgot to say that every Hasselblad can turn into a 6x4.5 camera capable of taking as many as 16 exposures, with the dedicated back. Not to mention that the Hasselblad accessories range is almost ENDLESS. I would say that this is a decisive superiority :) however your videos are great, I love them.
Thanks, thanks!! It is true Hasselblad is a full ecosystem. And that's what makes it great!
Mycket intressant video. Tack! Jag ska precis börja lära mig använda en Hasselblad 503CW.
My next collection will be a Hasselblad! Just looking for a better one! Thanks!
Hasselblads are great!!!
Yes I know and looking for a 500cm as my next medium format collection!
Great review
This is a very thoughtful in deph comparison of both systems and beautiful images. I would add my 2 cents.
The necessity to do maintenance of multiple shutters also might be seen as a redundancy, though lenses alone for blad costs a lot. Switching of backs is a very neat feature if you on a shooting scene by scene with different films (ISO or color/b@w).
Native focusing screens of hasselblad are noticebly brighter, for rolleiflex I needed a custom focusing screen the originsl was too dim for my eyes. Hasselblad lenses T* coating in my experience are indeed more flare resistant and usually contrast in same condition is higher (I shoot mostly in color).
With Rolleiflex I have a trouble of protecting both lenses with glas at the same time, know only filters on taking lens not a viewing one.
Rolleiflex have an silent shutter and cause also no shock (mirror lock up feature doesn't equal it on hasselblad). I know I can go with longer shutter speed handheld with Rolleiflex. Rolleiflex doesn' need seals and I have never experianced light leakage as on Blad. Also I have never had an overlaping of exposures on Rolleiflex with Hasselblad's filmback it might be an issue over time (could be fixed though).
All in all two beautiful cameras. I enjoy shooting Rolleiflex more, I do prefer image rendering of my 3.5 planar more to all of Hasselblad's.
People also look more relaxed when being photographed with Rolleiflex and mine camera is so compact that I can put in in a back up toghetr with my 35mm setting easily. But I would give it to Hasselblad that it can do what Rolleiflex cannot.
And still if I would pick only one film camera, then it would be my trusty canon eos3, 35mm:)
Excellent additions!! Thanks!
Amazing video, so informative, thank you
Thanks!
Can I put it to you that the 80mm Rolleiflex lens is equivalent to a 35mm (actually 34mm) lens in the 35mm format ? Duplicating the same view from the same spot to achieve the same print, you need a 35mm lens. The 50mm lens will severely crop the top of the image. ATB.
:-) I respectfully disagree. images.app.goo.gl/pDtyvzyK9HEpuzTe9
A chart is not of much use if it's wrong. Maybe if you tried it, or iced a focal length calculator for the angle on the short side of the 35mm frame, you'd change your opinion based on fact. To be clear, I'm stating that to get the exact content of a 6x6 frame onto a 35mm frame from the same position only with a 35mm lens.
@@Super.Quasar I still disagree with this based on my own experience, comparing side to side and just... well.. mathematics. Here is more from others:
This is very good from Hasselbad:
www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWequifoc.aspx
As we can see, it depends because we are comparing different aspect ratios. Still ....
Also, eg:
www.anatomyfilms.com/medium-format-lens-vs-35mm-lens/
Of course, one of our challenges here is that medium format comes in many shapes and forms. If we compare regular 35mm and its aspect ratio 3:2 to a standard same-shaped medium format (like my Moskva I introduced..) the right medium size film comparison is 9:6. It is the same aspect ratio and direction. Then the numbers go even further, meaning that a 50mm (normal lens) in a regular 35 mm / full sensor is comparable to about 110mm.
in 6x6 the only sensible comparison really is on the horizontal angle which equals 50mm in full sensor == 80 in medium format 6x6 cm.
...I love my Rolleiflex 3,5 C (Xenotar) and my K4a (Tessar). In this Filmformat is enough place/space for cropping, so In don't need a telelens...In this special case of direct sunlight I love to use my rolleiflex k4a with the Tessar. It has only 3 lensgroups and a 10 piece-Aperture. So I have a wonderful sun-star and much less flare/lens-reflections.
I'm also not a fan of a tele, but sometimes wider is nice.
Build quality of both is first rate. With the possible exception of Alpa I don't think any other camera maker achieved higher tolerancing. That said-I disagree that a Rolleiflex is "built like a tank". They are a brilliant precision instrument but can certainly be damaged by careless handling or abuse. Backs can be bent easily when changing films, the lens mounting is vulnerable to alignment problems from impact-the gleittplätchen at the front of each cam follower may collapse after a shunt, and re-setting parallelism to factory specifications (plus/minus 0.05mm across diagonal lens board corners, whilst not difficult, per se, is nevertheless tedious and potentially time consuming. Having carried out this task on several occasions, I speak from experience.
I adore both my own 500C/M and my various Rollei TLRs immensely and strive to keep them in fine condition for future generations of photographers after I am dead. But if I had to drop one, it would without a doubt be the Hasselblad-one can take a hit, better than a Rollei.
It's worth noting that whilst the Rolleiflex lenses cannot be changed, per se, the wide and tele Mutars available were of extremely high quality and usable with negligible loss of image quality.
Thanks for an interesting review. I enjoyed it, found it refreshingly down to Earth and free of hype. Didn't agree with all your points, obviously, but did find myself in agreement with much of what you said.
Best Regards,
Brett
Thanks. Very valuable feedback. And I actually agree with you on the tank comparison. With the leather cover a flex is well protected and survives even a drop but without .....
Well, yes one has to be careful when changing film with a Rollei and if you should happen to have a flash unit screwed on it !!...forget it ! But I have shot hundreds of rolls with my Rollei ( in Weddings environments) and never had any damages.
It is still beautiful after some 65 years in my possession ( 20-30 years of use)
The "built like a tank" expression is very worn out anyway. Every other camera review compares cameras that have some heft to it to tanks. It's just like you put it, they're precision instruments. And they're both very well built. Take good care of them.
Keep in mind that Hassys were a mainstay of commercial photographers for decades and Rollei TLRs were not.
From the point of view of a commercial photographer, the Rollei TLR has nearly zero usability. Proofing with Polaroid was a big reason Hassys were popular and a must to set lighting and show previews to the art director/clent.
Having an assistant feed you backs with fresh film allowed for continuous shooting. And being able to change quickly between b/w and chrome or use a different film type (e.g. daylight vs. tungsten) or different speed film was mandatory.
FWIW I switched to the Rollei 6006 because Hassys were too slow for me. I had 6 lenses 40 to 350, 2 bodies and 6 film backs and needed them all.
Precisely focusing any of those 6x6 cameras (e.g. on eyes of a moving model) was not easy. Many missed shots. I had the eyelevel prisms, smokestacks too. Special brighter screens helped when they became available.
As for Rollei TLR...very slow camera handheld because the focus is on the left and the film winding is on the right. You have to switch hands on every shot if your focus is changing. And you have to remove it from the tripod after 12 shots, then slowly change film instead of popping on a fresh back.
Well Rolleiflex was widely used by press photographers, reporters and all such professionals who needed reliable high quality cameras.
If it was good enough for Richard Avedon and plenty of other well known photographers it's good enough for me 😊.
Did you consider comparing apples with apples? The Rollei SL-66 'system' - similar Single lens reflex system - easily detachable lenses, variety of film back options, variety of viewfinder options... etc... would be the winner in this comparison test. It has way better engineering, far better features than the Hassy.... Nevermind, it is better that the SL-66 lies undiscovered and eclipsed by the mirror/shutter in a box Hassleblad - that way when I want to expand my lens collection - prices are reflected thus.
:-) There is no shutter in a box in a Hasselblad
Awesome video thanks. I wanted a blad back in the day for my wedding work no way was I paying the amount wanted so went with the Bronica ETRSi used it then and use it now love it to bits. If forced Id take the rollei over the blab if for nothing else than it looks so much cooler 😂📷. New sub for ya mate regards Paul
Thanks, Paul!! See you around!
as a staff professional photographer at Allied signal Hasselbad was the only camera we used! to do the job. but when I first stared there the boss had Rolleis we did shot photos for the engineer's of test equipment for aerospace ( an amazing photo dept. ) eventually the Rollei's were never used macro photography portraits products Rollei wasn't the tool. in time because of digital The Hasselblad wasn't doing the job either and over time Hasselbled was collecting dust for a (pro) But now because the resurgent of the trendy film community Hassies have become popular once again . I do have a Rollie because they are so beautiful 3.5 and I just got a Mamiya 6x4 pro super sharp. Anyway I don't think I'd want another Hasselblad I used them all 38mm 40 mm 50mm 60mm 120mm was a excellent wedding camera in the day A beautiful.
My local camera shop has a Rolleiflex 2.8 in almost new condition. Unfortunately they want $4,000.00 for it.