Better results w/ TLR than w/ SLR

[curmudgeon]

I've been switching back and forth between a Rollei 3.5 MX-EVS and a Hasselblad 500C/M with 50mm, 80mm and 120mm lenses. I find that, almost without exception, I prefer the images from the Rollei. Despite both cameras having WLF viewing* the Rollei focus is better and the compositions just seem to work better. I don't have an explanation. It's just an observation.

For now I've put the Hasselblad away and I am using just the MX-EVS and a recently acquired MX. If I continue to find that I don't miss the Hasselblad's interchangeable lenses I'll probably sell the outfit.

--Doug

* The Hasselblad has an Acute Matte D screen. The Rollei has the original ground glass.

 

[BobYIL]

Anything to do with vibration? Hand held Hasselblad causes more vibration than the Rollei..

 

[thegman]

When I had a blad, I found handheld use almost impossible. The Rollei I had was so much easier. It's hard to say exactly why, I think the focus on the side of the Rollei is a lot easier to handle, and maybe the fact that the screen does not go dark after shooting is a pleasantry. I found my 503cx to be a brilliant camera, but for me, tripod only.

 

[curmudgeon]

Anything to do with vibration? Hand held Hasselblad causes more vibration than the Rollei..

I'm sure it had an effect on the hand held shots, but I also see a difference in sharpness in tripod mounted shots where I used the mirror lock-up on the Hasselblad. This leads me to believe that it's more a focus than a vibration issue. I've thought about finding a plain ground glass screen for the Hasselblad to make it more of an apples to apples comparison.

--Doug

 

[BobYIL]

I'm sure it had an effect on the hand held shots, but I also see a difference in sharpness in tripod mounted shots where I used the mirror lock-up on the Hasselblad. This leads me to believe that it's more a focus than a vibration issue. I've thought about finding a plain ground glass screen for the Hasselblad to make it more of an apples to apples comparison.

--Doug

I have a 501CM with Acute matte and a Pentax 645N with the original screen.. They do not "pop" for precise focus for quick shots like plain ground glasses do; need careful adjustments. Most of the time I prefer the AF on the 645N.

 

[froyd]

Even 3.5 Rolleis have 2.8 viewing lenses, so you are always focusing at an aperture larder than what actually being used... like a built-in DOF safety net!

 

[Koolzakukumba]

The Tessar in the MX-EVS is quite a contrasty lens. Could it be this that's making the difference? I remember reading an interesting review of a couple of Rolleis and a Hasselblad and the Rollei's f2.8 Planar was at least as good as the 'Blad's. I wouldn't have thought the Tessar would have been a match as fas as resolution goes.

 

[KoNickon]

I have the standard issue screen in my 500C/Ms and they don't pop, that's for sure. My MX-EVS's stock screen is even dimmer, but I'm able to focus it OK. With the Hasselbads, it's more like trying to focus a 35mm slr with a slow zoom lens -- "I guess that's as sharp as it'll get, so it must be in focus." Odd.

Nonetheless, the Hasselblad is a remarkable piece of equipment to use.

 

[Dan Daniel]

Someone mentiioned a test of the Rollei and Hasselbald- they might have been thinking of this one, where the Mamiya lens beats them all-
http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/test/fourcameras.html

He does mention other issues such as film flatness. And not a Tessar in the bunch!

No matter what the test charts say, maybe the Tessar just gives you the look you want. I also find the TLR simply suits me better. A big factor for me that I notice every time I use an SLR like a Hasselblad or Bronica is the blackout after triggering the shutter. It's like being thrown into a dark dream or falling down a hole. The 'world' of the image and the viewfinder is wiped out.

Sounds silly in a way, but I find the blackout emotionally upsetting and I can't imagine that this doesn't affect my shooting. TLRs, view cameras, rangefinders, even the short blackout of a 35mm SLR keeps me connected to the process. It's one of the things that makes shoting digital confusing- I almost always cut away from the process to look at the LCD shots, a different sort of hole to drop down than the mirror blackout but the same removal from the scene around me.

Or it could be that you have a kick-ass Tessar and a flawed Hasselblad. I had an earlier Rolleiflex with a Xenar that was simply amazing. Lots of sample variation back then, and maybe the Tessar-type formulation could do something extra if everytrhing fell into place. Maybe with more precise grinding (or a lucky day for one set) the design could exceed typical results.

 

[matt_mcg2]

I have a 75mm uncoated Tessar on a Zeiss folder, and in the centre of the frame it's easily as sharp as anything else I've tried including very modern multicoated lenses. It's a classic lens design. Mine isn't as sharp in the corners as the Planar on my TLR [which remains my favourite lens, ever], and the 'bokeh' isn't as pleasantly smooth, but it gives little away in terms of centre of the frame sharpness or overall tonality.

 

[graywolf]

Lets look at it from the technical viewpoint.

When you press the button on the Rollei, the shutter opens and closes. That's it.

When you press the button on the Hassy, the shutter closes, the lens stops down, the mirror flips up, the film magazine shutter opens, the shutter opens and closes. Lot's of time for the subject to move, the camera to move, the photographer to move, and who knows what else.

At one time SLR's were considered specialists equipment. Used for ultra close ups, ultra telephoto shots, etc. For general photography RF cameras were the norm. The advanced 35mm SLR's that arrived on the scene in the 1960-1970's became the all purpose camera, but they still, even today, have the SLR problems. This whole site (Range Finder Forums), is dedicated to people who realize that and prefer to work with simpler cameras for general photography.

Still there are times when an SLR is actually needed, I think most of us have at lease one for use at those times. The rest of the time a RF or TLR camera works better, and because of that, often produces better images even with a lesser lens.

 

[RichW]

It was the exact same for me with a Yashica Mat-124 G and a Hasselblad 500CM. When I would take them both out - the images I got from the Yashica were so much better than the Hasselblad, the Hasselblad's tended to be out of focus, poorer compositions etc, I couldnt understand why

Anyway since then I bought a NC-2 prism finder and it has made all the difference to shooting with the Hassleblad, my images are now in focus and the compositions are better, of course the camera is now a lot heavier!

When it comes to street photography (involving people) although a TLR is so much better I think, it is easier to time a precise shot and there is no loud noises coming from the camera

Cheers, Richard

 

[Spanik]

Must be personal. I have problems focussing anything but a SLR. With a TLR I have to wind the rack back and forth with my head down and my eye to the loupe. With a RF moving the patch over different lines that cross it left-right and under-over. Takes ages. With a SLR I just turn the ring until it pops into focus. One movement.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

I've got a 500c/m (50, 80 and 150 lenses), a Rollei 3.5t (K8T2) and a Mamiya 7 (43, 65 and 150 lenses). For sheer contrast and sharpness, the Mamiya 7 wins every time. For sharpness but beautiful tonality, I feel the Rollei shades it. For tripod / macro work, I love using the Hassy and I've had some great results. None of this experience is backed up with science but I have to agree with the Perez test results as far as the mamiya 7 is concerned. If I could only have one rig, that would be it - so long as I don't need to focus any closer than 1 metre.....!!

 

[marduk]

Rolleiflex TLRs were my favorite MF cameras. I have a T with Tessar, 3.5E Planar and 2.8C Xenotar. I am not using the T enough these days because I tend to favor the other two. Can't find much difference in sheer picture quality between 3.5 and 2.8. However, recently I bought an excellent SL66 kit for next to no money and tonality and sharpness are just amazing. Maybe better than the TLRs, or it just that the condition of SL66 is better, or it is subjective because my scanner isn't high-end. Anyway I find the SL66 SLR hand-holdable enough and easy to focus , but not too heavy to lug around when I am hiking. However, RZ67 didn't work out for me because of mechanics, even though I'd prefer the 6x7 format. My flickr photostream contains recent images from all 3 cameras.

 

[Koolzakukumba]

Rolleiflex TLRs were my favorite MF cameras. I have a T with Tessar, 3.5E Planar and 2.8C Xenotar. I am not using the T enough these days because I tend to favor the other two. Can't find much difference in sheer picture quality between 3.5 and 2.8. However, recently I bought an excellent SL66 kit for next to no money and tonality and sharpness are just amazing. Maybe better than the TLRs, or it just that the condition of SL66 is better, or it is subjective because my scanner isn't high-end.

+1 for the SL66. I bought my SL66E outfit just over a year ago and it's absolutely fantastic. It's a joy to use and the Zeiss lenses are superb. I don't use it hand held, though. I nearly always shoot on a tripod with the mirror locked up for maximum sharpness. Most of the pics on my blog are shot with the SL66E.