hasselblad more robust than rolleiflex?

J

jett

Well-known
Local time
5:55 PM
Joined
Oct 16, 2011
Messages
223
I have rolleiflex's, love them, but for daily shooting I go with leicas and 35m cameras.

Rolleis don't feel flimsy, just more delicate to me (this is my perception).

I'm wondering if a hasselblad makes sense from a durability point-of-view.
 
both of them were very hardy, professional workhorses. you would gain practically nothing in durability and reliability by getting a hasselblad. on the other hand, you would then own a hasselblad...which is reason enough. =)
 
I think of both as more studio cameras; 35mm, photojournalism. Of course there is some crossover.
 
Well, one of them made it to the Moon. That said, and having owned many of both, there is something to be said about the simplicity of the Rollei action.
 
I can't say about Hassy, but I've been using Rolleiflex as a street photography camera and it's very robust. And light enough for street camera...
 
jett said:
Rolleis don't feel flimsy, just more delicate to me (this is my perception).
Click to expand...

I have the same perception, in particular I have found that leaf shutters tend to need more maintenance than focal plane (unless the timing is via battery, such as with Bronica SQ).
 
Hmmm, on the one hand NASA chose Hasselblad... (though getting my scanner serviced was a hassle Vlad). On the other, my 1940-ish Rolleicord 1A just came back from a service and is just brilliant. I wouldn't worry about the durability of either.
 
For carrying over the shoulder, I always perceived the Hasselbald with WLF, and hooded lens pointing down , to be less prone to damage from knocks.
 
The weakest part of a Rolleiflex is the focus rail system. The lens and shutter are hanging out there on two relatively thin metal plates. And yes, all in all, the Rollei has a lot of thin metal parts that are vulnerable. The back, especially when open and loading film, the focus hood, the lens shroud.

Then again, the Rollei is mechanically very simple and direct. The linkages are pretty robust, and simpler than Hassy from what I know. No mirror to flip around, timing of mirror, lens shutter, aperture blades, back curtain, etc.

If I was running an obstacle course, probably the Hassy would be a stronger brick to carry and use. But with a little care in the street to protect the lens board and focus hood, and to be out of traffic when I have the back open changing film, the handling of the Rollei in the street works better for me in the street. And I've never had a Rollei fail except for one that dropped to the concrete from four feet when a strap broke. I doubt a Hassy would have done well, either.
 
I have owned several Rolei TLRs and only the SWC for a Hasselbald. I had a 2.8D that during a trip had the mirror move, and all images were very soft. This was a surprise to me as I thought that these TLRs were indestructible cameras.
 
I really enjoyed using a 2.8 C for many years. It provided a couple decades of great photos, and required service every five or six years, but the last two repairs (shutter, and film advance) were only a dozen rolls apart. It was the same price to get a 501cm and two lenses as a newer Rolleiflex , like a GX, or FX, so I have placed my bets on Hasselblad for now. I will report back in a couple decades;)
 
Dan has touched on some of the reasons a Rollei is more vulnerable to damage than a Hasselblad and I agree with them. There is no question that both were made to very high standards indeed. However the reality is that whilst you would not wish to drop either of them, the focus parts of a Rollei and their easily distorted aluminium backs would tolerate impact damage much less well than the helix focus system of a Hassy lens and the robust cubes of the Hassy body and magazines. I seem to recall reading of one of the US photo magazines deliberately dropping a Hassy a few times during their test in the 1950s and it refused to malfunction. I wouldn't care to do that with my Rolleis. None of this should be interpreted as the Rolleis not being durable. They are quite obviously capable of giving decades of professional use. But having had to re-align Rollei lens boards, and straighten bent Rollei backs, I'm absolutely certain they are the more susceptible of the two cameras to impact-related damage.
Cheers,
Brett
 
As I recall, the Hasselblad that went to the moon had been mechanically simplified (no mirror/no reflex viewing), with a metal frame that could be used for sighting the photos through the visor of a space helmet. So, I would expect it to be even more rugged than any Hasselblad any one of us might come upon.

Beyond that, I don't know how a Rollei TLR and a Hasselblad compare for ruggedness.

- Murray
 
I have had a recent film fogged with the Rolleiflex. I wasn't paying enough attention to the door hinge retaining lugs, one of which was disengaged! I almost bought a Hasselblad, but got an M9-P instead. I think the Hasselblad lust has passed me by now, especially as I got into a nice Rolleiflex for less than half the price.
 
I've had both, I'd agree that Rolleiflex feel more delicate, and maybe seem to 'rattle' a bit more, but maybe they've just got more moving parts. Both seemed perfectly hardly and durable though, had no issues with either.

For some reason, I'd probably be happier treating a Hasselblad more roughly, can't explain why.
 
i was able to build a Hasselblad with 50 80 150 lens kit for the price of a 2.8F

That said though, the Rolleiflex goes with me when I have fun in the street :D
 
CMur12 said:
As I recall, the Hasselblad that went to the moon had been mechanically simplified (no mirror/no reflex viewing), with a metal frame that could be used for sighting the photos through the visor of a space helmet. So, I would expect it to be even more rugged than any Hasselblad any one of us might come upon.

Beyond that, I don't know how a Rollei TLR and a Hasselblad compare for ruggedness.

- Murray
Click to expand...
The lunar surface Hasselblads (the EDC and its derivatives) had no viewfinders because apart from anything else the suits and helmets worn would have made using a conventional finder challenging, to say the least. The absence of the reflex mirror was also a consequence of the cameras being fitted with a special 60mm f/5.6 version of the Zeiss Biogon which, as most will be aware, is a non-retrofocus wide angle design, dictating the removal of the mirror for clearance reasons.
Cheers
Brett
 
Brett, my intention was to illustrate that the Hasselblads sent to the moon are not directly comparable to standard versions and that they are irrelevant to the comparison being made in this thread (though I didn't state it this clearly).

You have added more information about the lunar Hasselblads, but you have not related it to the topic at hand and I can't tell what point you wished to make. I don't know if you are reinforcing what I said or disagreeing with it.

Do you not think the Hasselblads sent to the moon were more rugged than the versions sold to the rest of us with moving mirrors?

- Murray
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom