Rollei vs. Hassie vs. Bronica GS-1
Chicknpipe
I'm considering replacing my tried and true Mamiya TLR system (good but
too heavy!! and no Polaroid) with a used SLR and have made a short list
of three candidates:
Model Advantages
Rollei 6006 Attractive base system prices, Zeiss lens
autoflash with my SCA Metz
Bronica GS-1 Attractive prices, 6x7 image, compact for 6x7
Hassie 2000FCM Hassei quality & resale, Zeiss lens,
fast shutter if needed
lots of used accessories, inexpensive
Kiev prism
I usually shoot (rectangular) landscapes and travel pictures. Portability
is essential. (eliminates the otherwise excellent Mamiya RB/RZ) Based on
my TLR experience, I expect to use 50-60mm and 150mm for 90%+ of my work.
Looking to make sharper large prints (11x14; 16x20 and above) than I can
get from my Contax/Zeiss 35mm setup. Almost always shoot with tripod or
monopod. Would like Polaroid proofs to check tricky lighting at distant
places. Have a good spotmeter and need to break free of the autometer
habits that I'm getting with the Contax.
I've read conflicting comments on Zeiss and Bronica lens quality...that
photos taken with Zeiss always seems sharper in side-by-side comparisons.
Would the larger 6x7 image offset any Zeiss advantage?
Can anyone share personal experience with these three systems? My budget
doesn't include rentals to field test each system. I'm going to have to
collect as much info as possible and plunge in.
Thank for any advice :-)
Mark
I have not used the Bronica GS 1 but doubt the lens can ever match Zeiss.
The Rollie system is to expensive and gimmicky. I doubt if you can do
better than Hasse. I must admit I am ver prejudice. I have owned a Hasse
for well over 20 years. My camera is a transitional model or otherwise a
500 CM that is not marked CM. When Hasse would introduce a new model they
would sometimes have a transitional model that would have the features
but not the designation. The len's are superb especially the 120 Planar!
Many people forget that with the 16 exposure back and a prism you have
the rectangular format most people prefer for most work (like landscape).
Its a little longer frame (like 35mm) so it goes to 11x14 almost
perfectly, and as a bonus you get 16 frames as opposed to other
manufacturers 15 frames. I have a special photo backpack for trips I take
out West. In it a carry one body, and 50mm(wish I had the 60mm), 80mm,
120mm, 250mm, & Hasse super sharp 2X converter (takes the 250mm to 500mm
with hardly any extra weight or space in the backpack, 3 to 4 16
exposure backs, 1 or 2 extension tubes (for Close-up), filters, cable
releases, and a Nikon FE2 with 55mm Macro, 105mm Macro I use for
metering and occasional closeup pictures. The only other thing I take is
a sturdy tripod. This system works great for me. I am not crazy about the
Hasse 2000 focal plane camera you are thinking of getting over the more
rugged 500CM but it does have an extended mirror which would be helpful,
but check the camera out carefully. Several I tried had bent or rippled
focal plane shutters and one had a coupleing problem when you used the
older shutter lens rather than the shutterless focal plane lens's that
caused the len's shutter & camera shutter to be out of synch thereby
getting no images at all. I didn't even know this was a problem with the
2000 cameras till I tried that camera out. I was told it was repairable
but it could happen again at anytime.
Good luck
Mark
fs...@i1.net
dannyg1
Mark+Chickenpipe(?),
Considering that the guy expressed concern about weight, the H'blad will
probably be lightest. OTOH, the jump in useable image size from 645 to 67
is a big one and Though your opinion of Zeiss lenses is an educated one, I
don't think the H'blad could match a 67 GS1 and/or a Schnieder lens
equipped Rollei in terms of image quality. There have been many test
reports done that show all of the above companies (and Mamiya) are
currently making lenses that are very nearly equal to one another. In the
Fotomagazin tests that you can aquire through Bob
Saloman(Bo...@aol.com), both the Rollei and bronica lenses outperform
H'blad in at least one focal length.
Given that, I think that (other than cost) the issue becomes one of lens
speed and minimum focus distances. The H'blad does have good
advantages on these counts. All of the mentioned choices are, at least
somewhat, electronic; so, no contest on that point.
Finally, I'd recommend looking at other 645 options as well. Seems to me,
if you're using H'blad as a 645 camera, it'd be the only fair way to come to
an educated, balanced decision.
Danny Gonzalez
MMorris826
I am prejudiced because I work for Tamron, but I can not stay on the
sidelines any longer.
There is no factual evidence that the Zeiss lenses are sharper and have
better contrast than the Bronica PS lenses and in fact there have been
tests conducted by Professional Photographer (England) Magazine that tell
a completely different story especially regarding the 40mm Distagon and
the 150 Sonnor. That test, while dated to the release of the PS lenses,
indicated that the 40 mm PS lens was SHARPER than the Distagon and the 150
PS was as sharp as the Sonnar with an edge better contrast.
Hasse owners simply will never admit that their dated technology is over
priced and will never find fault with their hugh over-investment.
1) Why do Hasse film inserts have to be hand matched to the back
and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
Inconsistent manufacturing techniques, perhaps?
2) How do you double expose a Hasse? Better take a few moments on
that one!
3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
such a well produced camera in the first place?
4) Can you advance to the first frame using the cocking lever with
a fresh roll of film ? NO!
5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
tilt the camera back? Ooops there goes a grand you didn't need!
Hey, I got more but I'm tired. Believe it or not Hasselbald has no
corner on quality. The worlds pros shoot more Canon and Nikon cameras from
Japan than Leica could ever dream of. That was unheard of in the 50's when
Leica was king. Times change, and the quality of Hasselbald, while
excellent, does not mean that anothers quality cannot, through innovation
and design, excede their standards.
While Hasselbald does make an excellent camera, it is based on 1950's
technology. 40 years later, there is an alternative....... Bronica.
BTW, how do you put a motor drive on a 501/503 Hasselbald? Oh thats right,
you can't! You have to buy another over priced body to do that.
MMorris
Without Regrets
TAMRON/BRONICA
Gary Gaugler
mmorr...@aol.com (MMorris826) wrote:
>I am prejudiced because I work for Tamron, but I can not stay on the
>sidelines any longer.
>There is no factual evidence that the Zeiss lenses are sharper and have
>better contrast than the Bronica PS lenses and in fact there have been
>tests conducted by Professional Photographer (England) Magazine that tell
>a completely different story especially regarding the 40mm Distagon and
>the 150 Sonnor. That test, while dated to the release of the PS lenses,
>indicated that the 40 mm PS lens was SHARPER than the Distagon and the 150
>PS was as sharp as the Sonnar with an edge better contrast.
>Hasse owners simply will never admit that their dated technology is over
>priced and will never find fault with their hugh over-investment.
> 1) Why do Hasse film inserts have to be hand matched to the back
>and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
>Inconsistent manufacturing techniques, perhaps?
Good question. Here is the answer. Quoting from The Hasselblad
Manual by Ernst Wildi he says "This matching system ensures the best
possible film flatness. Hasselblad has a patent on the interaction
between the rollers in the magazine shell and insert. The distances
and the alignment of the rollers must be adjusted individually. If
roll holders are switched during the process of photography, the
magazine still works, but spacing between images may not be as even
and film flatness not as accurate."
So, how does Bronica ensure the best possible film flatness?
> 2) How do you double expose a Hasse? Better take a few moments on
>that one!
Easy. Take exposure #1. Put dark slide in. Remove magazine. Wind
camera, put magazine back on. Pull dark slide. Take another
exposure.
> 3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
>such a well produced camera in the first place?
Maybe you are talking about a coin. This is when the lens is not
cocked and must be mounted on a cocked camera body. This is because
the leaf shutter lenses (like CF, etc) must be cocked to mount onto a
body that must also be cocked. No big deal.
> 4) Can you advance to the first frame using the cocking lever with
>a fresh roll of film ? NO!
So what? I advance using the winding handle on the magazine. I don't
*need* the camera to advance the film. I load multiple mags
separately from the camera in order to be ready for quick shot
sequences.
> 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
>tilt the camera back? Ooops there goes a grand you didn't need!
My PME-5 stays put quite nicely. But I don't try to place the
equipment in dangerous situations. I have not heard of this problem
before. I guess my process avoids this situation.
> Hey, I got more but I'm tired. Believe it or not Hasselbald has no
>corner on quality. The worlds pros shoot more Canon and Nikon cameras from
>Japan than Leica could ever dream of. That was unheard of in the 50's when
>Leica was king. Times change, and the quality of Hasselbald, while
>excellent, does not mean that anothers quality cannot, through innovation
>and design, excede their standards.
>While Hasselbald does make an excellent camera, it is based on 1950's
>technology. 40 years later, there is an alternative....... Bronica.
>BTW, how do you put a motor drive on a 501/503 Hasselbald? Oh thats right,
>you can't! You have to buy another over priced body to do that.
Not true. APCAM in NY sells an anatomical winder grip 500cmx for the
500 series cameras. Does 1 frame per second using 6 AA batteries.
Unit costs about $499 which is about half the price of the winder for
the 200 series Blad bodies.
> MMorris
>Without Regrets
>TAMRON/BRONICA
There are a lot more Blad units and accessories out there than for any
other MF camera. Irrespective of quality, availability of used items
allows one to build a system at low cost but still have high quality.
BTW. I have never been impressed with Tamron products. But I don't
think that Tamron manufactures the Bronica. If this is true, I would
consider the Bronica to be of decent quality. I have heard however
that some models suffer from poor reliability. I have no first-hand
experience in this regard so I can only relay hearsay. Can you shed
some light on Bronica reliability? Also, what is Zenza in relation to
Bronica? Is this the actual manufacturer?
Gary Gaugler
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Modern surfers use PC boards. You can too at
http://photoweb.net
Paul Wilson
Gary Gaugler wrote:
> There are a lot more Blad units and accessories out there than for any
> other MF camera. Irrespective of quality, availability of used items
> allows one to build a system at low cost but still have high quality.
Everyone knows that Pentax is the only quality MF camera that isn't
totally overpriced. :>
> BTW. I have never been impressed with Tamron products. But I don't
> think that Tamron manufactures the Bronica. If this is true, I would
> consider the Bronica to be of decent quality. I have heard however
> that some models suffer from poor reliability. I have no first-hand
> experience in this regard so I can only relay hearsay. Can you shed
> some light on Bronica reliability? Also, what is Zenza in relation to
> Bronica? Is this the actual manufacturer?
The name Zenza Bronica is a modification of the Japanese man who started
the company. Zenza Bronica roughly translates to "Zenza Buro's camera"
or something to that effect. This is according to McBroom's camera blue
book. From everything I've heard, except for the early S series, Bronica
is as reliable as any other MF camera (except maybe a P67, no flames
please). Bronica was recently bought out by Tamron and since it was so
recent, their manufacturing is probably still quite seperate, though this
might not last.
Paul Wilson
pwi...@individual.com
pwi...@ultranet.com
Gary Gaugler
chick...@aol.com (Chicknpipe) wrote:
>I'm considering replacing my tried and true Mamiya TLR system (good but
>too heavy!! and no Polaroid) with a used SLR and have made a short list
>of three candidates:
> Model Advantages
> Rollei 6006 Attractive base system prices, Zeiss lens
> autoflash with my SCA Metz
> Bronica GS-1 Attractive prices, 6x7 image, compact for 6x7
> Hassie 2000FCM Hassei quality & resale, Zeiss lens,
> fast shutter if needed
> lots of used accessories, inexpensive
>Kiev prism
[snip]
The Rollei and Hassy use Zeiss glass. This is excellent quality
stuff. Are you looking for a focal plane camera? If so, you ought to
consider a newer Blad like the 201 or 203. Personally, I would stick
to the leaf shutter lenses that Hassy offers and get a nice 503CX or
201 if you need 1/1000 shutter speed. Flash will sync at all speeds
with the leaf shutters and the 503 and 201 include a great OTF/TTL
flash control for the Blad dedicated flashes.
You can find much more accessories for the Blad than you can for the
Rollei. I would not suggest you add any Kiev items however.
MMorris826
Dear Gary,
I knew the answer to the hasse questions, the questions and your answer
show that there is no easy way to do those things on a Hassy at least not
as easy as on a Bronica.
A SQ-Ai has a double exposure switch which auto resets after two
exposures.
Bronica makes a motor for the SQ sreies not a third party.
All inserts fit all backs and mainatin flatness. Mr. Wilde's excuse is too
much to be believed for such a precision instrument. It is the hand
assembly which dictates this practice of back and insert combinations. It
you manufacture with-in proper tolerances every back should accept every
insert and visa versa.
Bronica cameras do not need a coin or other tool to recock the shutter
with the lens removed..
My point was the much bally-hooed Hasselblads have basic design flaws that
should not be tolerated at the extreme cost of their systems, but hassy
owners turn a blind eye to the defects, in respect to the lenses of ZEISS.
The Bronica cameras are a designers dream, a integrated system camera.
The relationship between Tamron and Bronica is that Tamron LTD. of Japan
is now the proud owner of Bronica Co. The new Zenza means literaly "the
camera of" and Bronica is the name of the founder and inventor of the
Bronica camera, so it the camera of Bronica..
The very early cameras, the S2, S2A, and C had reliablility problems. That
does not apply to the cameras of the last 22 years.
MMorris
Tamron/Bronica
MMorris826
Dear Paul,
Thanks for the further input. Bronica is still a separate company and
Tamron has now plans at this time to interfer in that set up. We will
provide money, technical and marketing support.
MMorris
Tamron/Bronica
BobS31
<You can find much more accessories for the Blad than you can for the
Rollei.>
Sorry but if you compare the catalogs Rollei has far more lenses and
accessories if you don'y count the same backs in 2 colors or with and
without electronic contacts.
Bob
Bob Salomon, HP Marketing Corp., Giottos, Gepe,
HP Combi-Plan T, Heliopan, Kaiser Fototechnik, Linhof, Rimowa,
Rodenstock, Rollei,
Gary Gaugler
mmorr...@aol.com (MMorris826) wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>MMorris
>Tamron/Bronica
My impression is that Bronica should welcome the money and marketing
support. However, I don't think Tamron has any technical or quality
inputs that would help Bronica. Unless something dramatic has changed
at Tamron in the last 5-10 years, Tamron is still at the bottom of my
list in the quality category. Maybe they've been working on this. It
will be interesting to see what they do.
Jerry Yeh
MMorris826 wrote:
>
> Dear Paul,
>
> Thanks for the further input. Bronica is still a separate company and
> Tamron has now plans at this time to interfer in that set up. We will
> provide money, technical and marketing support.
>
> MMorris
> Tamron/Bronica
May I say, Yahoo!
Tamron technology? do you mean something like the SP90mm Macro which
rivals the best of the Nikon macro, or do you mean something like the
28-200mm f3.8-5.6 zoom? Maybe its something plastically covered and has
autofocus capability. Or maybe the best of all, an adaptall mount that
will allow Tamron lens(Oops, I mean Bronica-Seikor-Tamron lens) to be
used on Mamiya, Rollei, Hasselblad, Pentax or Kiev, by just changing the
mount adaptor. That's a prayer-answered.
BTW, is there a 70-210mm f2.8 in the near future?
Jim
Chicknpipe
I believe the reference was to used accessories, which is very important
to us amateurs who can't justify the high price of new pro equipment.
Hassie used items are the most more readily available, if for no other
reason that they've been around so much longer. BTW, it seems that many
6006 Rollei lenses are updated to the PQ specs, and hence command the
higher PQ prices. Of course ready availability is only an issue if it
creates lower prices, since I will only need one of each focal length.
IF money were no object, I'd grab a 6008 with a shift WA and a 180mm.
Then I could leave my spotmeter at home!
Bob, one negative on the Rollei system is the Nicad. Memory can be deadly
to an occasional user. I know, the lifetime on the expensive nicads for
my E36RE is too short due largely to my light usage pattern. Does
Rollei/Samsung have any plans to offer a more modern MiMH or lithium
memory-free battery pack for the Rollei? This seems very feasible and
would be a big improvement.
The issue of Zeiss vs Japanese glass reminds me of the Leica vs the world
argument in 35mm. I remember photo mag tests that gave the sharpest 50mm
award to the Contax 50mm Zeiss (manufactured in Japan by Kyocera) Seems
I also remember Bob Shell once said that Rolleigon 80's (made by for
Rollei by Tokina?) were sharper than the Zeiss. Was this also true for
the 150mm Rolleigon?
IMHO, the fact that pros use a given brand has more to do with factory
support than absolute quality, and Mikon/Canon wrote the book in the 35mm
realm. BTW, Honda did the same with cars in North America. My Japanese
friends in the homeland say Honda has a mixed quality reputation in Japan
due largely to shakey dealer support.
I'm still torn between the larger 6x7 format on Bronica, the feature-rich
Rollei 6006 (which is reasonably affordable used), and the tried an true
'Blad (expensive, out-dated, but light and readily available). Although
the 'Blad looks overpriced and over-rated the more I learn. As I said in
my original posting, I eliminated the Mamiya RB/RZ and Fuji due to weight,
and the Pentax 67 because I want the option of a Polaroid back.
Maybe I'll win the lottery while I'm deciding and then I can buy all three
and do a side-by-side ocmparison!
| Mother, Mother Ocean, I have heard your call, |
| wanted to sail upon your waters |
| since I was three feet tall |
| (Jimmy Buffett, A Pirate Looks at 40) |
| \m/ aloha!
|
Chicknpipe
Gary Gaugler
bob...@aol.com (BobS31) wrote:
I mean that there are much more *used* items available for Blad than
for Rollei. since the Blad line has been very consistent in its
ability to utilize previous equipment. However, the Rollei in my view
essentially made wholesale changes from one generation to another.
Blad has recently done this with the introduction of the 200 series a
few years ago. But even those bodies can use the older stuff. But
this is straying from the issue.
Since his idea was to have options for lowcost entry into MF, that was
my point. Sorry that I did not make that used/new distinction early
on.
Nick Silva
In article <4v64nh$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, mmorr...@aol.com
(MMorris826) wrote:
> I am prejudiced because I work for Tamron, but I can not stay on the
> sidelines any longer.
> There is no factual evidence that the Zeiss lenses are sharper and have
> better contrast than the Bronica PS lenses and in fact there have been
> tests conducted by Professional Photographer (England) Magazine that tell
> a completely different story especially regarding the 40mm Distagon and
> the 150 Sonnor. That test, while dated to the release of the PS lenses,
> indicated that the 40 mm PS lens was SHARPER than the Distagon and the 150
> PS was as sharp as the Sonnar with an edge better contrast.
> Hasse owners simply will never admit that their dated technology is over
> priced and will never find fault with their hugh over-investment.
>
> 1) Why do Hasse film inserts have to be hand matched to the back
> and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
> Inconsistent manufacturing techniques, perhaps?
> 2) How do you double expose a Hasse? Better take a few moments on
> that one!
>
> 3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
> such a well produced camera in the first place?
>
> 4) Can you advance to the first frame using the cocking lever with
> a fresh roll of film ? NO!
>
> 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
> tilt the camera back? Ooops there goes a grand you didn't need!
>
> Hey, I got more but I'm tired. Believe it or not Hasselbald has no
> corner on quality. The worlds pros shoot more Canon and Nikon cameras from
> Japan than Leica could ever dream of. That was unheard of in the 50's when
> Leica was king. Times change, and the quality of Hasselbald, while
> excellent, does not mean that anothers quality cannot, through innovation
> and design, excede their standards.
>
> While Hasselbald does make an excellent camera, it is based on 1950's
> technology. 40 years later, there is an alternative....... Bronica.
>
> BTW, how do you put a motor drive on a 501/503 Hasselbald? Oh thats right,
> you can't! You have to buy another over priced body to do that.
Thank God somebody posted this! I recently got the chance to borrow a HB
system, and noticed all the problems above, and more. After living with
the system and its major flaws for 2 weeks, I couldn't believe anybody
would use one for *free*, much less pay exorbitant amounts of money for
it. The Leica M6 is also a dated design with prestige tags all over it,
but *it works*!
This is using a Hasselblad:
OK, which way does the slide go in? Ridge facing backwards (SLOW) Load
some film, let's see, oh yeah, remember to raise the film guide rail
(SLOW), now put it down (SLOW), now let's see, which back was this insert
to? can't mix those up (SLOW), wind the film to 1 with that little crank
(SLOW), where do I put the dark slide? I guess my pocket (SLOW), I need to
change lenses, is the body cocked? (SLOW) ok, I've got the new lens, let's
meter. Oops, forgot to set the max aperture on the PME-51, silly me
(SLOW), the meter's not coupled? *How* much is this thing? (INDIGNANCY)
ok, meter says 15, so let's set 15 on the EV scale, and I've got a shuuter
speed/aperture combo, snap, got that one, oh, look, it's still black
(SLOW), hafta wind it, where did that bird go? (SLOW) Let's try the 150mm.
Look! the top of the image vignettes! And they said that wouldn't happen
until 250mm. What do they know? (INDIGNANCY) Well, let's switch to the
50mm, wait, is the body cocked? (SLOW) Hey, the 50 looks weird! It's dark
around the edges, and has a bright spot in the middle! (BEWILDERMENT) The
80 and the 150 look fine. (INDIGNANCY, BEWILDERMENT)
Later, when the film comes back...
Hey, these aren't sharp wide open, but it's not the edges, it's the
centers! could it be a film flatness problem? These lenses are almost $3K
apiece, and the centers aren't sharp. Hmmmm, perhaps having the best
lenses is completely pointless if teh film isn't flat. Maybe those
matching serial number backs aren't a very good design after all. Hmmm,
the shots from the Mamiya 645 zoom run rings around the Zeiss lenses.
Maybe the film is flatter. Yeah, that's it. ;)
Nick Silva
________________________________________________________________________________
Chance favors the prepared mind.
n...@inamess.vip.best.com
________________________________________________________________________________
Nick Silva
In article <4v7qm3$f...@usenet10.interramp.com>, gau...@interramp.com
(Gary Gaugler) wrote:
> > 1) Why do Hasse film inserts have to be hand matched to the back
> >and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
> >Inconsistent manufacturing techniques, perhaps?
>
> Good question. Here is the answer. Quoting from The Hasselblad
> Manual by Ernst Wildi he says "This matching system ensures the best
> possible film flatness. Hasselblad has a patent on the interaction
> between the rollers in the magazine shell and insert. The distances
> and the alignment of the rollers must be adjusted individually. If
> roll holders are switched during the process of photography, the
> magazine still works, but spacing between images may not be as even
> and film flatness not as accurate."
Nice theory. Too bad it doesn't work. The Hasselblads I borrowed had the
worst film flatness I've ever seen in a camera. This was 2 different
bodies and three different backs from various vintages. I'll bet you
nobody ever wanted to infringe on *that* patent..;)
> > 3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
> >such a well produced camera in the first place?
> Maybe you are talking about a coin. This is when the lens is not
> cocked and must be mounted on a cocked camera body. This is because
> the leaf shutter lenses (like CF, etc) must be cocked to mount onto a
> body that must also be cocked. No big deal.
No, there is a specific un-jamming tool to rectify the lens mounting
uncocked jam problem. If you are careless and force it, it will jam, and a
coin ain't gonna do you any good anymore.
Gary Gaugler
n...@inamess.vip.best.com (Nick Silva) wrote:
[snip]
>Thank God somebody posted this! I recently got the chance to borrow a HB
>system, and noticed all the problems above, and more. After living with
>the system and its major flaws for 2 weeks, I couldn't believe anybody
>would use one for *free*, much less pay exorbitant amounts of money for
>it. The Leica M6 is also a dated design with prestige tags all over it,
>but *it works*!
[snip]
>Nick Silva
>________________________________________________________________________________
> Chance favors the prepared mind.
>
> n...@inamess.vip.best.com
>________________________________________________________________________________
Get whatever you like and can afford. That's the nice thing about
cameras and standards, there's so many to choose from.
Mark
Nick Silva wrote:
After living with the system and its major flaws for 2 weeks, I couldn't
believe anybody
> would use one for *free*
> Hey, these aren't sharp wide open, but it's not the edges, it's the
> centers! could it be a film flatness problem? These lenses are almost $3K
> apiece, and the centers aren't sharp. Hmmmm, perhaps having the best
> lenses is completely pointless if teh film isn't flat. Maybe those
> matching serial number backs aren't a very good design after all. Hmmm,
> the shots from the Mamiya 645 zoom run rings around the Zeiss lenses.
> Maybe the film is flatter.
Nick
Give me a break. I have used a Mamiya 645 and no Mamiya lens comes even
close to a Hasse in sharpness. In fact my old YashicaMat would win run
circles around the Mamiya 645 in sharpness. If your negs were not sharp
it was either because you didn't focus carefully or thought it was an
autofocus camera.
A Hasse does take some care and getting used to. Like Large format
photography equipment it is for professional shooters or at least serious
photographers who take the time to do a good photograph and do it right
the first time. A Hasse is not a point and shoot camera.
I don't mean to be rude but what you wrote simply is not true from my
over 20 yrs using my Hasse. I doubt if your 2 weeks attempting to learn
how to use a Hasse would make you an expert on Hasse.
Mark
fs...@i1.net
Nick Silva
In article <4vcdhc$7...@usenet10.interramp.com>, gau...@interramp.com
(Gary Gaugler) wrote:
> n...@inamess.vip.best.com (Nick Silva) wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Thank God somebody posted this! I recently got the chance to borrow a HB
> >system, and noticed all the problems above, and more. After living with
> >the system and its major flaws for 2 weeks, I couldn't believe anybody
> >would use one for *free*, much less pay exorbitant amounts of money for
> >it. The Leica M6 is also a dated design with prestige tags all over it,
> >but *it works*!
>
> [snip]
>
> >Nick Silva
>
>
>________________________________________________________________________________
> > Chance favors the prepared mind.
> >
> > n...@inamess.vip.best.com
>
>________________________________________________________________________________
>
> Get whatever you like and can afford. That's the nice thing about
> cameras and standards, there's so many to choose from.
Cute, but this bypasses the issue. I did get 'whatever I liked': a Mamiya
645 Pro, which was noticeably better than the ETRSi. As far as what I can
afford, well, let's just say I can afford whatever I want.
I agree wholeheartedly with your construct, but this is the way I would
phrase it:
Get whatever you like, no matter what the cost, even if it is an outdated
design that rides on the wings of some mythical quality that doesn't
exist, because hey, some people love to waste their money on expensive
toys so they can look cool and smile knowingly at other owners who wasted
their money also, and then poo-poo Japanese equipment because they're
really *insecure* about how objectively good their cameras are. That's the
nice thing about prestige marketing: people will buy into it and support
it to the end, even in the face of contrary evidence.
Mark
MMorris826 wrote:
>
> I am prejudiced because I work for Tamron, but I can not stay on the
> sidelines any longer.>
> and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
> Inconsistent manufacturing techniques, perhaps?
> that one!
>
> such a well produced camera in the first place?
>
> a fresh roll of film ? NO!
>
> 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
> tilt the camera back? Ooops there goes a grand you didn't need!
> Without Regrets
> TAMRON/BRONICA
MMorris
Just have to reply to your digs on Hasse. No Bronica lens will ever match
the Planar especially the 120mm. The inserts & backs are matched because
the camera is built as a precision instrument not a mill of the run
camera. If you want to double expose you remove the back, recock the
shutter, and replace the back. Since I don't do gimmick weddings (I am a
Commercial Photographer) I don't worry about double exposing I'd rather
expose each frame on its own piece of film (smile). Never heard of a
unjam tool and never needed one in over 20yrs of use of the same camera
(also have never needed the camera repaired). I do not find it difficult
to crank the camera back then place it on the camera when first loading a
Hasse back it is faster then a hand crank on the camera body. Why would I
take the camera back off and then tilt the camera to the ceiling?
I admit I love my Hasse. I started out with a Bronica S-2. That camera
had Nikkor optics that were sharp. But I didn't like the focal plane
shutter and the camera was not very durable. Friends of mine have had
Bronica ETR's and I think there interesting but they are in the repair
shop a awful lot. I still say that the all mechanical Hasse 500C or CM
will out last anybodys electronic camera and I bet in the future the
electronic shutter 2 1/4 cameras will be like the 35 electonic shutter
cameras, a throw away because they can't be repaired.
Without Regrets
Mark
fs...@i1.net
Dan Eisenman
Gee I must be one of those guys.I have been using Hasselblad equipment for
about twenty years.I find it to be quite excellent,the glass I have is not soft
when used wide open.Repairs have been modest and Hasselbad has always
treated me great with any questions or minor problems I have had in these
many years.
Dan Eisenman
All Pro Photo
Clearwater Fl
Nick Silva
In article <3219FB...@i1.net>, Mark <fs...@i1.net> wrote:
> Nick Silva wrote:
>
> After living with the system and its major flaws for 2 weeks, I couldn't
> believe anybody
> > would use one for *free*
> > Later, when the film comes back...
> > Hey, these aren't sharp wide open, but it's not the edges, it's the
> > centers! could it be a film flatness problem? These lenses are almost $3K
> > apiece, and the centers aren't sharp. Hmmmm, perhaps having the best
> > lenses is completely pointless if teh film isn't flat. Maybe those
> > matching serial number backs aren't a very good design after all. Hmmm,
> > the shots from the Mamiya 645 zoom run rings around the Zeiss lenses.
> > Maybe the film is flatter.
>
> Nick
>
> Give me a break. I have used a Mamiya 645 and no Mamiya lens comes even
> close to a Hasse in sharpness. In fact my old YashicaMat would win run
> circles around the Mamiya 645 in sharpness. If your negs were not sharp
> it was either because you didn't focus carefully or thought it was an
> autofocus camera.
Would you like me to send you my slides? I will, and you can see for
yourself that the results from the HB lenses are noticeably inferior to
the Mamiya zoom: center particularly. What you say may have been true 20
years ago (probably was, actually), but it holds precious little water
today. Actually, this is my theory as to why HB has its lofty,
unmaintained position. My guess is that 20 years ago it was true: HB was
noticeably better than the Japanese competition. These days, with CAD and
modern manufacturing techniques, there's no more magic, but the myth
persists.
As far as the focusing goes, I'll ignore that except to admit that if
there is some 'special slow convoluted Hasselblad way' to focus, I don't
know it.
> A Hasse does take some care and getting used to. Like Large format
> photography equipment it is for professional shooters or at least serious
> photographers who take the time to do a good photograph and do it right
> the first time. A Hasse is not a point and shoot camera.
A poor excuse for a bad design.
> I don't mean to be rude but what you wrote simply is not true from my
> over 20 yrs using my Hasse. I doubt if your 2 weeks attempting to learn
> how to use a Hasse would make you an expert on Hasse.
How can it not be true? I have the slides to prove it! And the rest of the
problems are well-documented; certainly you can't suggest that anything I
said about the function of the camera is untrue. As far as the results,
I'm willing to accept that this was rental eqpt and therefore not
well-cared for. BUT, the eqpt is supposedly rugged, and there's not much
one can do (that doesn't break the thing) that would alter the results I
got. I used 3 different backs, and had film flatness problems with all of
them.
And I never claimed to be an expert on HB; these are just my observations
about using the camera for 2 weeks, although I'm fairly certain that the
problems I noted wouldn't go away. And quite honestly, I don't think I'd
want to become an 'expert' on HB; it sounds like a position in which I'd
have to be very defensive and small-minded.
Linh Nguyen
Matthias Sauer wrote:
> But it needs a battery, doesn't it?
So what? most modern cameras require battery.
Matthias Sauer
MMorris826 wrote:
[...]
>
> Bronica cameras do not need a coin or other tool to recock the shutter
> with the lens removed..
But it needs a battery, doesn't it?
> My point was the much bally-hooed Hasselblads have basic design flaws that
> should not be tolerated at the extreme cost of their systems, but hassy
> owners turn a blind eye to the defects, in respect to the lenses of
ZEISS.
Isn't it much a different design PHILOSOPHY? Your argument sounds a bit
like "why can't your screwdriver do welding" (a bit exaggerated, I
admit). Whe I was deciding which camera to buy, I was thinking about the
SQ-Ai for quite a while. Then I thought about what I really need the
camera for and what seems to be important for ME. This included the way
the camera feels in my hand. The ruled out the Bronica. And I ended up
with the 501 kit which had everything I needed. However, if I needed
something more advanced including spot meter etc. then I might probably
have gone for the 6008 instead of a 203 (which I think is overpriced).
Another thing about lenses: It is not only the optical quality that
matters. Mechanical quality matters as well. I had some bad experiences
in the 35mm world with 'cheap' (though optically good) lenses, where the
focussing thread was worn out after a few years. I don't want to imply
that Bronica lenses are mechanically inferior, I just want to say that
there are several aspects to think of, just as in the decision for a
particular camera.
> The Bronica cameras are a designers dream, a integrated system camera.
>
Maybe Tamron considers Bronca their brand new toy and want everybody to
admire it:) But there might be a certain likelihood that it is not the
universal all-purpose everything-superior toy. Although it is a nice
one.
> The relationship between Tamron and Bronica is that Tamron LTD. of Japan
> is now the proud owner of Bronica Co. The new Zenza means literaly "the
> camera of" and Bronica is the name of the founder and inventor of the
> Bronica camera, so it the camera of Bronica..
>
> The very early cameras, the S2, S2A, and C had reliablility problems. That
> does not apply to the cameras of the last 22 years.
>
> MMorris
> Tamron/Bronica
Cheers,
Matthias
--
Matthias Sauer Tel +44-1865-283549
Oxford University Computing Laboratory Fax +44-1865-273839
Wolfson Bldg., Parks Road email ma...@comlab.ox.ac.uk
Oxford OX1 3QD, U.K.
URL: http://www.comlab.ox.ac.uk/oucl/users/matthias.sauer/
Wilt W
Lihn,
> But it needs a battery, doesn't it?
>>So what? most modern cameras require battery.<<
Your rebuttal is appropriate. After all, the new Hasselblad 200-series
cameras are just as reliant on batteries for operation as the other
brands. All-mechanical has enjoyed its day, but Hasselblad recognizes
that it cannot remain competitive if it thinks that all-mechanical is
dogma.
--Wilt
Wilt W
Mark,
Let me preface by stating that I'm not out to bash Hassy. Nevertheless,
I couldn't resist rebutting some of your comments... <s>
>> The inserts & backs are matched because the camera is built as a
precision instrument not a mill of the run camera.<<
In these days of automated assembly with precision that extremely high,
one has to wonder why hand matching is needed at all. OK, race engines
use handmatched parts, but that scarcely makes the ordinary non-race
engine coming off the assembly line to be wretched performing dogs.
People don't complain about film flatness on Nikon, and Nikon surely isn't
a hand-built camera...so why does Hassy still have to resort to
hand-matching?!?!
>> Never heard of a unjam tool and never needed one in over 20yrs of use
of the same camera (also have never needed the camera repaired).<<
While admittedly jamming is the result of pilot error (and you,
obviously, have not fallen victim to such a problem) the problem is
widespread enough that somebody makes a BUSINESS out of selling the
unjamming tool. Just as somebody makes a business out of selling metal
replacement feet for Vivitar 283, IMHO that's pointing out a significant
shortcoming of design, for which a workaround solution had to be invented.
>>Why would I take the camera back off and then tilt the camera to the
ceiling? <<
Well, how about shooting out in a wet field with no assistant to hold your
camera, and no tripod at your side to mount the camera on (to hold it
while you change backs)...so you hang the camera from your neck, remove
the back, and then accidentally jostle the body into lens-up orientation
as you place the old lens in your bag and fish out the lens you want?!?!
>> I still say that the all mechanical Hasse 500C or CM
will out last anybodys electronic camera and I bet in the future the
electronic shutter 2 1/4 cameras will be like the 35 electonic shutter
cameras, a throw away because they can't be repaired.<<
Then Hassy's newest 200-series cameras will be relegated to the same
throw-away pile, too?!?! Hasselblad is no longer the all-mechanical brand
name it used to be.
--Wilt
Dave Munroe
Nick Silva wrote:
>Get whatever you like, no matter what the cost, even if it is an outdated
>design that rides on the wings of some mythical quality that doesn't
>exist, because hey, some people love to waste their money on expensive
>toys so they can look cool and smile knowingly at other owners who wasted
>their money also, and then poo-poo Japanese equipment because they're
>really *insecure* about how objectively good their cameras are. That's the
>nice thing about prestige marketing: people will buy into it and support
>it to the end, even in the face of contrary evidence.
I think you're overstating your case by implying Hasselblad quality is
mythical and doesn't exist. Ever since the late 1970's, pretty much
every camera manufacturer, both 35mm and medium format, has been producing
high quality equipment and optics. If they hadn't been, they would no
longer exist because the market (that's us) wouldn't tolerate it. A lot
of the differences played up by magazines' "test reports" are, in my opinion,
totally insignificant in the real world.
I doubt if people buy Hasselblad to "look cool" either. Many photographers,
such as myself, take our equipment out to wilderness areas where the only
living creatures to observe our photo equipment are rattlesnakes and lizards.
I don't cruise shopping malls and pubs with any of my cameras :-)
Also, I don't see why Japanese equipment factors into this issue. I have a
Nikon F3/T, an F2 Photomic, and an old Pentax SP500 which produces tack-sharp
photos; I love these cameras.
We really need to stop this silly equipment war, this Rollei "vs." Hassie "vs."
Bronica and so on. They are all good cameras capable of producing excellent
results; the choice of which camera to buy is a personal one based partly on
features, ergonomics, and design philosophy.
-Dave
Dave Munroe
John Irvin Buford
Enough is enough. I really do not care what brand of MF camera
someone else uses. I am happy with the MF cameras that I use including
Norita, Hasselblad, c330, Rollei, Mamiya 6, Graflex XLSW, Busch
Pressman 6x9 and assorted TLR's. And I hope that all of you are as
happy with your choice of marque. Because that bottom line is taking
pictures. All of this posturing, and chest beating will really do
nothing that advances the hobby. Also, there is a very good reason
that the older designs (i.e. Hasse, Leica, Nikon F mount) are not
changed to take advantage of all of the latest electronic features is
that they are more concerned about total system compatibility that
bells and whistles. If it makes them better or worse who cares, It
comes down to a difference in company philosophy.
John N3BVH
Chicknpipe
When I posted my original question, I was looking for advice on the
improtant factors that your mention, including ergonometrics, reliability,
etc. Rollei, Hassie, Bronica, Pentax, Mamiya, Fuji all take excellent
pictures. I still get good shots with my 1950 Rolleicord, although the
lens is a little "soft".
I learned some important issues to consider in evaluating Hasselblad, and
confirmed much of my thinking on 6x7 vs. 6x6 vs. 645.
Anyway, my thanks to everyone who shared their experience and opinions.
joe b.
In article <321CC4...@earthlink.net>, Frank Hampshire
<ha...@earthlink.net> writes
>> > 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
>> > tilt the camera back?
>
>doing it correctly.
My curiosity is getting the better of me. What bad thing exactly is it
that is supposed to happen in this situation?
--
joe b.
Frank Hampshire
> MMorris826 wrote:
>
> > 1) Why do Hasse film inserts have to be hand matched to the back
> > and mixing inserts and backs is frowned upon?
To keep the film flatter thn the mass produced cameras Hassy has a patented system
that is too precise to leave to surplus Toyota autobody stamping machines.
> > 2) How do you double expose a Hasse?
Rock the back backwards a bit and re-cock the shutter.
> > 3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
> > such a well produced camera in the first place?
With a real shutter between the lens elements, a coupling is required. In the event that some
ape attempts to force the lens off when the key is not free (personally can't see how this could
happen) the device provides an easy solution.
> > 4) Can you advance to the first frame using the cocking lever with
> > a fresh roll of film ? NO!
I don't think so, nor can I hide a six-pack in it, what's the point?
> > 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
> > tilt the camera back?
I tried it just the way you said to do it, nothing happened. Perhaps I am not doing it correctly.
Frank
BobS31
<I mean that there are much more *used* items available for Blad than
for Rollei. since the Blad line has been very consistent in its
ability to utilize previous equipment. However, the Rollei in my view
essentially made wholesale changes from one generation to another.
Blad has recently done this with the introduction of the 200 series a
few years ago. But even those bodies can use the older stuff. But
this is straying from the issue.>
Gary,
The current Rolleis use all of the lenses and accessories from the SLX of
20+ years ago except for the backs and a remote control.
The SLX uses all of the current accessories except for the backs and the
high speed lenses and shutters.
Both use the same filters and hoods and grips, etc. as the SL66 from the
60's.
Rollei has maintained far more compatibility then you give them credit
for.
What you are probably trying to say is that Rollei developed multiple
systems. A mechanical one and an electronic one and the lenses were not
interchangeable between them but even this is actually wrong as there is
an adaptor that will put 6000 lenses on the SL66. Or on the 3000 system or
even on a Nikon or Canon or a Leica should the ability to have a synch
speed of 1/500 or up to 1/1000 be a requirement.
Nick Silva
> In article <321CC4...@earthlink.net>, Frank Hampshire
> <ha...@earthlink.net> writes
> >> > 5) What happens to your finder if you remove your film back and
> >> > tilt the camera back?
> >
> >I tried it just the way you said to do it, nothing happened. Perhaps I
am not
> >doing it correctly.
>
> My curiosity is getting the better of me. What bad thing exactly is it
> that is supposed to happen in this situation?
> --
> joe b.
In theory, since the prism is held in place by the back, it's possible to
have the prism slide off the camera when the back is removed and the
camera tilted, although it seems to me unlikely that this will happen due
to the relatively tight fitting of the prism rails.
BobS31
<Bob, one negative on the Rollei system is the Nicad. Memory can be
deadly
to an occasional user. I know, the lifetime on the expensive nicads for
my E36RE is too short due largely to my light usage pattern. Does
Rollei/Samsung have any plans to offer a more modern MiMH or lithium
memory-free battery pack for the Rollei? This seems very feasible and
would be a big improvement.>
The 10V NiCad for the Rollei has a capacity of appx 500 shots per charge.
If you continually abuse the battery the MAXIMUM memory that can be put in
to the battery is 10% of the TOTAL capacity of the battery.
In simple terms this means instead of 500 shots per charge you would get
450.
The memory effect, should you put it in, is easily reversed on the
battery.
The problem with Rollei NiCads has not been memory. It was overcharging
which would cause one or more cells to reverse.
This was possible with the old 2 stage charger but can not occur with the
current charger as it is a 3 stage charger and the third stage is a pulse
charge mode that will keep the battery at 100% capacity indefinatly
without overcharging it.
<The issue of Zeiss vs Japanese glass reminds me of the Leica vs the world
argument in 35mm. I remember photo mag tests that gave the sharpest 50mm
award to the Contax 50mm Zeiss (manufactured in Japan by Kyocera) Seems
I also remember Bob Shell once said that Rolleigon 80's (made by for
Rollei by Tokina?) were sharper than the Zeiss. Was this also true for
the 150mm Rolleigon?>
The Rolleigons were terrible failures. Even for much less than the Zeiss
lenses photographers would not buy them.
<I'm still torn between the larger 6x7 format on Bronica, the feature-rich
Rollei 6006 (which is reasonably affordable used), and the tried an true
'Blad (expensive, out-dated, but light and readily available). Although
the 'Blad looks overpriced and over-rated the more I learn. As I said in
my original posting, I eliminated the Mamiya RB/RZ and Fuji due to weight,
and the Pentax 67 because I want the option of a Polaroid back.>
Why not just rent the ones that interest you and see for yourself?
BobS31
<> But it needs a battery, doesn't it?
So what? most modern cameras require battery.>
So do most watches, all cars, most boats except row boats and canoes, etc.
Gary Gaugler
bob...@aol.com (BobS31) wrote:
>Gary,
>Bob
>Bob Salomon, HP Marketing Corp., Giottos, Gepe,
>HP Combi-Plan T, Heliopan, Kaiser Fototechnik, Linhof, Rimowa,
>Rodenstock, Rollei,
Interesting. Why don't I see more used Rollei stuff like this then?
There is more Blad. We could speculate about this ad infinitum but
simply put, there is more used Blad stuff than there is Rollei. That
was my point. It is good that the older Rollei stuff is still
useable.
bea...@primenet.com
:If you continually abuse the battery the MAXIMUM memory that can be put in
:to the battery is 10% of the TOTAL capacity of the battery.
:In simple terms this means instead of 500 shots per charge you would get
:450.
Not been my experience with nicads over many
years of use on many platforms other than
photographic. It *is* quite possible to abuse
nicads to the point that you can only get 10%
of the normal charge into the batts. This
would mean 50 shots instead of the rated 500
(assuming linear depletion which we shouldn't
assume. Less than 50 shots would probably
result).
Pulsing, after nearly full charge is achieved
will go a long way to prevent overcharge and
periodic *full* depletion before full
charging *will* help prevent this memory
effect from happening. Newer NiMH chemistry,
however, is proving to be the better answer
if necessary capacities can be had.
--
Roger Beamon, Naturalist & Photographer
Docent: Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum
Leica Historical Society Of America
INTERNET: bea...@primenet.com
Thilo Schmid
bea...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> :If you continually abuse the battery the MAXIMUM memory that can be put in
> :to the battery is 10% of the TOTAL capacity of the battery.
>
> :In simple terms this means instead of 500 shots per charge you would get
> :450.
>
> Not been my experience with nicads over many
> years of use on many platforms other than
> photographic. It *is* quite possible to abuse
> nicads to the point that you can only get 10%
> of the normal charge into the batts. This
> would mean 50 shots instead of the rated 500
> (assuming linear depletion which we shouldn't
> assume. Less than 50 shots would probably
> result).
My four years of experience have shown: There is no such problem. I'm
still using the same batteries and since I have five of them, they are
not much frequented and only one is remaining in the charger while the
others sometimes stay unused for several weeks.
>
> Pulsing, after nearly full charge is achieved
> will go a long way to prevent overcharge and
> periodic *full* depletion before full
> charging *will* help prevent this memory
> effect from happening. Newer NiMH chemistry,
> however, is proving to be the better answer
> if necessary capacities can be had.
>
Although NiCd has the disadvantage of a (slight) memory effect, it still
has some advantages ofer the other "chemistry":
- performs o.k. at deeper temperatures (NiMH will fail very soon)
- can be recharged over 1000 times (NiMH only 1/3)
- have relative low self-discharging rates (NiMH very high)
.
.
.
Today batteries and chargers cannot be compared to those of the 70ies
razors.
--
Thilo Schmid
Frankfurt, Germany
Tim Brown
>Chicknpipe wrote:
>>
>> I'm considering replacing my tried and true Mamiya TLR system (good but
>> too heavy!! and no Polaroid) with a used SLR and have made a short list
>> of three candidates:
>> Model Advantages
>> Rollei 6006 Attractive base system prices, Zeiss lens
>> autoflash with my SCA Metz
>> Bronica GS-1 Attractive prices, 6x7 image, compact for 6x7
>> Hassie 2000FCM Hassei quality & resale, Zeiss lens,
>> fast shutter if needed
>> lots of used accessories, inexpensive
>> Kiev prism
>>
>> I usually shoot (rectangular) landscapes and travel pictures. Portability
>> is essential. (eliminates the otherwise excellent Mamiya RB/RZ) Based on
>> my TLR experience, I expect to use 50-60mm and 150mm for 90%+ of my work.
>> Looking to make sharper large prints (11x14; 16x20 and above) than I can
>> get from my Contax/Zeiss 35mm setup. Almost always shoot with tripod or
>> monopod. Would like Polaroid proofs to check tricky lighting at distant
>> places. Have a good spotmeter and need to break free of the autometer
>> habits that I'm getting with the Contax.
>>
>> I've read conflicting comments on Zeiss and Bronica lens quality...that
>> photos taken with Zeiss always seems sharper in side-by-side comparisons.
>> Would the larger 6x7 image offset any Zeiss advantage?
>>
>> Can anyone share personal experience with these three systems? My budget
>> doesn't include rentals to field test each system. I'm going to have to
>> collect as much info as possible and plunge in.
Feel is everything, brand means little. The varied condition of used equipment
negates any brand reputation for reliability, you could get a goat in any
brand. If you want a compact camera look at the 645's.
Tim
BobS31
<>With a real shutter between the lens elements, a coupling is required.
In the event that some
>ape attempts to force the lens off when the key is not free (personally
can't see how this could
>happen) the device provides an easy solution. >
Not so. With an old mechanical linking system there is a mechanical
connection between the body and the lens to cock the shutter.
With a Rollei 6000 there are only a series of gold contacts and no
menchanical linkage so the whole problem of mounting and unmounting cocked
lenses and the specific order that tubes, convertors and lenses have to be
mounted and unmounted is unnecessary.
Yes the Rollei is a between the lens shutter with shutter and synch speeds
to 1/500 or 1/1000 and the apertures and shutter speeds are settable in
1/3rd steps.
So the statement:
<>With a real shutter between the lens elements, a coupling is
required.<>
is only true in some cases.
Stephen O Gombosi
Frank Hampshire <ha...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>> > 3) What is a Hasse un jamming tool? and why do you need to un jam
>> > such a well produced camera in the first place?
>
>ape attempts to force the lens off when the key is not free (personally can't see how this could
>happen) the device provides an easy solution.
Well, I know one owner who managed to hit the shutter release while removing
a lens. I only did it once, though - and it was many years ago ;-).
You really do have to be incredibly clumsy to do this.
Steve
Stephen O Gombosi
In article <4vf2t7$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Wilt W <wi...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Well, how about shooting out in a wet field with no assistant to hold your
>camera, and no tripod at your side to mount the camera on (to hold it
>while you change backs)...so you hang the camera from your neck, remove
>the back, and then accidentally jostle the body into lens-up orientation
>as you place the old lens in your bag and fish out the lens you want?!?!
Well...
1) I assume you meant "back" instead of lens
2) I've done magazine changes in the middle of a typhoon without having
this sort of problem - and I've never needed an assistant. This is
*not* the sort of thing I'd like to do on a regular basis ;-).
3) It's pretty unlikely that a Hassy will tilt into a lens-up orientation,
considering that they're "front-heavy". The strap lugs are deliberately
placed behind the camera'scenter of gravity so that the camera will hang
"nose down".
4) Even if this does happen, I doubt if the finder will "slip out". I just
took my 500 C/M, removed the magazine, held it with the lens pointing
upward, and shook the little sucker. My PME3 finder didn't budge.
Those rails are *tight*. I thought about rapping it on the desk
a couple of times, but didn't.
Who cares? This is all a matter of personal taste.
Steve
BobS31
<I seem to remember that the Rollei doesn't have a real shutter (in the
sense
we think of it), but linear electric motors that drive the shutter, and
the
aperature. So all that is necessary is to energize the motors
approrately.>
Rollei has 2 sets of blades, just like a Compur, Copal, Prontor, Seiko,
Horseman etc. shutter. These blades are between the lens groups and one
set is the shutter blades and one set is the aperture blades. In short
this is a between the lens shutter.
They are moved by the Rollei linear motors which are magnetic motors. But
what moves them is not what detemines if it is or is not a leaf shutter.
The fact that it uses blades made of either metal or layered carbon fiber
resin and where those blades are positioned makes it a between the lens
shutter - and the blades are in exactly the same place as a Compur, Copal,
Prontor, Seiko, Horseman etc. shutter.
mike...@austin.ibm.com
In article <503q4s$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, bob...@aol.com (BobS31) writes:
> <>With a real shutter between the lens elements, a coupling is required.
> In the event that some
> >ape attempts to force the lens off when the key is not free (personally
> can't see how this could
> >happen) the device provides an easy solution. >
>
> Not so. With an old mechanical linking system there is a mechanical
> connection between the body and the lens to cock the shutter.
>
> With a Rollei 6000 there are only a series of gold contacts and no
> menchanical linkage so the whole problem of mounting and unmounting cocked
> lenses and the specific order that tubes, convertors and lenses have to be
> mounted and unmounted is unnecessary.
I seem to remember that the Rollei doesn't have a real shutter (in the sense
we think of it), but linear electric motors that drive the shutter, and the
aperature. So all that is necessary is to energize the motors approrately.
>
> Yes the Rollei is a between the lens shutter with shutter and synch speeds
> to 1/500 or 1/1000 and the apertures and shutter speeds are settable in
> 1/3rd steps.
>
> So the statement:
> <>With a real shutter between the lens elements, a coupling is
> required.<>
> is only true in some cases.
>
> Bob
> Bob Salomon, HP Marketing Corp., Giottos, Gepe,
> HP Combi-Plan T, Heliopan, Kaiser Fototechnik, Linhof, Rimowa,
> Rodenstock, Rollei,
--
Michael (Mike) C. Dean
IBM - RISC/6000 Division
Austin, Texas.
Disclaimer - The opinions expressed in this append are mine alone.