Hasselblad 500 and Mamiya RB67

[Maris]

I moved into medium format photography after years of shooting 8x10 and 4x5 sheet film. Both the Mamiya RB and the Hasselblad were small and light compared to the gear I was most used to. The decisive factor for me in favour of the Mamiya RB67 was the size of the usable negative.
I make rectangular pictures and the Hasselblad is effectively a 6x4.5 camera and a big, heavy, and expensive one at that. The native 6x7 frame of the Mamiya is 40% bigger when enlarging to standard photographic paper sizes. It shows in the pictures.

The small version of the RB67 without the revolving back has been made but it is the 6x7 format Bronica GS-1. I have one and it is nice to use in landscape orientation with the Waist Level finder but totally impractical in Portrait mode without the big prism finder.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Shooting handheld is one thing. Enlarging a print is another. Often, once you start to get into larger prints, you see the shake that's missed with smaller sizes.

 

[Maris]

@Maris do you print at 6x7 ratio or crop it to something wider?

The standard Mamiya RB67 frame is only nominally 6x7 - actually 56x69.5 mm - a tiny bit too square if the negative is projected full width onto photographic paper sizes like 8x10 or 16x20 and even white borders are desired. The fine crop from top or bottom is occasionally useful to straighten a tilted horizon.
The special Mamiya 6x8 back actually delivers 56x75mm horizontal and 56x76mm vertical; a fraction wide but still close to "ideal" format.
And for completeness the Fuji GSW680 camera I use puts 56x76mm on film. Again not much of a crop to get the 8:10 ratio.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The standard Mamiya RB67 frame is only nominally 6x7 - actually 56x69.5 mm - a tiny bit too square if the negative is projected full width onto photographic paper sizes like 8x10 or 16x20 and even white borders are desired. The fine crop from top or bottom is occasionally useful to straighten a tilted horizon.
The special Mamiya 6x8 back actually delivers 56x75mm horizontal and 56x76mm vertical; a fraction wide but still close to "ideal" format.
And for completeness the Fuji GSW680 camera I use puts 56x76mm on film. Again not much of a crop to get the 8:10 ratio.

Years ago I made over thirty 16x20 chemical prints from RB67 film and framed them in aluminum frames so overall dimensions was 22x26 having a 3" mat. They came out great although I'm down to two mounted on the wall in our new house. My wife got bored with them. In any case, the point is 16x20" = .800 ratio (16/20). Since the RB67 negative I used are 56x69.5mm or a ratio of .805 (56/69.5) That's very close to the paper size of 16x20 or 8x10 if someone is concerned about waste due to cropping. Here's one of them in portrait orientation.

 

[warden]

Technique can always be improved, but all else being equal, it is the least handholdable MF camera I have.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

Shooting handheld is one thing. Enlarging a print is another. Often, once you start to get into larger prints, you see the shake that's missed with smaller sizes.

I rarely use a tripod and in sixty years I still do not see the shake. Use ISO 400 film.

 

[ruilourosa]

Bronica GS is a nice in between...

Hasselblad uses lenses that i find the most appealing in MF...

 

[abruzzi]

From what I've read, when Bronica designed the GS-1 size was their main design parameter. They wanted something smaller than the RB67. Its one of the reasons that there are no "fast" lenses on the GS-1. They used Seiko #0 shutters on their lenses which kept the max aperture at ƒ3.5 or ƒ4. The RB lenses use Seiko #1 shutters (hence the 1/400 top speed, not 1/500), to rotating back also made it larger. So I'd expect that the GS-1 is close to as small as you can get on a 6x7 SLR. That said, it is much bigger than my ETRSi, but its still pretty easily carried and handhold-able. I have WLFs from both of my Bronicas and use them much more than the prisms, because I like the size and experience of shooting with a WLF, but it does limit me to landscape shots, but I prefer that orientation 95% of the time anyway.

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

Hang it from a strap while bracing and use a cable release and I bet you get another "stop" slower shutter speed. Maybe 2.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Helps, too, that the RB67 has one of the smoothest mirror mechanisms in any SLR of any size or vintage.

 

[ruilourosa]

"fast" is a bit diferent in MF

mamiya got into 2.8 in one rz lens...

if money is no object you can have both... i think they are a complement to each other...

i have hasselblad, mamiya press, bronica gs, kiev 60, pentacon six... i also had mamiya 645 and mamiya rb... but sold them... not because they were not good but because they were not good for me

 

[Luckless]

Hang it from a strap while bracing and use a cable release and I bet you get another "stop" slower shutter speed. Maybe 2.

That's all just part of good bracing technique. It probably shouldn't be all that surprising just how much overlap there is between photography and precision rifle shoot technique.

I don't often push my C330 down as low as 1/8th and 1/4 while 'hand held' with the 80mm, but I have gotten images that I've been very happy with at those speeds, and the motion blur risk becomes a tossup between camera movement and subject movement. Really down to trying to make one's self as close to a sandbag support for the camera as possible. [I wouldn't suggest anyone try relying on those methods over using a faster film in most cases, but it is fun and interesting to experiment with.]

 

[Arthurwg]

If you are having trouble hand holding your Hasselblad, start with getting your camera serviced.

 

[Luckless]

No. I am not "having trouble" with my Hasselblads. I am having trouble articulating the significance of physics into the minds of the Hasselblad inquisition. Everything we know about the universe guarantees that a moving mirror of greater mass, together with an auxiliary shutter mounted in a lightweight body will generate more vibrations than a mirror of a smaller mass, or a similar mirror in a heavier body, or a fixed-mirror TLR, yet the Hasselblad crowd keeps believing that it's turtles all the way down. Luckily, I am far away and the inquisition can't torch me like Giordano Bruno.

Now I'm kind of tempted to build a precision vibration/displacement measurement rig, and start comparing camera bodies just to see how big of a deal it different cameras really are. Would need a reliable photo sensitive sync to narrow down the movement during actual exposure for a fair and truly apples to apples view on things.

 

[warden]

No. I am not "having trouble" with my Hasselblads. I am having trouble articulating the significance of physics into the minds of the Hasselblad inquisition. Everything we know about the universe guarantees that a moving mirror of greater mass, together with an auxiliary shutter mounted in a lightweight body will generate more vibrations than a mirror of a smaller mass, or a similar mirror in a heavier body, or a fixed-mirror TLR, yet the Hasselblad crowd keeps believing that it's turtles all the way down. Luckily, I am far away and the inquisition can't torch me like Giordano Bruno.

When I trip the shutter on my YashicaMat nobody hears it and I can barely feel it. When I do the same with the Hassy people fifteen feet away turn to me with the what the hell was that sound look. I like my Hassy, but damn it makes a lot of percussive noise.

 

[MattKing]

I just think its because I've known a lot more flaky Hasselblad users than flaky RB67 users.
(Which is actually true).

 

[abruzzi]

I just think its because I've known a lot more flaky Hasselblad users than flaky RB67 users.
(Which is actually true).

Maybe the Hasselblad users need a CLA?

 

[Arthurwg]

OOOhhh / Now come the insults.

 

[Arthurwg]

Somehow I get the idea that the exposure takes place BETWEEN the mechanical events. While I imagine that the various vibrations become more obvious at lower shutter speeds, a properly working (serviced) mechanism would help to mitigate these hypothetical problems.

 

[GLS]

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

I disagree. I can reliably hand hold my Blad with the 80mm or 100mm at 1/60th and get very sharp results. With the 80mm I can even do 1/30th at a push. Will it be as microscopically sharp as when shot on a good tripod with MLU? No, of course not, but at a certain point the difference will be unnoticeable unless noseing a gigantic print.

With practice & the correct technique most able bodied people should be able to do the same.

 

[ruilourosa]

Everybody has its own way... You wont beat nothing... Its not about beating... Its about using and pleasure and the results you like... Not about beating and scores...
I use an 8x10 not because i want to beat another guy camera... But because it produces what i want...
This is not a game or a war...

 

[GLS]

All you're saying is that you have low standards

No, I'm not saying that at all, and I find it quite presumptuous of you to say so. I would actually consider my standards for technical quality in my photographs to be very high, and any frame with noticeable unintended camera shake (as checked with a 20x loupe) would certainly never be used.

I simply took issue with the sweeping declaration that shutter speeds of below 1/125th at normal focal lengths necessarily causes a large drop in resultant image quality, as that does not tally with my own experience. I put in the caveat about inevitable differences between hand held vs tripod micro sharpness because that is an obvious truth, but I also maintain that with the correct technique & practice the real world difference can be extremely small.

 

[Maris]

A mirror is driven by a spring. When you press the shutter button, the spring begins to move applying force on two ends: the mirror and the camera body. Both are now in motion and it is inversely proportional to their masses. .......

Not on the Mamiya RB67.
When the Mamiya mirror is released some of its motion is absorbed by a Governor part number RS2560. The governor looks like a circular housing containing a rotor with two spring-loaded little weights at its ends. As the mirror accelerates the rotor spins faster, the weights move outward due to centrifugal force, and increasingly resist a speed-up. By the time the Mamiya mirror is at the top of its travel it has already slowed down but the Governor is spinning fast due to the spring energy absorbed.
This complex and expensive little mechanism is why the shutter cycle on the Mamiya RB67 is so shock and vibration free. There is a downside to this: the Governor works hard and wears out so Mamiya RB67s getting their regular commercial service had the Governor replaced routinely - more expense.

 

[John O]

I loved my venerable RB67s, but after a day of wedding shooting my left arm would be all but paralyzed. Heavy indeed. With a long trip coming to China I sold the RBs and bought a used Hasselblad. It was a good decision, although I missed the rotating back and affordable lenses. I had to carry the full H'blad bag with me for 5 weeks, never leaving it in a dorm or hotel room. I would have been a cripple if I tried that with my RB.
The H'blad lens quality was also better, but that's not as important as the ability to get there and shoot without getting too tired to be creative.

 

[Sirius Glass]

No. I am not "having trouble" with my Hasselblads. I am having trouble articulating the significance of physics into the minds of the Hasselblad inquisition. Everything we know about the universe guarantees that a moving mirror of greater mass, together with an auxiliary shutter mounted in a lightweight body will generate more vibrations than a mirror of a smaller mass, or a similar mirror in a heavier body, or a fixed-mirror TLR, yet the Hasselblad crowd keeps believing that it's turtles all the way down. Luckily, I am far away and the inquisition can't torch me like Giordano Bruno.

First of all the Hasselblad addressed that problem and took care of it before the camera came out on the market. This is a tempest in a teapot.