Hasselblad 500 and Mamiya RB67

[CMoore]

I have an RB.
I have only seen Video/Pictures of the H-500.

But the Hasselblad seems quite a bit smaller and lighter.
Are they two Very Different cameras.?
I realize the Mamiya can change orientation, does that require the body to be bigger, heavier, more substantial also.?

I guess what i am wondering is.........could Mamiya have made the RB smaller like the H-500, or maybe Mamiya simply thought the RB would "Always" be in a studio on a tripod and were not concerned with Weight/Size for that reason.?
Thank You

 

[Luckless]

The existence of the grip for the RB67 would suggest that they were aware that people were looking to lug them off a tripod and probably out of a studio. But really it isn't that bad to lug around.

They had other smaller lighter options in their lineup from the same period, and you can only make so many products that tick so many specification boxes for so many customers.

I'm sure Mamiya could have basically cloned the Hasselblad, but there was also a push in Japan to make quality products that specifically weren't clones, so they were still under legal pressure to make their own distinct product lines.

 

[MattKing]

The RB67 is built on a frame that can theoretically support an 7.6 cm x 7.6 cm negative. It has to be that big to support the 6x8 back.
The Hasselblad is built on a frame that can support a 5.6 cm x 5.6 cm negative.
Very different cameras and camera systems.
Mamiya could have made a rotating back version of their 6x4.5 cameras that would have been similar in size to the Hasselblad, but they didn't elect to do that.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Wait a minute... There's a 6x8 back for the RB??

 

[MattKing]

Wait a minute... There's a 6x8 back for the RB??

Yep - see here: https://rb67.helluin.org/2011/02/09/qa-6x8-on-the-rb67/
Vignettes slightly in landscape orientation.

 

[CMoore]

The existence of the grip for the RB67 would suggest that they were aware that people were looking to lug them off a tripod and probably out of a studio. But really it isn't that bad to lug around.

They had other smaller lighter options in their lineup from the same period, and you can only make so many products that tick so many specification boxes for so many customers.

I'm sure Mamiya could have basically cloned the Hasselblad, but there was also a push in Japan to make quality products that specifically weren't clones, so they were still under legal pressure to make their own distinct product lines.

Thank You

The RB67 is built on a frame that can theoretically support an 7.6 cm x 7.6 cm negative. It has to be that big to support the 6x8 back.
The Hasselblad is built on a frame that can support a 5.6 cm x 5.6 cm negative.
Very different cameras and camera systems.
Mamiya could have made a rotating back version of their 6x4.5 cameras that would have been similar in size to the Hasselblad, but they didn't elect to do that.

Per usual...Thank You

Wait a minute... There's a 6x8 back for the RB??

Not that i will ever Need/Want one........but i did not know that either.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Just looked on eBay... Tempting.

 

[MattKing]

Just looked on eBay... Tempting.

Make sure you have the right rotary adapter. It was standard equipment after a certain point in time. If you have the older one, it is easily swapped out with the right one for 6x8.
It is also important to realize that the viewing system doesn't quite show the whole frame.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Make sure you have the right rotary adapter. It was standard equipment after a certain point in time. If you have the older one, it is easily swapped out with the right one for 6x8.
It is also important to realize that the viewing system doesn't quite show the whole frame.

No clue if I have the correct rotating adapter. My RB was purchased new over in Japan in '92. Then stolen and replaced in '06.

 

[MattKing]

Look on the side of the camera/adapter - in many cases it actually says 6x8.

 

[John Salim]

Wait a minute... There's a 6x8 back for the RB??

Yes, and also a 70mm ( 6x7 ) magazine too !

John S

 

[MattiS]

A quick size comparison of the two cameras:

 

[MatthewDunn]

It's also hard to overstate the feeling of the different camera weights. I am 6"8 and have massive hands (almost 2 octaves on a keyboard, if that helps) and I rarely, if ever, pick up my RB (even though I think I actually prefer the optics and the 6x7 format). The RB is an absolutely gorgeous camera, but I have learned (at least personally) that you have to work with it a bit on its own terms - its more like large format that way. The Hasselblad? Handhold it, put it on a tripod, you are more in control, and that tends to suit the way a lot of people work a bit more naturally.

 

[Ernst-Jan]

Wait a minute... There's a 6x8 back for the RB??

As far as I know, it's not "real" 6x8. The Fuji 6x8 (eg. GW680, GX680) frames are wider.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It's also hard to overstate the feeling of the different camera weights. I am 6"8 and have massive hands (almost 2 octaves on a keyboard, if that helps) and I rarely, if ever, pick up my RB (even though I think I actually prefer the optics and the 6x7 format). The RB is an absolutely gorgeous camera, but I have learned (at least personally) that you have to work with it a bit on its own terms - its more like large format that way. The Hasselblad? Handhold it, put it on a tripod, you are more in control, and that tends to suit the way a lot of people work a bit more naturally.

I haven't shot a handheld picture with my RB67 in 20 years. Even though I have the hand-held grip attachment, that really doesn't help much. I think my neck strap works better to keep it still. If someone insists on using it hand-held, I'd shoot ISO 400 film. In any case, especially because I mainly shoot landscapes with high DOF and slow shutter speeds, I always use a tripod.

 

[narsuitus]

When I need a medium format camera smaller than my RB67, instead of a Hasselblad 500C, I use a 6x6cm folding camera.

When I need a medium format camera that produces an image larger than 6x7cm, instead of a 6x8cm film back for my RB67, I use a 6x9cm folding camera or a 6x9cm Fuji rangefinder camera.

 

[CMoore]

A quick size comparison of the two cameras:

View attachment 276375



View attachment 276376

I pick the RB, in the first round, TKO

 

[Donald Qualls]

I pick the RB, in the first round, TKO

Shouldn't even be in the ring together -- not the same, nor even adjacent weight classes...

 

[Arthurwg]

I don't really get on with the 6x7 format. I'd be much happier with 6x9. But mostly I love square.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

Yes, and also a 70mm ( 6x7 ) magazine too !

John S

That I was aware of.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't really get on with the 6x7 format. I'd be much happier with 6x9. But mostly I love square.

I think that's an issue between the 6x7 RB67 and Hassie 6x6 square. You have to pick a format you're comfortable with first.

On the other hand, I got comfortable with 16:9 monitor and TV screen formats when I shoot my digital camera. I used to shoot at 4:3 but then because I was showing slide shows on my TV, I switch my camera to 16:9 so it would fill the screen. It took me about two hours to get use to the format and I was composing in 16:9 as easily as I did with 6x7 or 3:2 or 4:3. The aesthetic "rules' work in all formats. Your eye adjusts and you compose to match the viewfinder.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I think that's an issue between the 6x7 RB67 and Hassie 6x6 square.

I shoot square with my RB67. No, I don't crop the 6x7 frame; I use a Graflex 22 roll film holder. No dark slide or double exposure locks with the 22, but I have so many cameras without double exposure locks that only the dark slide has bitten me...

 

[Donald Qualls]

With the left hand grip, I can shoot those speeds with my RB67 (except it's 100, 200, and 400, IIRC) -- but with the waist level finder and a good strap as well, I can shoot down to 1/50, even 1/25 with 90 mm and shorter. It's a lot like a TLR when used that way (albeit a really heavy TLR).

 

[Arthurwg]

Never tried the RB/RZ but absolutely love my Hasselblad. That said, its usefulness without a tripod is overrated. At normal-ish focal lengths you only have 3 shutters speeds to choose from: 1/125, 1/250 and 1/500. You can shoot slower, but you'll lose the medium format level of detail. Things get even worse above 120mm.

And if you're on a tripod, the weight difference probably disappears. I suspect that if I had the Mamiya, I'd be using it exactly the same way I'm shooting with my 501cm.[/QUOTE

I recently shot 60 B&W landscape frames with my Hasselblad and 60mm lens, all handheld. They were all good except for two that failed with my concentration.

 

[Luckless]

I suspect that your RB is actually better than a Hasselblad due to extra weight. Hasselblad's mirror+barn doors movement is not that smooth, and I am fully aware that Hasselblad aficionados disagree with me on that. In the same hands, at the same FOV, the Mamiya 645 Pro can do one stop slower handheld, and the C330 can do two stops slower than a Hasselblad. Technique can always be improved, but all else being equal, it is the least handholdable MF camera I have.

Inertia is an underrated aspect of cameras.

I might spend some time this weekend seeing how low I can push my handheld shutter speeds on my RB67 just to see how big of an impact that ka'thunk has compared to my C330s. Those heavy TLRs can push shockingly low 'hand held' speeds when you can brace yourself and tuck them in against the body well.