hasselblad more robust than rolleiflex?

I remember when I was a working pro and the agency made me use their Hasselblad. Forget ruggedness, I was sacred it would jam! Think what happens when one presses the shutter.A whole chapter and verse take place till the film is exposed. Rollei is one soft click. In truth, 1 because of cost and 2 preferred the straight film line of Mamiya-C TLR.
The Zeiss lenses may be sharper, but the film straightness can and did affect the outcome. Also I could not focus Hasselblad exactly.
On paper the Hassie is the most beautiful SLR concept.
Yet when i downsized as i retired, I kept the Rollei Automat, sold the Pentax 6x7 system, which had succeeded the Mamiya-C system.
 
CMur12 said:
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
Click to expand...

I was simply providing information about some of the details of how the lunar surface cameras were modified. As I recall at least some Apollo missions also carried Hasselblads with reflex mirrors for use in flight.

Post edited, I have more time, now, than I did earlier.
Re: ruggedness. I don't know how much of a consideration that would have been. On the one hand the cameras had to do the job. But how much did that entail an ability to endure harsh treatment? Compared to an ordinary customer camera, they had to make a fraction of the frames. Without a reflex mirror, finder and capping plates they would have been simpler, so with less things to go wrong, in one way that would make them more rugged. On the other hand they also had Reseau plates which were made of glass. I don't know how robust they were, or the specially manufactured 70mm magazines for that matter. But the Reseau plates and specially made Biogons were fitted for reasons I do know—their ability to aid in delivering images of exceedingly low distortion, capable of being precision measured, and this necessitated the removal of standard reflex viewing parts in any case—which would also have reduced weight, another important consideration.

There were many unusual problems that had to be taken into account. Ability of the cameras to cope with the temperatures they would be exposed to on the moon being one such. Another, their reliability without the lubricants ordinary cameras and shutters used which would have boiled away in the vacuum in which they had to operate.

What this did do is make the EDC a very specialised piece of equipment indeed, but something can be specialised and rugged, or specialised and very delicate, the first two do not always go hand in hand. The only honest answer I can give to your question is that I don't know for sure in what order NASA's priorities lay. If I ever meet Buzz Aldrin, I'll ask him. Incidentally, he was reunited with an EDC recently (albeit one that had been fitted with a digital back, not an original 70mm magazine).

You might reasonably pose the question of whether or not a SWA/SWC is more rugged than reflex Hasselblads, because the cameras equipped with the standard 38mm version of the Biogon do not have reflex parts, either, and this would be a more interesting question given that, unlike the EDC, there are a number of members who actually own examples of them here.

Getting back to the original topic. I own a Hasselblad and a few Rollei TLRs, and rate both types of camera very highly. Each can do certain things better than the other. And I generally do a pretty good job of not dropping any of my cameras, but if I was going to drop one of the two discussed, I'd rather it was the Hasselblad because as wonderful as a Rolleiflex is, it is designed in a way that makes it less forgiving of impact and shock damage. I personally think either type is very durable in the context of longevity, but this is not the same as an ability to take abuse, different considerations apply.
Cheers
Brett
 
I am with you Pixie on preference for a straight film path.
The double reverse path on Hasselblad magazines is a concern.
I suppose it doesn't matter if you load the camera and then shoot an entire roll fairly quickly but if left for days or weeks in the magazine midway through the roll ....?
 
Lots of good information and insights here. Thanks for the follow-up, Brett.

- Murray


Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
I was simply providing information about some of the details of how the lunar surface cameras were modified. As I recall at least some Apollo missions also carried Hasselblads with reflex mirrors for use in flight.

Post edited, I have more time, now, than I did earlier.
Re: ruggedness. I don't know how much of a consideration that would have been. On the one hand the cameras had to do the job. But how much did that entail an ability to endure harsh treatment? Compared to an ordinary customer camera, they had to make a fraction of the frames. Without a reflex mirror, finder and capping plates they would have been simpler, so with less things to go wrong, in one way that would make them more rugged. On the other hand they also had Reseau plates which were made of glass. I don't know how robust they were, or the specially manufactured 70mm magazines for that matter. But the Reseau plates and specially made Biogons were fitted for reasons I do know—their ability to aid in delivering images of exceedingly low distortion, capable of being precision measured, and this necessitated the removal of standard reflex viewing parts in any case—which would also have reduced weight, another important consideration.

There were many unusual problems that had to be taken into account. Ability of the cameras to cope with the temperatures they would be exposed to on the moon being one such. Another, their reliability without the lubricants ordinary cameras and shutters used which would have boiled away in the vacuum in which they had to operate.

What this did do is make the EDC a very specialised piece of equipment indeed, but something can be specialised and rugged, or specialised and very delicate, the first two do not always go hand in hand. The only honest answer I can give to your question is that I don't know for sure in what order NASA's priorities lay. If I ever meet Buzz Aldrin, I'll ask him. Incidentally, he was reunited with an EDC recently (albeit one that had been fitted with a digital back, not an original 70mm magazine).

You might reasonably pose the question of whether or not a SWA/SWC is more rugged than reflex Hasselblads, because the cameras equipped with the standard 38mm version of the Biogon do not have reflex parts, either, and this would be a more interesting question given that, unlike the EDC, there are a number of members who actually own examples of them here.

Getting back to the original topic. I own a Hasselblad and a few Rollei TLRs, and rate both types of camera very highly. Each can do certain things better than the other. And I generally do a pretty good job of not dropping any of my cameras, but if I was going to drop one of the two discussed, I'd rather it was the Hasselblad because as wonderful as a Rolleiflex is, it is designed in a way that makes it less forgiving of impact and shock damage. I personally think either type is very durable in the context of longevity, but this is not the same as an abiity to take abuse, different considerations apply.
Cheers
Brett
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom