Hello. I enjoyed your video quite a bit. As an older person, I was quite active in both professional and recreational photography back when both of these cameras were popular as everyday photographic tools. You have discovered by your actual use what we all pretty much knew back then, and that is that the Hasselblad was the obvious choice for a professional whose main concern was earning money with the camera, while the Rolleiflex was sought after by enthusiasts seeking a good field camera that was great for general use, but limited in its flexibility. The first Rollei TLR camera came to market in 1929, so it is a somewhat older design than the Hasselblad, which was introduced in 1948. Back in the day, the Rolleiflex was much less expensive and much more common in amateur hands than the Hasselblad, which was considered far too expensive for hobby use by most people. But the typical professional really needed what it offered, which was ultimate flexibility. There were certain types of photography that demanded the Hasselblad's through the lens viewing and more precise focusing, such as macro work and product photography. On the other hand, nobody was willing to haul a big Hasselblad up the side of a mountain to shoot scenics. The Rolleiflex was also considered a great camera for the photojournalists of the day, because it was quite small compared to the 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras used by the newspaper guys. Ultimately though, the 35mm SLR took over that usage, when the Nikon F series became popular for press use. I do think you might be overstating the difficulty of using the Hasselblad just a bit, probably because you have used it only part-time as a hobbyist. Those of us who used them for a living were well aware of certain things you simply did not do with them, like poking around the back of the camera while the film back was off. The jamming issue was quite common among new people, but no more concerning to us than having one of your shoe laces coming untied, because we all knew how to fix it with a simple procedure. After a full week in the studio working with one, you simply didn't jam your camera again. In addition, the camera body was the cheapest part of the Hasselblad system, and most of us had more than one, just in case. As for loading film, as a young apprentice to a professional photographer, I was forced to practice loading the film backs until I felt I could do it in my sleep. Difficult at first, then it becomes second nature. Finally, as to focusing errors, the 500 C/M changed all that with interchangeable screens (some 500 C's got them as well) that made them quite easy to focus very precisely. A lot of us used a focus magnifier anyway, and that helped too. And of course, the lenses were fantastic. The final point I'd like to make is that if something broke on your Hasselblad, you only had to replace the broken component, not the whole camera, and a repair network existed where you could get a Hassy repaired (with a loaner in the meantime) almost anywhere in the world. Such was not the case with your Rollei. As for the Rolleiflex, I believe it is was the finest 6x6 field camera made of its day. It was not uncommon to see professionals who shot with Hasselblad on the job owning the Rollei for personal use as well. This would be roughly the same as a pro these days who uses a Nikon D5 or a D810 to make his living, but on his own time shoots a Fuji X100F. As for image quality, it may interest you to know that the f3.5 Planar lens on the Rolleiflex was a less expensive "middle of the road" lens option. The f2.8 Planar on the more expensive Rollei is the full equal of the 2.8 Planar on the Hasselblad, in my experience, although the f3.5 Planar is quite good when stopped down a bit. The Tessar lens was the "budget" option, but was still pretty decent by f5.6 as well. I do think you made the right choice for your style of photography. The Hassy is more at home on a tripod, whereas the Rollei is meant to be hung on your neck and taken out into the field. As you said, "apples and oranges". Happy shooting!
Thanks for sharing. Reminds me of the old days being a photo assistant. Loading and unloading film magazines were part of our job. We even timed ourselves how fast we could unload a film and load a new roll.
Tom Crawford Thank you so much for sharing! I'm a young man who missed the film era and was always puzzled by the different designs of Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and your article helped me understand their division of labor and purpose
I've owned Hasselblads since the earliest focal plane model with Kodak Ektar lenses(!) to the 500CM and I prefer Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3.5F models for all-around use - as you so eloquently point out. Either camera offers a lifetime of utility with minimum fuss and expense. However, for ultimate resolution for big enlargements I use my Intrepid 4x5 which weighs less than the Rollei and offers 3.6X the film area. Cost and slowness of operation impinge, so the field camera only comes out when I feel an Ansel Adams attack coming on! I enjoy your accurate observations and enthusiasm.
As another old time photographer it is nice seeing some TLR love. In the choice presented here I would choose the system camera every time for the lens versatility, but I have to admit that the best photographs I ever took were on TLR. These days they are generally an ignored footnote in history, not to be considered because of the fixed lens (apart from Mamiya that is) but there is; a reason wedding and travel pro photographers back then used TLR over Hasselblad and this video conveys a lot of why that was so. A fixed lens is a constraint and photographs taken in those conditions actually benefit from having to think more about how to get the most out of the constrained camera. The best piece of photographic equipment any of us will ever use is located between our ears :)
That's what I did, too, and have no intention of selling either, unless I decide I'd rather the 2.8f instead of the 3.5. But, I'll never sell the Hasselblad 500 cm
@@jeremoe1 I also bought both (Hassy 500c/m and Rollei 2.8E Planar) but only because the Hassy came to me cheap. I was going to re-sell one of them, but my god I love both. Both such beautiful machines, and the Hassy's flexibility (lenses, interchangeable backs) means I really don't want to part with it. And yes, I'm stupid enough to hike around cities with a spare lens and back because basically I'm a masochist.
Peter on your 501 the split focusing screen has to be vertically from your point of view not horizontally.. that is so so you can look at the split prism with both eyes otherwise its very tricky to focus as you have to always find an angle for one eye.. Have good one Martin
I really enjoyed your video, and I have to agree with you that Hasselblad is a little clumbesome to use! I also have a Rollei, and it's much easier to operate. The Blad is such a beautiful piece of machinery. I think I will just keep it. Thanks, Paul Conway
And if the Rollei and the Blad had a child it would be the Rolleiflex SL66. I used the TLR and own a couple of blads but always liked the Rollei SL66...
Really appreciate for sharing such comprehensive reviews of those two beautiful camera. I have a rolleiflex 2.8F and wondering that is hasselblad necessary for me. For my using Rolleiflex is the best 120 camera for me.
Interesting video and opinions. While I have not used a Rolleiflex, and therefore have no basis for a first hand comparison, I am a huge fan of my Hasselblad 500cm and don't see myself ever selling it. In my opinion, image quality ranks as the #1 feature. After all, a high quality image is the goal of most photographers. The Zeiss lenses are spectacular, even at f/2.8 as you mentioned, and even with use of extension tube for close up focus. The other selling point for me was it's modular design. I mostly shoot with a 60mm lens, however being able to swap in an 80mm f/2.8 or an 150mm to compress a scene has allowed me to capture scenes I wouldn't have been able to with a fixed system. Same deal with the interchangeable backs. I often carried two, one with 160 color negative, and one with 400 b/w. At times I will carry a third that is loaded with slide film or 400 pushed to 1600 for low light. Again, this has allowed me incredible flexibility while shooting 120 film and was a big factor in my purchase. Personally I love the "clomp" of the shutter, and don't even notice the flipped viewfinder anymore. In a very quiet space I can see the appeal of the quiet operating Rollei however. The weight can be an issue, but I disagree that this is just a studio camera. I have taken it on multi day backpacking trips as well as a two week sailing trip....it's a bit cumbersome, but worth the weight for the quality/shooting options. Again, overall a great look at two nice cameras. To each their own, but for me the quality and flexibility of a Hasselblad is hard to beat. No matter, the camera, the important thing is making images and enjoying photography. If you would like to view some images of my work with a Hasselblad, i have them posted within a Flickr account. www.flickr.com/photos/aaron_bieleck/
I’ve got both and I’m keeping both. Whenever I get the urge to get a 2.8 rolleiflex I remind myself I like the smaller size of the 3.5 . I then take out my hasselblad and shoot a roll.
Both are great fantastic cameras, each for different purposes...I would love to have both, the Rollei for street photography, and the HB for landscape and studio work...Nicely done video :)
Quite an excellent comparison. I’ve shot both as well, and came to the same conclusion as yourself. Although I had my 1st Rollei long before the Hassy. I now own 3 Rollei TLRs, and a Rollei 35 rangefinder. You are correct, the Rolleiflex is much easier and unobtrusive than the Hasselblad. I have a 1945 75mm 3.5 Tessar, 1951 75mm 3.5 Planar, and 1953 2.8 Xenotar. Each has their own “look”, and bokeh (the difference from near to far), and get used for different projects. Thanks for taking the time to do this, I’m now a new subscriber, and look forward to more great vlogs from you.
There is a black C on the CF* lens that will give you a true focus reading of what the picture will look like. Hasselblad invented this kind of focusing system and it’s clear that you don’t fully understand your camera as everything beyond the wait is a result of this.
The comparison was honest and sincere Peter . I have rolleiflex 2.8F. the focus is fast to determine and the images taken with f / 2.8 even seen by the viewfinder with weak light were very well defined photographs. Take care. All the Best.
I always preferred the Schneider Xenotar. My boss liked the Planar. Neither of us liked the Leica m2 we had or the Hasselblad we tried. I still have the Rolleicord Va that was our spare camera in the 1960s studio we had. I just had a cla on it as the slow speeds were sticky. Good for another 60 years now.
I have both, I keep the Hasselblad and sold the Rolleiflex for the image quality. For fairness, you should compare Hasselblad with Rolleiflex 6008 series.
Hello! awesome comparison! i have both cameras and i tend to agree with you with all the points except the one about loading the film: as other 6x6 cameras, loading is always a bit of a "ritual" but when you take the time to follow the procedure and the more you load the easiest it gets :) but i understand that on the Rolleiflex, the loading is more straight forward! i will give you a lot of credibility for stating that the Hasselblad is more a studio camera which it is because i rarely and sadly take it in the streets or on vacations. i tend to bring it for either portrait shoots or fashion photography! once again, very well done comparison!
I agree due to the difficult focussing of the Hasselblad. I have in addition two Mamiya's a RZ67 pro and a 645 Super, where focussing is much easier. If you know the heavy Mamiya RZ67 than you would judge the Hasselblad as the easier to handle camera. Because I like to switch film and lenses during shooting the Haselblad is the right one for me. As you said there is no right or wrong. Thx for your thoughts.
Perfect comparison. He modular type medium format is not really ergonomic to hold! But for me it feel more solid than the TLR. At the end of the day, it is a metter of preference! More power!
I own both of these cameras, in fact a Hasselblad 500CM and a Rolleiflex 3,5 T (and a Baby Rollei 4x4 but it's difficult to find 127 rolls now), so a bit older than these. I don't use them the same way. The Rollei is very good for portraits in the street, people like it, I think they like the way you have to bend over to take the picture, I'd say its more friendly than cameras you have to hold in front of your face like 35mm, and there is such a soft "clic" when you expose it doesn't affect the model. People are curious about it and they almost never refuse to be photographed with it when you ask. The Rollei is ready to shoot, hanging in position on your chest (or belly..), with a little practice you can shoot and nobody will notice. The image quality is very good, not as sharp as the Hasselblad, but it is great even at full aperture, the best are f8 and f11 on mine. Focusing is very easy, you can reach both ends of the focusing limits with one move of you fingers. The Hasselblad is too big for that and too noisy, you have to hold it firmly in position, its balance is not obvious, also focus is not as easy as it is with the Rollei. I use it for landscapes or portrait too but mainly with people I know, or in studio and for macro-photography too. The image quality is exceptional, at any aperture, with any lens, I've got the 80mm 2.8, a 50mm f4 (great for lanscape) and a 250mm f5.6 (not very useful, needs a tripod). I love both of them, not for the same reasons.
Thank you for this video. I've been considering buying a Hasselblad 500-series camera system. I think I understand your comparative points to be: (1) for ease of use and quality of build, the Rolleiflex is a better camera for you, and (2) for a slight edge in image quality for and flexibility, the Hasselblad might be better. You've given me alternatives to consider. I trust your observations and appreciate that you've given me options. Good luck and good shooting.
I have been using a Hasselblad 500C till the mid '80s and in many cases I mounted a Zeiss Distagon 50 mm lens for indoor and architecture photography. The interchangeable lens was a plus for that camera.
Thank you for demonstrating the appeal of the Rollei TLR camera for your preferred use. I should mention the handholding complaints might not be applicable to the 500CM when it is in use, because the assumption is that the camera would be mounted on a tripod with a shutter release cord, both outdoors and indoors. The interchangeable lenses are probably the greatest advantage for the V-system over the Rollei TLR, with interchangeable backs as the second greatest strength (e.g. switching between B&W negatives and E6 positive films as desired). Although it is only an opinion, 50/60mm & 150mm lenses were more ideal than the standard 80mm lens, for the landscape scenes I frequently photographed. Lastly, you can raise the mirror for each photo if you choose to do so with the V-system on the camera body. Raising the mirror on a tripod would, of course, not be problematic
I never used a Hasselblad but I share the same feelings - and the same Rolleiflex - with you. A system always leaves yu with the feeling that "if you owned that X thing" life would be better. I find the lens "limitation" of the Rolleiflex actually interesting because it forces you to do it better, to move to compose. On my 35mm system I've 4 lenses and that's all. And I only leave home with 2. Otherwise the equipment starts to get between you and shooting. My Rolleiflex "system" has only a Rolleinar 1 and two filters. I'm looking for a lens hood and that'll be all I've shot more 135 on my Rolleiflex, with a Rolleikin that came with it, than 120. From what I can tell, its lens is very peculiar. I like to shoot wide open. At first, it seems everything is out of focus, or has low resolution. But then you zoom in the scanned image and find that no, everything's there, you can see texture on fabrics, it's only low contrast. You can bump the contrast, but I leave it as it is. I find this is its character. When I want everything clear, I shoot digital. I'm moving into 120 B&W now that I rebuilt my darkroom, so I just had the Rolleiflex CLA'd, removed the Rolleikin and am going for it this month. I really like the experience that is shooting with it. Oh, I picked a new screen, a BrightScreen (Rick Oleson) with a microprism in the center and some grids. It's not as bright as Maxwell screens but it's cheaper and better than the original. All in all, my Rolleiflex is more enjoyable than ever. Hope yours bring you the same fun! Best!
Wonderful video and quite a fair comparison. A few points of my own to add: -Even though Rollei are quite tough cameras, most of the used ones can be in bad shape one way or the other. This is due to the nature of the camera, as it's doesn't have many replaceable parts of the Hasselblad, whatever happens to a Rollei, stays on. If the Hassel had a bad back, clumsy viewfinder spring or a sagging shutter, those responsible parts may have been long replaced while on a Rollei they would have to be taken to a qualified repairman to be fixed. -There are Rolleicord cameras which are still very good and even lighter than Rolleiflexes. Vb is an amazing camera. -While a HB can have multiple backs, those Rolleicords are so lightweight that you can actually take two of them with you and the weight will be the same as the most basic HB set with one extra back. -Rolleinars are much easier to deal with compared to extension tubes on a HB. -HB are more prone to light leaks (easily fixable) but Rollei are more prone to film spacing and overlapping frame issues (not so easily fixable and depends on the user being able to load the film absolutely correctly). -HB can take digital backs if you're into that sort of thing. -All HB lenses that work on 500 series cameras (not the FE lenses for 200 series) work with the EV system, which means you can even get on with it without a light meter pretty easily. Most Rollei models don't have that feature. -Rollei filters are smaller and they even come in very nice leather cases that carry multiple filters, close up accessories and even hoods. -If any part of your HB goes wrong, you can get that part fixed or replace it altogether. You can also get spare parts much easier when you're traveling in most parts of the world. -Rollei are usually cheaper. -While Rollei cameras have all sorts of advantages for street shooting, I found being able to change backs to adapt to situations (high sensitivity, color, etc) a pretty attractive option to make compromises, I travel around with 3 backs and my HB now. It gives you broader possibilities. -My girlfriend bought a Rolleicord Vb in ugly but working flawlessly condition for less than 70$. That's less than half what a late model (as shown in the video, the one to have) waist level finder for HB costs.
Very helpful! I used to have a Hasselblad, but didn't use it for all that long before digital came along and I sold it. But I did have some of the issues you mentioned, especially the focusing. Now that I'm shooting some film again, I'm looking into getting a 6x6 camera with a WLF. I didn't even really know much about Rolleiflex's back when I had the Hasselblad, as they were considered a little "old fashioned." But now that both are old fashioned (compared to digital), it's a little easier to evaluate them objectively, and I think I might get one of the Rolliflexes, as it seems they suit my shooting style better.
A great video. I reached the same conclusion from yours. I chose Rolli over Hassy. Hasselblad was just not for me but Rolleiflex was. I shoot streetphoto and occasinally at night handheld and Rolli was great in that regard. Hasselblad was too heavy and clumsy in street.
I have tried both and I came to the opposite conclusion. I like the modularity of the hasselblad because these cameras are so old, if something breaks it means I don't have to replace the whole thing. It is also very hard to get a rolleiflex with a Planar for the price of a whole hasselblad system. But I agree with all of your points!
I am curious about your custom focusing screen on the Rolleiflex which seem to make it very very clear. Can you share how to get this done ? Thanks for the review
Long ago I ordered and installed a bright screen for my 3.5F. A selection of types are available frensel, grid and combinations of them. Google for current suppliers and advise the model of Rollei you have.. The brightness is a big improvement. David.
Thank you for your video. As a regular user of both systems and some other (Pentax 67 among others), I do agree with most of your conclusions. Focusing with a Hasselblad is (for me) a pain in the... especially when you need to do a quick portrait. I tried a prism viewfinder but then the handling is not obvious. Of course i always work handheld. With the Flex you actually "see" on the screen if you are in focus or not (contrary to hasselblad). Of course this is less important for landscape at f8 and i guess actually many reviewers or forumers use it like this of the time. Finally my main issue concerns the famous image quality of my Planar CF 80mm because i am not convinced yet by my images - while my Pentax 6x7 (both the 105 and the 55mm) in particular always surprises me (then there is the Flex, then the Blad). But i am not sure yet. I guess the images 'tonality' of these three cameras (my flex is a tessar) are simply very different. Thanks again!
I completely agree. Focussing was the main point why I dislike the Hasselblad. I've used several of their focussing screens - the old one, the Acute Matte D, the Acute Matte D with splitscreen ... I always was unsure whether my image was in focus or not. The same goes for the Pentax 645N: Its screen is very bright and clear, but extremely hard to focus. The older Pentax 645 and the (dim) Pentax 67-screens are way better. Dimmer, but a lot easier to focus. The best screens in terms of "Focus snap" are those of my Leicaflex SL and my Rolleiflex (High-D). The (cheapish) aftermarket-screens from Rick Oleson are pretty good, too, because they have a huuuge central microprism-ring.
I have used both, came to the opposite conclusion. Mainly because the modular hasselblad system makes it easy to repair or replace components. This is much harder with a rolleiflex. But I still like it, so I also have a Rolleicord
Good point - or even better got one for Hasselblad 2000 series vs the Rolleiflex SL66 series. And on an another day Rolleiflex 3,5F vs Minolta Autocord... This video makes only sense when we know we compare Apples and Oranges on purpose.
I was surprised that you described the modular nature of the Hasselblad as a potential weakness; it’s usually (and correctly, in my opinion) described as one of the biggest advantages of the camera. I use it exclusively with a prism finder which makes accurate focussing very easy. I should add that I mostly shoot landscapes. I’m not familiar with the Rolleiflex, but I can see from your video that it’s a fine camera.
I liked the Rolleiflex better than the Hasselblad because you could get them with Schneider lenses which are the best imo. I still have the 1960 Rolleicord that I used when I was an apprentice wedding photographer. My age at that time was just 16 years old.
I appreciate the intent to compare the medium format SLR versus the TLR. That seems fairly superficial. A more interesting comparison might be the Hasselblad versus the Rollei SL66 models, both being SLRs shooting the same format. I think the Rollei should "win" that contest of cameras designs, particularly since they both used the Zeiss lenses of that time.
I liked your music very much. Most of your photos weren't sharp at all with the Hasselblad, but some of your Rollei shots weren't very sharp and I'm not talking about the ones that you obviously had nice bokeh in. For the type of shooting you seem to enjoy, I don't see how anyone can argue with your decision.
Nice comparison, I think that the slightly harder film loading of the Hassy can be counterbalanced by the interchangeable back, or even the just the loaded film cassette When I have used Hasselblads, or other medium format SLRs I can't imagine working without the interchangeable backs.
Vielleicht ein Grund, warum es grundsätzlich nicht so sinnvoll ist, Äpfel und Birnen (oder Orangen oder was auch immer) zu vergleichen. Ich denke, es wird im Video schnell klar, warum Du das eine System dem anderen vorziehst: Der persönliche Arbeitsstil. Eine andere Kamera dann deswegen daran zu messen, macht im Vergleich wenig Sinn, denn dann könnte man unzählige weitere Kameras hinzuziehen und auch an denen durchexerzieren, warum sie subjektiv ungeeigneter sind. So erzeugt das Video einen leicht negativen Beigeschmack, denn letztlich kann man mit diesem Ansatz ein weites Feld an für den eigenen Stil ungeeigneten Geräten heranziehen und diese besprechen. Einen Vergleich, der demgegenüber die Stärken der so unterschiedlichen Systeme TLR und ESR-Systemkamera herausarbeitet und dann vielleicht am Schluss zu dem Fait kommt, dass eines der Systeme für die eigene Arbeitsweise geeigneter ist, als das andere, wäre spannend gewesen. (Das Scanner-Video ist ja z.B. eher so aufgebaut). So nun aber genug der Kritik, denn letztlich ist ja jeder Ansatz über Filmfotografie und alles was damit zusammenhängt zu berichten begrüßenswert. Muss ja vielleicht auch nicht zwingend auf Englisch sein, auch wenn da eher der große internationale Ruhm lockt ...
I love rolleiflex TLR but in the end can only choose hasselblad because of the lens interchangeability. Too expensive for the rolleiflex 2.8F here in Singapore
In my opinion the classic look the Rollleiflex gives you (with the only slightly coated,but still very sharp lens lens) is superior to other cameras. It's important to note that for better results with black and white film, exposure is really half that of the box speed and sometimes even lower.
Lovely video full of very useful information - thank you! I am a dedicated Rolleicord user considering an upgrade, so these are two of the options I was most strongly considering and your comparison has been very informative. Just one question: have you ever used one of the Rolleiflex SLRs (i.e. SL66 model) and how would that compare with these two? Insights are welcome.
I was wondering, when you say you had a lot of problems focusing with the hasselblads screen, where you using the little flip-up magnifying lens to aid you, or just the ground glass alone? I don't know whether the rollei had a magnifier too, but if not, I understand it's more of a fair comparison not to use the one in the hasselblad. Great video! Sorry about all the mean people commenting, hahaha
I do prefer image rendition of Rolleiflex to Hasselblad, and shooting experience is also more joyfull with TLR, but with all fairness Rolleiflex cannot replace Hasselblad for the sake of interchangable lenses and film backs.
Thank you, but this is a very strange and not very fair comparison. I see several of these online. It is important to realise that the Hasselblad is a professional SYSTEM. There were tons of different lenses, viewfinders, lighting solutions, film backs, motor winders, you name it. There was no other medium format system as expansive. You used a Hasselblad for any type of photography. Medical photography, portrait, scientific photography, reproduction, news, sports, underwater photography, space photography. A Hasselblad is completely modular and had the best lenses in the world. I love Rolleiflex but it’s a COMPLETELY different camera.
I think you are really exaggerating the difficulty of using a Hasselblad. I find the 500CM easier to use than a Rolleiflex. Mostly because the shutter and aperture are much more visible on the lens. At least with CF lenses and later. For example that you can’t see through the camera until the camera is cocked is a safety feature of the Hasselblad - you know when it’s ready to shoot. All this said, I love the Rolleiflex for its portability. It’s a great street camera. For travel I still prefer the Hasselblad because of the ability to switch lenses and being able to switch between film backs. SLR’s are just more flexible than TLR cameras. I’d like to see a comparison with the SL66. The Rolleiflex SLR.
It’s a hard one. Film is going to at some point in the near by future get lass available and because of the digital backs slowly getting cheaper I would hold on the the Hasselblad if I was you. There bout grate cameras with subjecting that you think about trying to get the baby Rolleiflex as that is the best street photographer camera with 135 from now available again! Hasselblad is for taking pictures of people and magazine workers favorite. Rolleiflex is more a street photographer camera and always has been. The camera depends on what your doing and I’d keep both with having the best of two systems.
It’s clear that before you bought your Hasselblad, that you didn’t ask yourself what you’d be using the camera for. You say, for example, that the Hasselblad is more for the studio (not true), but then you say you don’t shoot in the studio. Isn’t that something you should have taken into consideration before you acquired it? I get it, some photographers simply enjoy acquiring gear. There are so many aids that make hand holding the Hasselblad infinitely easier.
It's 2 different systems interchangeable one is twin lense reflex the other a single lens prism mirror reflex. You can change film mid shoot E-6, BW Polaroid etc...
I have both cameras, and both are TOP NOTCH in its own way.........if I would go on a trip around the world, visiting all remote areas of this beautiful Planet, with no big chance of a proper maintenance just around the next corner I would choose the Rollei in a second ( maybe its newer brother Rolleiflex F2.8 FX with the better Zeiss T* 2.8/80mm). And if I would go for a Photo Holidays Trip.....get the Hassi with a Zeiss Distagon 50 and a Zeiss Sonnar 150 ( equal to 32mm & 90mm ), take 2-3 Film Magazins with you for quick and dirty Changing Films ( B/W and different Colorfilms......so you not have to end the film before changing to another typ of film material)! By the Way.....the Hasselblad 500 Series is Made in Sweden.....yes......but its Prime Lenses are Made totally by Hand in Germany bei Zeiss.......and not like the new Hasselblad HD Series, were all Lenses are made by Fuji or Cosina or what ever Japanese Producer......and then only rebranded Zeiss or Hasselblad !!! And if you are a really rich Bastard.......go and get you a Hasselblad CFV 35 or even better CFV 50 Digiback for your Hassi too.....and transform you decades old analog non electronic MF Camera in a WORLDCLASS Digitalcamera......................SOMETHING YOU COULDN`T DO with the Rolleiflex.........even if Money would be no option for you. SO in the End.......YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM BOTH..... :-)) And if so......buy you a Leica M3 or M6 with a Summicron 50mm or 35mm & 90mm and you are done ......as long as analog Film Material is still in production and available for us.......and when your last days are coming.....you could do this cameras hand over to your loved ones.....and the cameras will give good service for the next decades to come ( I'm not that sure about digital Nikons, Canons, Sony and all that other crap )
Beautiful slow focus pulling in close ups. Not seen that on youtube before and these artful machines do well with that treatment. perfect music too. selling hasselblad, FOR SHAME! Unless you are getting a 203fe.
And the clear winner is... the Kodak Medalist II: Roll film or sheet film de jure, rangefinder or ground glass focusing, lighter than Hasselblad, yet with a lens they actually put on the Hasselblad (Ektar 100mm 3.5) and yet with a larger negative than either Hasselblad or Rollei 6x9. Quiet shutter, and that awesome design, made out of solid aluminum. Ha ha.
I agree with Tom Crawford. Doing weddings and portraits along with commercial work, the Hasselblad is the camera to use, especially with the capability to change lenses and film backs loaded with different types of film. You might want to stop and take a B&W portrait with a softar filter so changing backs has its great points along with swapping lenses in between say like a portrait in the house with window lighting to a wide angle of the brides maids by the fireplace, etc. With the Rollei, theres stuck with an 80mm lens unless you have the closeup filters for both lenses and then you have to figure on parallex corrections. But, I had several weddings where I was told that if I was using a camera that goes kaplunk, I wouldn't be allowed to take pictures due to interrupting the ceremony. This is where the Rolleiflex came in handy along with using a Yashica D at times, total quietness. So if you have both, take them just in case. Frankly there's a big tado about sharpness, they're both razor sharp and the color is magnificent on both. I had arguments with other photographers that insisted they could see the difference but it all comes down to how well you focus and the photo finishers capabilities (I used Shore Color and went to Burrell Finishing for that reason. Although Shore was super, Burrell finished every 6x6 or 6.45 like it was the finished enlargement. Anyway, they're both great camera's and the only difference is what you need to do the job or your hobby's camera work. The Hasselblad is much easier to fine and quick focus using the accute matte screen too, which was a great addition to the camera's extra's which became standard. Another thing with Hassy which made it easier in focusing was the focusing handle which after a while you'd develop muscle memory for distances. They're all good and have benefits and hindrances. One in general was the Mamiya C330 line up. I got so use to that camera that everything about it became second nature to me including the parallex bar that came down to show the top of the frame and doing ring shots with a bellows was perfect for that and I never used a tripod or paramender. Now that I'm retired, I'm piecing together another Hasselblad for my own pleasure doing macro, flowers and general scenery. I'll also be looking for another Rolleiflex. I think a Rolleicord D would be a good choice. You can use 35mm film in them (I still have all my accessories). Don't get hung up on which is better, they're both great, just contemplate your needs......
I disagree. I think the fact that there is no shutter interfering with the view means that you know instantly that you have captured the right expression and have your timing right. So for portraits, especially children or pets the Rolleiflex wins, plus as you say it is almost silent. Great for events where you must remain quiet. The Rolleiflex is great at shooting overhead as well.
Hasselblad is more durable. Even the 1600f model (the most fragile ever made at Hasselblad) was notoriously dropped onto concrete floor from a height of 3 meters, as a test by the reviewers in the late 1940s. I don't know how the Rollei would do in that test. It doesn't hurt at all to touch or push in the rear shutter doors (flaps) on the 500 series hasselblad. If it was a 1600f or 1000f or 200 series, then don't touch it.
4:08, okay, you weighted. So I believe that or I had in my hands a lighter Hassel or is because in my hands I feel it more confortable so I've perceived it lighter.Now continuing to see the vid.Ciao!
I wouldn't call Rolleiflex a system. Each Rolleiflex TLR is an integrated unit. No interchangeable lenses and film magazines. Would love to get a Rolleiflex TLR myself, but the price has been held high steadily over the years...
I’ve disliked this video not because it was made in any way of video quality but because you clearly don’t understand the V-System cameras and everything that you are completing about beyond the waist is because you don’t understand the camera and if you did you would not have created this video as everything you are complaining about is there on your lens if you know how to use it and it’s quite focusing system that Hasselblad created in the 1950’s. I agree about the wait and that a hand grip is needed or a motor grip if doing street photography. This overview of why it’s not for you don’t make any sense as everything your not happy about and saying you wish is there is there on the lens. You don’t understand your camera and getting one that isn’t designed for professional photography is the better chance for you with just taking a picture and manually focusingz The Hasselblad is king and if your wanting lass wait get the baby Rolleiflex as it’s smaller and takes 135 film that is available again after 30 years in new stock rollings.
Die Hauptaussage ist eigentlich: Du willst nur ein Objektiv verwenden, also ist die Rolleiflex Deine Kamera. Alle anderen Aussagen versteh ich nicht, z.B. fokusiere ich mit der linken Hand und löse mit der rechten aus, kein Problem. Das jam Problem ist nur eine Sache der Einübungsphase und wenn Du das ganz vermeiden willst, dann nimm eine 200er Serie, dort tritt das nicht auf und Du hast sogar Innenmessung. Einen großen Vorteil der Hasselblad hast Du gar nicht erwähnt, digitale Rückteile können problemlos verwendet werden. Ich vestehe schon das ist Deine persönliche Entscheidung, aber die Hasselbald so runtermachen ist eigentlich nicht notwendig. Viele Grüße, Walter
Hallo Walter und danke für die Anmerkungen! Na ja, ich habe sie ja nicht runtergemacht - ganz im Gegenteil: Ich betone mehrmals, dass es eine fantastische Kamera ist. Allerdings passt sie leider nicht zu meinem Stil; anders gesagt: Ich fühle mich auf ihr nicht so zuhause wie auf der Rolleiflex. Und digitale Rückteile interessieren mich nicht. Für meinen Job nehme ich die 5D - die reicht mir völlig und ist eine prima "Vernunftskamera".
interesting, so you want a camera with a fixed lens, and if you put 100 ASA film in it and the day turns cloudy, then the camera becomes unusable ( not sensitive enough film)??, WHY when the hasselblad has interchangeable film and lens, PERFECT for ANY situation and at a MOMENTS notice!!, and what happens on the 'flex if the shutter sticks??, got a spare camera??
Hello. I enjoyed your video quite a bit. As an older person, I was quite active in both professional and recreational photography back when both of these cameras were popular as everyday photographic tools. You have discovered by your actual use what we all pretty much knew back then, and that is that the Hasselblad was the obvious choice for a professional whose main concern was earning money with the camera, while the Rolleiflex was sought after by enthusiasts seeking a good field camera that was great for general use, but limited in its flexibility.
The first Rollei TLR camera came to market in 1929, so it is a somewhat older design than the Hasselblad, which was introduced in 1948. Back in the day, the Rolleiflex was much less expensive and much more common in amateur hands than the Hasselblad, which was considered far too expensive for hobby use by most people. But the typical professional really needed what it offered, which was ultimate flexibility. There were certain types of photography that demanded the Hasselblad's through the lens viewing and more precise focusing, such as macro work and product photography. On the other hand, nobody was willing to haul a big Hasselblad up the side of a mountain to shoot scenics. The Rolleiflex was also considered a great camera for the photojournalists of the day, because it was quite small compared to the 4x5 Speed Graphic cameras used by the newspaper guys. Ultimately though, the 35mm SLR took over that usage, when the Nikon F series became popular for press use.
I do think you might be overstating the difficulty of using the Hasselblad just a bit, probably because you have used it only part-time as a hobbyist. Those of us who used them for a living were well aware of certain things you simply did not do with them, like poking around the back of the camera while the film back was off. The jamming issue was quite common among new people, but no more concerning to us than having one of your shoe laces coming untied, because we all knew how to fix it with a simple procedure. After a full week in the studio working with one, you simply didn't jam your camera again. In addition, the camera body was the cheapest part of the Hasselblad system, and most of us had more than one, just in case.
As for loading film, as a young apprentice to a professional photographer, I was forced to practice loading the film backs until I felt I could do it in my sleep. Difficult at first, then it becomes second nature. Finally, as to focusing errors, the 500 C/M changed all that with interchangeable screens (some 500 C's got them as well) that made them quite easy to focus very precisely. A lot of us used a focus magnifier anyway, and that helped too. And of course, the lenses were fantastic. The final point I'd like to make is that if something broke on your Hasselblad, you only had to replace the broken component, not the whole camera, and a repair network existed where you could get a Hassy repaired (with a loaner in the meantime) almost anywhere in the world. Such was not the case with your Rollei.
As for the Rolleiflex, I believe it is was the finest 6x6 field camera made of its day. It was not uncommon to see professionals who shot with Hasselblad on the job owning the Rollei for personal use as well. This would be roughly the same as a pro these days who uses a Nikon D5 or a D810 to make his living, but on his own time shoots a Fuji X100F. As for image quality, it may interest you to know that the f3.5 Planar lens on the Rolleiflex was a less expensive "middle of the road" lens option. The f2.8 Planar on the more expensive Rollei is the full equal of the 2.8 Planar on the Hasselblad, in my experience, although the f3.5 Planar is quite good when stopped down a bit. The Tessar lens was the "budget" option, but was still pretty decent by f5.6 as well.
I do think you made the right choice for your style of photography. The Hassy is more at home on a tripod, whereas the Rollei is meant to be hung on your neck and taken out into the field. As you said, "apples and oranges". Happy shooting!
Maybe a repair network for the Rolleiflex was not necessary? Never broke... 😉 . The 3,5 was considered by most as the sharper lens all over afaik.
Thanks for commenting! I've contemplating to trade my Hassy with a Rollei mainly due to its inconvenience but hesitated to do so...
@Randy Welsh like Robert Doisneau, i live his photos 🤩
Thanks for sharing. Reminds me of the old days being a photo assistant. Loading and unloading film magazines were part of our job. We even timed ourselves how fast we could unload a film and load a new roll.
Tom Crawford Thank you so much for sharing! I'm a young man who missed the film era and was always puzzled by the different designs of Hasselblad and Rolleiflex, and your article helped me understand their division of labor and purpose
Both are good, but which one was good enough to go to the moon? And which one can take 50 or 100 MP digital backs.
I've owned Hasselblads since the earliest focal plane model with Kodak Ektar lenses(!) to the 500CM and I prefer Rolleiflex 2.8 and 3.5F models for all-around use - as you so eloquently point out.
Either camera offers a lifetime of utility with minimum fuss and expense. However, for ultimate resolution for big enlargements I use my Intrepid 4x5 which weighs less than the Rollei and offers 3.6X the film area. Cost and slowness of operation impinge, so the field camera only comes out when I feel an Ansel Adams attack coming on! I enjoy your accurate observations and enthusiasm.
As another old time photographer it is nice seeing some TLR love. In the choice presented here I would choose the system camera every time for the lens versatility, but I have to admit that the best photographs I ever took were on TLR. These days they are generally an ignored footnote in history, not to be considered because of the fixed lens (apart from Mamiya that is) but there is; a reason wedding and travel pro photographers back then used TLR over Hasselblad and this video conveys a lot of why that was so. A fixed lens is a constraint and photographs taken in those conditions actually benefit from having to think more about how to get the most out of the constrained camera. The best piece of photographic equipment any of us will ever use is located between our ears :)
Great tip here: Buy both, thats what i did :)
That's what I did, too, and have no intention of selling either, unless I decide I'd rather the 2.8f instead of the 3.5. But, I'll never sell the Hasselblad 500 cm
@@jeremoe1 I also bought both (Hassy 500c/m and Rollei 2.8E Planar) but only because the Hassy came to me cheap. I was going to re-sell one of them, but my god I love both. Both such beautiful machines, and the Hassy's flexibility (lenses, interchangeable backs) means I really don't want to part with it. And yes, I'm stupid enough to hike around cities with a spare lens and back because basically I'm a masochist.
lol that's funny... but not to my bank account
Peter on your 501 the split focusing screen has to be vertically from your point of view not horizontally.. that is so so you can look at the split prism with both eyes otherwise its very tricky to focus as you have to always find an angle for one eye.. Have good one Martin
Thanks for a great video! Here is a question: why the SLR MF Planars are so much bigger than in TLRs? Is it only explained by miror vs tlr?
Wonderful photos. I completely agree with your sentiment after using both cameras.
Very helpful and conscientious presentation. Very kind of you to post it. Well done on your perfect English.
I really enjoyed your video, and I have to agree with you that Hasselblad is a little clumbesome to use! I also have a Rollei, and it's much easier to operate. The Blad is such a beautiful piece of machinery. I think I will just keep it. Thanks,
Paul Conway
And if the Rollei and the Blad had a child it would be the Rolleiflex SL66.
I used the TLR and own a couple of blads but always liked the Rollei SL66...
Really appreciate for sharing such comprehensive reviews of those two beautiful camera. I have a rolleiflex 2.8F and wondering that is hasselblad necessary for me. For my using Rolleiflex is the best 120 camera for me.
Interesting video and opinions. While I have not used a Rolleiflex, and therefore have no basis for a first hand comparison, I am a huge fan of my Hasselblad 500cm and don't see myself ever selling it. In my opinion, image quality ranks as the #1 feature. After all, a high quality image is the goal of most photographers. The Zeiss lenses are spectacular, even at f/2.8 as you mentioned, and even with use of extension tube for close up focus. The other selling point for me was it's modular design. I mostly shoot with a 60mm lens, however being able to swap in an 80mm f/2.8 or an 150mm to compress a scene has allowed me to capture scenes I wouldn't have been able to with a fixed system. Same deal with the interchangeable backs. I often carried two, one with 160 color negative, and one with 400 b/w. At times I will carry a third that is loaded with slide film or 400 pushed to 1600 for low light. Again, this has allowed me incredible flexibility while shooting 120 film and was a big factor in my purchase. Personally I love the "clomp" of the shutter, and don't even notice the flipped viewfinder anymore. In a very quiet space I can see the appeal of the quiet operating Rollei however. The weight can be an issue, but I disagree that this is just a studio camera. I have taken it on multi day backpacking trips as well as a two week sailing trip....it's a bit cumbersome, but worth the weight for the quality/shooting options. Again, overall a great look at two nice cameras. To each their own, but for me the quality and flexibility of a Hasselblad is hard to beat. No matter, the camera, the important thing is making images and enjoying photography. If you would like to view some images of my work with a Hasselblad, i have them posted within a Flickr account. www.flickr.com/photos/aaron_bieleck/
Aaron Bieleck nice photos man! My 500cm arrived today :-)
I’ve got both and I’m keeping both. Whenever I get the urge to get a 2.8 rolleiflex I remind myself I like the smaller size of the 3.5 . I then take out my hasselblad and shoot a roll.
Both are great fantastic cameras, each for different purposes...I would love to have both, the Rollei for street photography, and the HB for landscape and studio work...Nicely done video :)
Very good video. I have both and I love both of them. They are the best of the bests. Thank you very much!
I found this video very very useful. Thanks Peter. 😊
Fair comparison, great demonstrations, and excellent photos.
Quite an excellent comparison. I’ve shot both as well, and came to the same conclusion as yourself. Although I had my 1st Rollei long before the Hassy. I now own 3 Rollei TLRs, and a Rollei 35 rangefinder.
You are correct, the Rolleiflex is much easier and unobtrusive than the Hasselblad. I have a 1945 75mm 3.5 Tessar, 1951 75mm 3.5 Planar, and 1953 2.8 Xenotar. Each has their own “look”, and bokeh (the difference from near to far), and get used for different projects.
Thanks for taking the time to do this, I’m now a new subscriber, and look forward to more great vlogs from you.
There is a black C on the CF* lens that will give you a true focus reading of what the picture will look like.
Hasselblad invented this kind of focusing system and it’s clear that you don’t fully understand your camera as everything beyond the wait is a result of this.
The comparison was honest and sincere Peter . I have rolleiflex 2.8F. the focus is fast to determine and the images taken with f / 2.8 even seen by the viewfinder with weak light were very well defined photographs. Take care. All the Best.
I always preferred the Schneider Xenotar. My boss liked the Planar.
Neither of us liked the Leica m2 we had or the Hasselblad we tried.
I still have the Rolleicord Va that was our spare camera in the 1960s studio we had. I just had a cla on it as the slow speeds were sticky. Good for another 60 years now.
I bet that was expensive. Did you get a new screen and mirror?
I have both, I keep the Hasselblad and sold the Rolleiflex for the image quality. For fairness, you should compare Hasselblad with Rolleiflex 6008 series.
Hello! awesome comparison! i have both cameras and i tend to agree with you with all the points except the one about loading the film: as other 6x6 cameras, loading is always a bit of a "ritual" but when you take the time to follow the procedure and the more you load the easiest it gets :) but i understand that on the Rolleiflex, the loading is more straight forward! i will give you a lot of credibility for stating that the Hasselblad is more a studio camera which it is because i rarely and sadly take it in the streets or on vacations. i tend to bring it for either portrait shoots or fashion photography! once again, very well done comparison!
Peter, great video, excellent content, thank you! I wonder if you could tell me what the piece of music is?
Great video! A million thanks - beautiful work at the end there.
Thx for the great comparison video! 🎉
I agree due to the difficult focussing of the Hasselblad. I have in addition two Mamiya's a RZ67 pro and a 645 Super, where focussing is much easier. If you know the heavy Mamiya RZ67 than you would judge the Hasselblad as the easier to handle camera.
Because I like to switch film and lenses during shooting the Haselblad is the right one for me.
As you said there is no right or wrong.
Thx for your thoughts.
great comparison video!
thanks for the insight!
will keep this in mind if i buy my next camera!
Great video very helpful
Perfect comparison. He modular type medium format is not really ergonomic to hold! But for me it feel more solid than the TLR. At the end of the day, it is a metter of preference! More power!
I own both of these cameras, in fact a Hasselblad 500CM and a Rolleiflex 3,5 T (and a Baby Rollei 4x4 but it's difficult to find 127 rolls now), so a bit older than these. I don't use them the same way.
The Rollei is very good for portraits in the street, people like it, I think they like the way you have to bend over to take the picture, I'd say its more friendly than cameras you have to hold in front of your face like 35mm, and there is such a soft "clic" when you expose it doesn't affect the model. People are curious about it and they almost never refuse to be photographed with it when you ask. The Rollei is ready to shoot, hanging in position on your chest (or belly..), with a little practice you can shoot and nobody will notice. The image quality is very good, not as sharp as the Hasselblad, but it is great even at full aperture, the best are f8 and f11 on mine. Focusing is very easy, you can reach both ends of the focusing limits with one move of you fingers.
The Hasselblad is too big for that and too noisy, you have to hold it firmly in position, its balance is not obvious, also focus is not as easy as it is with the Rollei. I use it for landscapes or portrait too but mainly with people I know, or in studio and for macro-photography too. The image quality is exceptional, at any aperture, with any lens, I've got the 80mm 2.8, a 50mm f4 (great for lanscape) and a 250mm f5.6 (not very useful, needs a tripod).
I love both of them, not for the same reasons.
Thank you for this video. I've been considering buying a Hasselblad 500-series camera system. I think I understand your comparative points to be: (1) for ease of use and quality of build, the Rolleiflex is a better camera for you, and (2) for a slight edge in image quality for and flexibility, the Hasselblad might be better. You've given me alternatives to consider. I trust your observations and appreciate that you've given me options. Good luck and good shooting.
I have been using a Hasselblad 500C till the mid '80s and in many cases I mounted a Zeiss Distagon 50 mm lens for indoor and architecture photography. The interchangeable lens was a plus for that camera.
I prefer Schneider Xenotar 2.8 lens on the Rolleiflex.
Rolleiflex slr 6008 was sold with a 90mm Schneider Macro 2.8 lens.
I thought the 3.5 was the Xenotar and the 2.8 was the Planar.
Thank you for demonstrating the appeal of the Rollei TLR camera for your preferred use. I should mention the handholding complaints might not be applicable to the 500CM when it is in use, because the assumption is that the camera would be mounted on a tripod with a shutter release cord, both outdoors and indoors. The interchangeable lenses are probably the greatest advantage for the V-system over the Rollei TLR, with interchangeable backs as the second greatest strength (e.g. switching between B&W negatives and E6 positive films as desired). Although it is only an opinion, 50/60mm & 150mm lenses were more ideal than the standard 80mm lens, for the landscape scenes I frequently photographed. Lastly, you can raise the mirror for each photo if you choose to do so with the V-system on the camera body. Raising the mirror on a tripod would, of course, not be problematic
I never used a Hasselblad but I share the same feelings - and the same Rolleiflex - with you. A system always leaves yu with the feeling that "if you owned that X thing" life would be better. I find the lens "limitation" of the Rolleiflex actually interesting because it forces you to do it better, to move to compose. On my 35mm system I've 4 lenses and that's all. And I only leave home with 2. Otherwise the equipment starts to get between you and shooting. My Rolleiflex "system" has only a Rolleinar 1 and two filters. I'm looking for a lens hood and that'll be all
I've shot more 135 on my Rolleiflex, with a Rolleikin that came with it, than 120. From what I can tell, its lens is very peculiar. I like to shoot wide open. At first, it seems everything is out of focus, or has low resolution. But then you zoom in the scanned image and find that no, everything's there, you can see texture on fabrics, it's only low contrast. You can bump the contrast, but I leave it as it is. I find this is its character. When I want everything clear, I shoot digital.
I'm moving into 120 B&W now that I rebuilt my darkroom, so I just had the Rolleiflex CLA'd, removed the Rolleikin and am going for it this month. I really like the experience that is shooting with it. Oh, I picked a new screen, a BrightScreen (Rick Oleson) with a microprism in the center and some grids. It's not as bright as Maxwell screens but it's cheaper and better than the original. All in all, my Rolleiflex is more enjoyable than ever. Hope yours bring you the same fun! Best!
Wonderful video and quite a fair comparison. A few points of my own to add:
-Even though Rollei are quite tough cameras, most of the used ones can be in bad shape one way or the other. This is due to the nature of the camera, as it's doesn't have many replaceable parts of the Hasselblad, whatever happens to a Rollei, stays on. If the Hassel had a bad back, clumsy viewfinder spring or a sagging shutter, those responsible parts may have been long replaced while on a Rollei they would have to be taken to a qualified repairman to be fixed.
-There are Rolleicord cameras which are still very good and even lighter than Rolleiflexes. Vb is an amazing camera.
-While a HB can have multiple backs, those Rolleicords are so lightweight that you can actually take two of them with you and the weight will be the same as the most basic HB set with one extra back.
-Rolleinars are much easier to deal with compared to extension tubes on a HB.
-HB are more prone to light leaks (easily fixable) but Rollei are more prone to film spacing and overlapping frame issues (not so easily fixable and depends on the user being able to load the film absolutely correctly).
-HB can take digital backs if you're into that sort of thing.
-All HB lenses that work on 500 series cameras (not the FE lenses for 200 series) work with the EV system, which means you can even get on with it without a light meter pretty easily. Most Rollei models don't have that feature.
-Rollei filters are smaller and they even come in very nice leather cases that carry multiple filters, close up accessories and even hoods.
-If any part of your HB goes wrong, you can get that part fixed or replace it altogether. You can also get spare parts much easier when you're traveling in most parts of the world.
-Rollei are usually cheaper.
-While Rollei cameras have all sorts of advantages for street shooting, I found being able to change backs to adapt to situations (high sensitivity, color, etc) a pretty attractive option to make compromises, I travel around with 3 backs and my HB now. It gives you broader possibilities.
-My girlfriend bought a Rolleicord Vb in ugly but working flawlessly condition for less than 70$. That's less than half what a late model (as shown in the video, the one to have) waist level finder for HB costs.
Very helpful! I used to have a Hasselblad, but didn't use it for all that long before digital came along and I sold it. But I did have some of the issues you mentioned, especially the focusing. Now that I'm shooting some film again, I'm looking into getting a 6x6 camera with a WLF. I didn't even really know much about Rolleiflex's back when I had the Hasselblad, as they were considered a little "old fashioned." But now that both are old fashioned (compared to digital), it's a little easier to evaluate them objectively, and I think I might get one of the Rolliflexes, as it seems they suit my shooting style better.
A great video. I reached the same conclusion from yours. I chose Rolli over Hassy. Hasselblad was just not for me but Rolleiflex was. I shoot streetphoto and occasinally at night handheld and Rolli was great in that regard. Hasselblad was too heavy and clumsy in street.
Both cameras look fun and will give you great quality.
Hi Peter,
Very informative and nicely done video.
May I please ask where did you get the brighter screen for the Rolleiflex?
Thanks a lot.
I have both, I love both. Is very unfair to compare each other: Hasselblad direct competitive candidates are SL66 or Bronica SQ series brother
Fantastic photos at the end!
Great video!
Err, the Rolleiflex 3.5F, mentioned in the description, does not have a Planar lens - it has a 3,5 Tessar. the 2,8F has the Planar...
Yes, it does. The older and lower end Rolleiflex models (Automat, T) have a Tessar lens. The 3.5f and the 2.8f both have Planars.
Very interesting video, thank you. And very beautiful music!
I have tried both and I came to the opposite conclusion. I like the modularity of the hasselblad because these cameras are so old, if something breaks it means I don't have to replace the whole thing. It is also very hard to get a rolleiflex with a Planar for the price of a whole hasselblad system. But I agree with all of your points!
I am curious about your custom focusing screen on the Rolleiflex which seem to make it very very clear. Can you share how to get this done ? Thanks for the review
Long ago I ordered and installed a bright screen for my 3.5F. A selection of types are available frensel, grid and combinations of them. Google for current suppliers and advise the model of Rollei you have.. The brightness is a big improvement. David.
Great photos...
Thank you for your video. As a regular user of both systems and some other (Pentax 67 among others), I do agree with most of your conclusions. Focusing with a Hasselblad is (for me) a pain in the... especially when you need to do a quick portrait. I tried a prism viewfinder but then the handling is not obvious. Of course i always work handheld. With the Flex you actually "see" on the screen if you are in focus or not (contrary to hasselblad). Of course this is less important for landscape at f8 and i guess actually many reviewers or forumers use it like this of the time. Finally my main issue concerns the famous image quality of my Planar CF 80mm because i am not convinced yet by my images - while my Pentax 6x7 (both the 105 and the 55mm) in particular always surprises me (then there is the Flex, then the Blad). But i am not sure yet. I guess the images 'tonality' of these three cameras (my flex is a tessar) are simply very different. Thanks again!
I completely agree. Focussing was the main point why I dislike the Hasselblad. I've used several of their focussing screens - the old one, the Acute Matte D, the Acute Matte D with splitscreen ... I always was unsure whether my image was in focus or not. The same goes for the Pentax 645N: Its screen is very bright and clear, but extremely hard to focus. The older Pentax 645 and the (dim) Pentax 67-screens are way better. Dimmer, but a lot easier to focus. The best screens in terms of "Focus snap" are those of my Leicaflex SL and my Rolleiflex (High-D). The (cheapish) aftermarket-screens from Rick Oleson are pretty good, too, because they have a huuuge central microprism-ring.
I have used both, came to the opposite conclusion. Mainly because the modular hasselblad system makes it easy to repair or replace components. This is much harder with a rolleiflex. But I still like it, so I also have a Rolleicord
Great video, thanks.
You made good photos with both!
You should compare a hasselblad to a SL66 or 6000 series. Is unfair for the hasselblad
Got one for Hasselblad 500 series vs Rolleiflex 6000 series?
Good point - or even better got one for Hasselblad 2000 series vs the Rolleiflex SL66 series. And on an another day Rolleiflex 3,5F vs Minolta Autocord... This video makes only sense when we know we compare Apples and Oranges on purpose.
I was surprised that you described the modular nature of the Hasselblad as a potential weakness; it’s usually (and correctly, in my opinion) described as one of the biggest advantages of the camera. I use it exclusively with a prism finder which makes accurate focussing very easy. I should add that I mostly shoot landscapes. I’m not familiar with the Rolleiflex, but I can see from your video that it’s a fine camera.
I liked the Rolleiflex better than the Hasselblad because you could get them with Schneider lenses which are the best imo.
I still have the 1960 Rolleicord that I used when I was an apprentice wedding photographer. My age at that time was just 16 years old.
You've got a new subscriber👏🏻
The hasselblad was used mostly as a studio camera not, for example, street photography.
I appreciate the intent to compare the medium format SLR versus the TLR. That seems fairly superficial. A more interesting comparison might be the Hasselblad versus the Rollei SL66 models, both being SLRs shooting the same format. I think the Rollei should "win" that contest of cameras designs, particularly since they both used the Zeiss lenses of that time.
I liked your music very much. Most of your photos weren't sharp at all with the Hasselblad, but some of your Rollei shots weren't very sharp and I'm not talking about the ones that you obviously had nice bokeh in. For the type of shooting you seem to enjoy, I don't see how anyone can argue with your decision.
Nice comparison, I think that the slightly harder film loading of the Hassy can be counterbalanced by the interchangeable back, or even the just the loaded film cassette When I have used Hasselblads, or other medium format SLRs I can't imagine working without the interchangeable backs.
Compare it against the Rolleiflex SLX or 6001lens change out, mid roll Fm back change out etc... Modular System to system comparison
I love the music at the end. What song is that?
Vielleicht ein Grund, warum es grundsätzlich nicht so sinnvoll ist, Äpfel und Birnen (oder Orangen oder was auch immer) zu vergleichen. Ich denke, es wird im Video schnell klar, warum Du das eine System dem anderen vorziehst: Der persönliche Arbeitsstil. Eine andere Kamera dann deswegen daran zu messen, macht im Vergleich wenig Sinn, denn dann könnte man unzählige weitere Kameras hinzuziehen und auch an denen durchexerzieren, warum sie subjektiv ungeeigneter sind. So erzeugt das Video einen leicht negativen Beigeschmack, denn letztlich kann man mit diesem Ansatz ein weites Feld an für den eigenen Stil ungeeigneten Geräten heranziehen und diese besprechen. Einen Vergleich, der demgegenüber die Stärken der so unterschiedlichen Systeme TLR und ESR-Systemkamera herausarbeitet und dann vielleicht am Schluss zu dem Fait kommt, dass eines der Systeme für die eigene Arbeitsweise geeigneter ist, als das andere, wäre spannend gewesen. (Das Scanner-Video ist ja z.B. eher so aufgebaut). So nun aber genug der Kritik, denn letztlich ist ja jeder Ansatz über Filmfotografie und alles was damit zusammenhängt zu berichten begrüßenswert. Muss ja vielleicht auch nicht zwingend auf Englisch sein, auch wenn da eher der große internationale Ruhm lockt ...
I love rolleiflex TLR but in the end can only choose hasselblad because of the lens interchangeability. Too expensive for the rolleiflex 2.8F here in Singapore
Excellent images!!
In my opinion the classic look the Rollleiflex gives you (with the only slightly coated,but still very sharp lens lens) is superior to other cameras. It's important to note that for better results with black and white film, exposure is really half that of the box speed and sometimes even lower.
Lovely video full of very useful information - thank you! I am a dedicated Rolleicord user considering an upgrade, so these are two of the options I was most strongly considering and your comparison has been very informative. Just one question: have you ever used one of the Rolleiflex SLRs (i.e. SL66 model) and how would that compare with these two? Insights are welcome.
I was wondering, when you say you had a lot of problems focusing with the hasselblads screen, where you using the little flip-up magnifying lens to aid you, or just the ground glass alone? I don't know whether the rollei had a magnifier too, but if not, I understand it's more of a fair comparison not to use the one in the hasselblad. Great video! Sorry about all the mean people commenting, hahaha
I do prefer image rendition of Rolleiflex to Hasselblad, and shooting experience is also more joyfull with TLR, but with all fairness Rolleiflex cannot replace Hasselblad for the sake of interchangable lenses and film backs.
Thank you, but this is a very strange and not very fair comparison. I see several of these online. It is important to realise that the Hasselblad is a professional SYSTEM. There were tons of different lenses, viewfinders, lighting solutions, film backs, motor winders, you name it. There was no other medium format system as expansive. You used a Hasselblad for any type of photography. Medical photography, portrait, scientific photography, reproduction, news, sports, underwater photography, space photography. A Hasselblad is completely modular and had the best lenses in the world.
I love Rolleiflex but it’s a COMPLETELY different camera.
I think you are really exaggerating the difficulty of using a Hasselblad. I find the 500CM easier to use than a Rolleiflex. Mostly because the shutter and aperture are much more visible on the lens. At least with CF lenses and later.
For example that you can’t see through the camera until the camera is cocked is a safety feature of the Hasselblad - you know when it’s ready to shoot.
All this said, I love the Rolleiflex for its portability. It’s a great street camera. For travel I still prefer the Hasselblad because of the ability to switch lenses and being able to switch between film backs. SLR’s are just more flexible than TLR cameras.
I’d like to see a comparison with the SL66. The Rolleiflex SLR.
It’s a hard one. Film is going to at some point in the near by future get lass available and because of the digital backs slowly getting cheaper I would hold on the the Hasselblad if I was you.
There bout grate cameras with subjecting that you think about trying to get the baby Rolleiflex as that is the best street photographer camera with 135 from now available again!
Hasselblad is for taking pictures of people and magazine workers favorite.
Rolleiflex is more a street photographer camera and always has been.
The camera depends on what your doing and I’d keep both with having the best of two systems.
It’s clear that before you bought your Hasselblad, that you didn’t ask yourself what you’d be using the camera for. You say, for example, that the Hasselblad is more for the studio (not true), but then you say you don’t shoot in the studio. Isn’t that something you should have taken into consideration before you acquired it? I get it, some photographers simply enjoy acquiring gear. There are so many aids that make hand holding the Hasselblad infinitely easier.
It's 2 different systems interchangeable one is twin lense reflex the other a single lens prism mirror reflex. You can change film mid shoot E-6, BW Polaroid etc...
You really should have compared the Rolleiflex 6008 to the Hasselblad 503 as they were more direct competitors with interchangeable lenses.
Where did you buy your rolleiflex?
I have both cameras, and both are TOP NOTCH in its own way.........if I would go on a trip around the world, visiting all remote areas of this beautiful Planet, with no big chance of a proper maintenance just around the next corner I would choose the Rollei in a second ( maybe its newer brother Rolleiflex F2.8 FX with the better Zeiss T* 2.8/80mm).
And if I would go for a Photo Holidays Trip.....get the Hassi with a Zeiss Distagon 50 and a Zeiss Sonnar 150 ( equal to 32mm & 90mm ), take 2-3 Film Magazins with you for quick and dirty Changing Films ( B/W and different Colorfilms......so you not have to end the film before changing to another typ of film material)!
By the Way.....the Hasselblad 500 Series is Made in Sweden.....yes......but its Prime Lenses are Made totally by Hand in Germany bei Zeiss.......and not like the new Hasselblad HD Series, were all Lenses are made by Fuji or Cosina or what ever Japanese Producer......and then only rebranded Zeiss or Hasselblad !!!
And if you are a really rich Bastard.......go and get you a Hasselblad CFV 35 or even better CFV 50 Digiback for your Hassi too.....and transform you decades old analog non electronic MF Camera in a WORLDCLASS Digitalcamera......................SOMETHING YOU COULDN`T DO with the Rolleiflex.........even if Money would be no option for you.
SO in the End.......YOU HAVE TO HAVE THEM BOTH..... :-))
And if so......buy you a Leica M3 or M6 with a Summicron 50mm or 35mm & 90mm and you are done ......as long as analog Film Material is still in production and available for us.......and when your last days are coming.....you could do this cameras hand over to your loved ones.....and the cameras will give good service for the next decades to come ( I'm not that sure about digital Nikons, Canons, Sony and all that other crap )
Beautiful slow focus pulling in close ups. Not seen that on youtube before and these artful machines do well with that treatment. perfect music too. selling hasselblad, FOR SHAME! Unless you are getting a 203fe.
And the clear winner is... the Kodak Medalist II: Roll film or sheet film de jure, rangefinder or ground glass focusing, lighter than Hasselblad, yet with a lens they actually put on the Hasselblad (Ektar 100mm 3.5) and yet with a larger negative than either Hasselblad or Rollei 6x9. Quiet shutter, and that awesome design, made out of solid aluminum. Ha ha.
Who made the strap on the Rollei?
It's an Op/Tech.
I just switched to shoot 6x6 from 35mm film 🎞️.
I agree with Tom Crawford. Doing weddings and portraits along with commercial work, the Hasselblad is the camera to use, especially with the capability to change lenses and film backs loaded with different types of film. You might want to stop and take a B&W portrait with a softar filter so changing backs has its great points along with swapping lenses in between say like a portrait in the house with window lighting to a wide angle of the brides maids by the fireplace, etc. With the Rollei, theres stuck with an 80mm lens unless you have the closeup filters for both lenses and then you have to figure on parallex corrections. But, I had several weddings where I was told that if I was using a camera that goes kaplunk, I wouldn't be allowed to take pictures due to interrupting the ceremony. This is where the Rolleiflex came in handy along with using a Yashica D at times, total quietness. So if you have both, take them just in case. Frankly there's a big tado about sharpness, they're both razor sharp and the color is magnificent on both. I had arguments with other photographers that insisted they could see the difference but it all comes down to how well you focus and the photo finishers capabilities (I used Shore Color and went to Burrell Finishing for that reason. Although Shore was super, Burrell finished every 6x6 or 6.45 like it was the finished enlargement.
Anyway, they're both great camera's and the only difference is what you need to do the job or your hobby's camera work. The Hasselblad is much easier to fine and quick focus using the accute matte screen too, which was a great addition to the camera's extra's which became standard. Another thing with Hassy which made it easier in focusing was the focusing handle which after a while you'd develop muscle memory for distances.
They're all good and have benefits and hindrances. One in general was the Mamiya C330 line up. I got so use to that camera that everything about it became second nature to me including the parallex bar that came down to show the top of the frame and doing ring shots with a bellows was perfect for that and I never used a tripod or paramender.
Now that I'm retired, I'm piecing together another Hasselblad for my own pleasure doing macro, flowers and general scenery. I'll also be looking for another Rolleiflex. I think a Rolleicord D would be a good choice. You can use 35mm film in them (I still have all my accessories). Don't get hung up on which is better, they're both great, just contemplate your needs......
I disagree. I think the fact that there is no shutter interfering with the view means that you know instantly that you have captured the right expression and have your timing right. So for portraits, especially children or pets the Rolleiflex wins, plus as you say it is almost silent. Great for events where you must remain quiet. The Rolleiflex is great at shooting overhead as well.
...difficult to overlook a camera system that was good enough to be selected for a trip to the moon. Sure, YMMV.
What is that opening horn track?
It's composed and played by a friend of mine and me.
Hasselblad is more durable. Even the 1600f model (the most fragile ever made at Hasselblad) was notoriously dropped onto concrete floor from a height of 3 meters, as a test by the reviewers in the late 1940s. I don't know how the Rollei would do in that test. It doesn't hurt at all to touch or push in the rear shutter doors (flaps) on the 500 series hasselblad. If it was a 1600f or 1000f or 200 series, then don't touch it.
Great review and very very useful, thanks Peter! Suscribed :)
Oh and that man holding the teddy bear? Beautiful portrait.
4:08, okay, you weighted. So I believe that or I had in my hands a lighter Hassel or is because in my hands I feel it more confortable so I've perceived it lighter.Now continuing to see the vid.Ciao!
I wouldn't call Rolleiflex a system. Each Rolleiflex TLR is an integrated unit. No interchangeable lenses and film magazines. Would love to get a Rolleiflex TLR myself, but the price has been held high steadily over the years...
rollei SL66 was much better than hassel, the advantage of the latter one was lens shutter and light weight, that's all.
Sl 66 was a dud low sales unreliable , huge
I’ve disliked this video not because it was made in any way of video quality but because you clearly don’t understand the V-System cameras and everything that you are completing about beyond the waist is because you don’t understand the camera and if you did you would not have created this video as everything you are complaining about is there on your lens if you know how to use it and it’s quite focusing system that Hasselblad created in the 1950’s.
I agree about the wait and that a hand grip is needed or a motor grip if doing street photography.
This overview of why it’s not for you don’t make any sense as everything your not happy about and saying you wish is there is there on the lens.
You don’t understand your camera and getting one that isn’t designed for professional photography is the better chance for you with just taking a picture and manually focusingz
The Hasselblad is king and if your wanting lass wait get the baby Rolleiflex as it’s smaller and takes 135 film that is available again after 30 years in new stock rollings.
Die Hauptaussage ist eigentlich: Du willst nur ein Objektiv verwenden, also ist die Rolleiflex Deine Kamera. Alle anderen Aussagen versteh ich nicht, z.B. fokusiere ich mit der linken Hand und löse mit der rechten aus, kein Problem. Das jam Problem ist nur eine Sache der Einübungsphase und wenn Du das ganz vermeiden willst, dann nimm eine 200er Serie, dort tritt das nicht auf und Du hast sogar Innenmessung. Einen großen Vorteil der Hasselblad hast Du gar nicht erwähnt, digitale Rückteile können problemlos verwendet werden. Ich vestehe schon das ist Deine persönliche Entscheidung, aber die Hasselbald so runtermachen ist eigentlich nicht notwendig.
Viele Grüße,
Walter
Hallo Walter und danke für die Anmerkungen! Na ja, ich habe sie ja nicht runtergemacht - ganz im Gegenteil: Ich betone mehrmals, dass es eine fantastische Kamera ist. Allerdings passt sie leider nicht zu meinem Stil; anders gesagt: Ich fühle mich auf ihr nicht so zuhause wie auf der Rolleiflex. Und digitale Rückteile interessieren mich nicht. Für meinen Job nehme ich die 5D - die reicht mir völlig und ist eine prima "Vernunftskamera".
What's the name of soundtrack at the beginning? it sings my soul.
Thanks! It's played by me and a friend of mine, René Rösler. It's a composition by me.
I am ur fan now
roeslerbongard.bandcamp.com/releases
Hasselblad is easier to service compared to the Rollieflex... Use the split screen to focus on the Hassy!
Wow!!👍
interesting, so you want a camera with a fixed lens, and if you put 100 ASA film in it and the day turns cloudy, then the camera becomes unusable ( not sensitive enough film)??, WHY when the hasselblad has interchangeable film and lens, PERFECT for ANY situation and at a MOMENTS notice!!, and what happens on the 'flex if the shutter sticks??, got a spare camera??
Clearly, Rolleiflex wins hands down.
I own a mint 3.5F and im in love with it. I don't even have to shoot it, I just hold it in my hands and look at it..yeah shooting it is good too LOL
Love your music! just got my 500c/m, used to sony mirrorless its a big jump, hopefully also a lot of fun 😀
should have put a Rolleiflex 6000 series against the Hasselblad.
Both are interchangeable slrs.
Rather the Sl66