I am considering obtaining a medium format system (again) and would like input from users of Leica (M or R!) and any of the following MF equipment as to their opinion of relative quality... Under consideration is the Hasselblad (203/5), Rollei (6008), and Contax 645. (I loved the optics on my Mamiya 7, but an RF camera isn't what I'm looking for here, as It will likely be used primarily for studio and macro work.) I also like the convenience of quality TTL AE in some shooting situations, hence the above selection. I'm leaning towards the Contax for the (occasional) added convenience of AF, and the fact that I have always cropped 6x6 to 645 anyway, but don't want to shoot myself in the foot if the others are superior in some way. (I realize the Contax limits me to a 1/125th flash synch in the studio while the others don't, but I think I can live with that.)

So, my real question is, given that most of us believe that Leia optics are generally superior to that of the competition in 35mm, do any of the above MF systems offer that same bounce in quality in MF systems? I realize they all use Zeiss glass for the most part - so is it as good, relatively speaking, as Leica glass?

As usual, thank you in advance for your almost always excellent input!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 23, 2001

Answers

I'm a long-time Hasselblad user, with short-lived side-trips into Pentax 67 and Horseman VH-R. The type of shooting I do with the Hasselblad I don't need the electronic bodies, but right now the 203FE (which is a fabulous camera)has come down to under US$3000, and I haven't heard of plans to discontinue it so it might just be a competitive move on Hasselblad's part. But be aware that although all C, F, CF and CFi lenses work on the 203/205, to use the AE you need FE or CFE lenses (with databus contacts), and for maximum convenience, the databus-type film backs as well. For strictly studio and macro work, a second-hand 500CM or 503CX plus PME3,PME5 or PME90 meter-prism would work just as well and cost a lot less, plus then any C or CF lens and film back would be all you'd need. I use 503CX's, because it's the least-expensive body with TTL OTF flash metering. The newer 501CM and 503CW have redesigned mirror systems that prevent the top 1cm of the finder from blacking out with teleconverters or extension tubes, but so far I've resisted upgrading, having lived with the mirror quirk for so long. I would definitely think twice about Rollei, because it does not enjoy the same ease of resale and high resale value as Hasselblad (or Mamiya). Of the AE, hand-holdable 645's if I were going that route I would unquestionably choose Mamiya, for reasons of flexibility, availability of second-hand items, and resale ease/value. Pentax optics are great also, but the 645 lacks removable motor-winder, pentaprism and most importantly, film back. I don't believe in any case that I would bother with AF in medium-format. The rest of the system (size, weight,short film load, slow winders) lends itself to a style of photography that gains no palpable advantage from AF.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 23, 2001.

Hi Jack

Hasselblad is my primary weapon, I have a Leica M 35asph and latest 90 2.8.

I bought the Leica simply to have a light high quality walkabout camera for candids, social events where I can't be bothered or it is impractical to use medium format.

I don't think that 35mm and medium format are that interchangeable in that they excel at different things but the Contax 645 is probably the mediume format camera that can let you ditch 35mm.

My own outfit is a 503CW with 60,100 & 180 CF lenses and an SWCM. For my purposes- travel, landscape and studio it is perfect, AF & AutoExp are fairly irrelevant for the considered slower style that mf lends itself to.

In terms of quality this is the one area that mf kicks all 35mm into touch. Leica may be the best that 35mm can get but we are talking margins here and despite what some people may say about gigabit film etc mf is a quantum leap up from ANY 35mm if it is used to it best advantage.

I am very happy with zeiss glass but I have owned a P67 and a Bronica and they are very good as well - the results will be an order of magnitude "better" than 35mm. Remember you are enlarging much less than 35mm and the differences in lens quality is not so easy to see but yes Zeiss v Japanese generates the same sort of histrionics that Leica v the Japanese does in 35mm.

For only studio and macro consider the RZ67 Pro II - its cheaper than the blad, it has superb lenses, the biggest format and with an AE head will make exposures easier to work out. Rollei will give even more convenience at a much higher price.

The main thing to remember is application - 35mm tends to excel at most things, medium format leads to more compromises and thus the cameras tend to focus on specifics. The 645 & 66 make the best compromises you decide whether you want automation, leaf shutter lenses, square format etc.

The first time I got an mf slide back - I sold all my 35mm gear, it took me 6 years of climbing mountains etc toting kit across India and even taking mf to parties before I gave in and admitted 35mm has its uses - that is how much the extra quality was worth to me and I had good 35mm kit.

Hope this helps

Tapas

P.S. Review the mediume format forum on www.photo.net for good advice

-- Tapas Maiti (tapasmaiti@aol.com), September 23, 2001.

I've always thought that Hasselblad was a state-of-mind. if anyone could make the transition it would be Leica owners, as Hasselblad's are cantankerous, problematic, and horrendously user-unfriendly. in other words .. perfect!

if you just measure specifications, the Contax rises to the top. beautifully designed, and easy to transition from auto-everything cameras. however, if the square format resonates and you *see* this way, then there is nothing that compares to a well-crafted 6x6 image.

I own three Hasselblad's including the new 203FE which I adore. however, I truly realize that this is not a system for everyone, and anyone not disciplined, not proceduralized, or desiring any degree of automation should definitely look elsewhere.

I love the fact that I can use my Zeiss lenses on my Flexbody and have movements available. there were too many times when the 4x5 stayed in the studio from thoughts of lugging it around and straining my back. and, Hasselblad USA gives me such excellent support. they always answer my calls, and do whatever is needed to assist me. I recently wanted to shoot Kodak Aerographic IR film in 70mm, so I bought a 70mm back, and was able to get it refurbished to 'like new' for $135. such a flexible system. I accept its quirky behaviours and lack of features, and concentrate on what it does do so marvelously well. the Hasselblad website www.hasselblad.se has a wonderful gallery, description of products, and inspirational accounts from Hasselblad artists.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 23, 2001.

Jay and Tapas, Thank you for your input.

I should clarify at this point that I have owned and used several MF systems in the past, including H500, P645, M645, M RZ67 and M7. I also currently shoot LF. (Tapas, if you think a MF chrome looks good, you should look at a LF chrome - it caused me to sell all of my MF gear!) I did not care for the P645 because of no interchangeable backs, and a fairly poor meter, but it had great optics. The M645 had a quality feel to the body, and excellent metering, but I did not find the lenses to be all that great. The RZ67 was superb, but too big for a lot of what I want to do in the field. The M7 was also superb, but an SLR is going to better for my needs. I won't comment on the old H500 I used to have, as it was a very long time ago...

So, my question is more one of balancing optical quality, good on- board metering, quality of build, convenience in use and flexibility in options such as interchangeable backs, finders, etc. I am not looking to replace my 35's.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 23, 2001.

I'd like to throw my hat in the ring for the 6008i. I have shot with Mamiya 6x7's, Bronica and have owned a Hassey 503 cw and now a Rollei. I looked at the Contax, was close to buying it then I looked at one in person. I can't remember why but after handling it I backed away. Bronica's felt cheap and Mamiya's were too big and bulky. The Hasselblad was terribly un-ergonomic. I bought the Rollei primarily on the advise of this and other web sites. I have the 80mm 2.8 and the Schnieder 180mm 2.8. After owning a Nikon F4s and F5 and a Leica M6TTL I can honestly say that the Rollei is the most fun camera I have ever used. I don't think a single shoot goes by that I don't comment to my wife on how great the camera is. Don't get me wrong. The Nikon's are great and I love the M6 but there is just something about the Rollei that sets it apart. I would take the Rollei over anything else I'v

-- Michael Bryan (mbryan@crcwnet.com), September 23, 2001.

I find the Rollei's metering system to be mostly good enough for "point and shoot" usage and of course the spotmeter is available for tricky situations.

I use several PQ and older non-PQ Zeiss lenses and the big Schneider 140-280 zoom; all are, as would be expected, very good. Compared to my Mamiya 6 lenses they don't have that "hard-sharp" look and are more in line with Leica-like image qualities.

Now..the drawbacks...the Rollei is dependent on its proprietary nicad cell, so if that's a concern plan accordingly. Perhaps most important, used, rental and equipment to borrow can be rather scarce plus repairs are available only from limited sources.

I've only played with a friend's Contax 645; my brief impressions were that the viewfinder image was rather small and dark and the AF was less than wonderful.

-- John Hicks (jbh@magicnet.net), September 23, 2001.

Jack: from your clarification it still sounds like the Hassy is your best choice. They can accept myriad backs (120, 220, 6x4.5, 6x6,70mm and Polaroid) as well as from the 503CXi on, a 6x4.5 mask set; there's lots of different finders, screens, and a list of other accessories current and discontinued, as long as your arm. It's also easy to find stuff to rent for occasional uses. I still think it's worth thinking long and hard about the need for on-board coupled metering because getting into the 203-205 series is a much more expensive proposition, they're very hard to find used, and hard to sell later on. The only time you'd wish for more than a metered prism would be for fast shooting handheld, which is what you've got 35mm for. I don't even own the meter prism, a handheld spot/incident meter is fine. Maybe for macro work if you're going to use a bellows, the TTL meter prism might be nice. The only macro I've done with the Hassy is flash, which is TTL/OTF. I've got a helicoid extension tube rather than a bellows, so metering ambient and adjusting for the light-loss factor isn't that difficult.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), September 23, 2001.

Jay

Do you know if anybody has ever tried to convert a Hasselblad back to 35mm panoramic (like there is an adaptor for the Mamiya7II)? Could make the system even more desirable...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), September 24, 2001.

more desirable? why not use a pair of scissors or crop tool? the only reason I can think of doing this is to use films not available in 120.

-- daniel taylor (lightsmythe@agalis.net), September 24, 2001.

Lutz

It would not work as the film travels top to bottom, so you would have to shoot the camera on its side for horizontal shots. Mind you I suppose it would work, but it would be very awkward.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 24, 2001.

Jack

It is a difficult choice, both the Rollei and the Contax are excellent cameras, but both are wholly battery dependent, which personally I find unnecessary. The Contax, by many accounts I have read, uses them up very quickly too. Nevertheless I think the Rollei 6000 series are truly excellent, but Rollei leave a good deal to be desired in terms of service - unlike Hasselblad of course. Also in pro shops here in NYC the feedback I have heard is that Rollei users do not like their cameras any more than 'blad owners - so it is not just a service issue that makes them less successful in North America.

I have a Hasselblad 500CM with 50, 80 and 150 and find the optics and operation superb and like Jay I don't bother with a metering prism. I prefer the square format. The optics are wonderful - I have an older C 150mm and it is my favorite lens - like a classic Leica lens of the 60s and early 70s with the same wonderful characteristics. The Planar 80mm is also superb, even at full aperture.

In your case I would probably look at the Rollei and the 'blad. For pure operating convenience the Rollei wins, but in terms of service, longevity, s/h availability and resale capabilites the 'blad wins I think.

I hazard a suggestion that all the optics are equally good and offer Leica-like quality. One might suppose that the Contax's are even a tad better as they are more recent designs. The 'blad and Rollei lenses are both Zeiss and the essentially the same lenses, so equivalent, although the Schneider Rollei lenses are meant to be good or better still.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), September 24, 2001.

Thank you all for your cogent answers. It sounds like all of them have great optics, and the older (cheaper!) Hassy, while not having all the bells and whistles, is still considered a very capable and flexible system.

As to pano-35 adaptations in medium format bodies: This is a concept I've never really bought into. Granted, if all one wants to shoot is pano, then perhaps some minor cost savings can be realized by using 35mm film in lieu of cropping down 21/4 formats. However, I find film to be relatively cheap, and having the flexibility of shooting a pano on medium format film and cropping later has a couple of bennefits: 1) you are not limited to only being able to shoot pano as you are when the 35 cannnister is loaded; 2)you get a certain amount of built-in rise/fall adjustment if the pano image is on the full-frame 21/4 negative - very benneficial if your pano image contains architectural components.

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 24, 2001.

First, some quick background: I own both a contax 645 and a Rollei 6008i (see this thread for dicussion on whether it make sense to own both: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001BPE). FWIW, I love both cameras and have not been able to make myself sell either one (yet).

For some general comments on the Contax 645, see these threads (and run a search on photo.net to get more threads):

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000fdC http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000x6v

While not answering which system you should buy (it's a matter of "feel" as much as anything else, since both the Rollei and the Contax are optically and mechanically excellent), I'll just give my general impressions of both systems. (1) the level of optical quality of these two systems is about the same (which is to say excellent), with the exception that I have noticed slightly better color fidelty with the 50mm 2.8 Schneider wide-angle on my Rollei than with the 45mm f2.8 on the contax (I mean it when I say slight -- noticeable only in certain situations and upon side by side comparison); (2) the Rollei has all metering options integrated into the body, thus allowing more flexibility with the waist-level finder (the contax only offers spot metering with the waist-level, which is, of course, more than most MF cameras); (3) the Rollei (with the handgrip) is more ergonomic than the contax (although once you add the battery pack/handrgip to the contax, it comes close)(and has the added benefit of alloiwng you to use AA's and lithiums)); (4) the Rollei system is currently MUCH fuller than the contax system, at least in terms of lenses, but this may change (the contax is for now a 6 or 7 lens system); (5) viewfinder seems subjectively brighter; (6) the rollei, of course offers leaf shutter lenses. On the Contax side of the equation (1) it has autofocus )and in-focus confirmation when using manual focus); (2) as many others have noted elsewhere, the 120 mm macro lens (not AF, but still has focus confirmation) is the best lens I've ever used for any camera -- period; (3) it's much quieter than the rollei, even using the rollei in "silent" mode (which could be a factor if you're doing weddings or wildlife -- I recently shot a cousin's wedding using both and ended up using only the COntax inside (but both outside) because of the noise); (4) needed accessories for the Rollei usually cost twice as much (I paid $100 for a used rubber lens hood for the 50mm 2.8 for the rollei -- a new metal hood for contax lenses costs about half that); (5) all the contax lenses (for this camera) use the same filter size; (6) I actually find manual focusing with the contax to be smoother than with my rollei lenses (better "dampening" I believe is the technical term); (7) viewfinder display makes more sense than the Rollei's; (8) TTL flash actually works in a logical fashion on the contax (Rollei's sysetm requires massive gyrations to use fill-flash); (9) the contax allows pre-flash metering through the lens with any flash system (including studio strobes) (the Rollei does as well, at least in theory, but you have to buy a special flash metering accesory for your back to do it).

(I have also used a Hassy 501cm on occassion, but not as extensively as these two systems, so no real opinion on Hassy.)

-- william carter (wmc@po.cwru.edu), September 24, 2001.

'better "dampening" I believe is the technical term'

"Damping." "Dampening" means to make damp.

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 24, 2001.

Thanks. (And excuse other grammatical errors above). No system, of course, should make your lenses wet! :-)

-- william carter (wmc@po.cwru.edu), September 24, 2001.

William:

Well... I THOUGHT I had this issue figured out! I was leaning to the Hassy side of the see-saw, but your comments have me re-thinking the Contax. Thank you for your first-hand input and interesting links.

Regards,

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 24, 2001.

One more link for you re: TTL flash contortions with the Rollei 6008i: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Village/3762/Rollei/

(This is the Rollei FAQ -- scroll through and you'll get to a link discussing TTL).

-- william carter (wmc@po.cwru.edu), September 24, 2001.

Jack, My bid is for the Hasselblad system as the glass is exemplory especially the 38,60,100 offering the tonal range, colour fidelity, sharpness without harshness, similar to the Leica. The square handles beautifully, it's compact, straightforward, built to last and the 500 series requires no batteries. I keep trying to like my Mamiya 7 system but somehow the images leave me cold. As for the contax 645 I can only say if the glass is anything like the 35mm, the colour rendition and tonality from my experience will be less than subtle! (Yes i know they both have Zeiss written on the front).

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), September 24, 2001.

Sorry, the word is 'exemplary', unlike my spelling on this occasion.

-- Gary Yeowell (gary@yeowell.fsnet.co.uk), September 24, 2001.

I find that my Hasselblad is unergonomic, and not a handy thing to shoot with in the field, for nature/travel. I have begun to wonder if I'd like the Mamiya 7 better for the purpose. The results I get with the Hassie, though, are satisfying.

I think that on a tripod, in the studio, there is no question that I'd rather shoot with the Hasselblad.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 24, 2001.

I meant to add that like Gary, I have found the 38, 60, and 100 to be the right lenses. I got rid of my 50, and the 80C often stays home. My 150 has outstanding sharpness corner to corner at any aperture, though I use it less for composition reasons.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 24, 2001.

Re: 35mm panoback for Hassy

The advantage of a 35mm back would be the availability and wider variety of emulsions. Cropping is obviously a viable compromise. A better one might be the masking of viewfinder and film, with a reduced advancement mechanism to fit roughly 28(!) panoramics on one 120...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), September 25, 2001.

I hate to whip a dead horse, but having read through these answers, I still have to think that a new film with the 6x45 format, with perforations on each side, ala 35mm, coming from a cassette, moving horizontally thru the camera, would have the ergonomics of the 35mm, but without the wheel chock feel of current 120s. The camera might be somewhere between the M6 and the Mamiya 7 in size. Certainly smaller than the Pentax 6x7. (I sent this idea to KODAK, who wrote that the idea is not a new one. A Mamiya Rep at a dealer seminar seemed to think it had merit. That was 5 yrs ago and you do not see any such film)

-- Frank Horn (owlhoot45@hotmail.com), September 26, 2001.

If I could only have one camera and one lens and had to decide if it would be APS, 35 mm, medium format or large format I would choose my Hasselblad 503CXi with the CF80 normal lens. In fact, that is what I use for more than 90 % of shooting. I like the square for portraits and the combination Hasselblad + normal lens is very handholdable with my favourite film; Tri-x.

I'm not a Leica-user (though I wouldn't mind being so!!!) but Tri-x, the CF 80 (at all apertures) , X-tol or HC110 developer, and Forte Polygrade warmtone gives a very smooth photo that is adorable. I think the smoothness would appeal to Lecia-folks.

-- Peter Olsson (peter.olsson@lulebo.se), September 26, 2001.

Jack:

There has been a lot of thoughtful advice given. I have been using Hasselblad since 1970 and Leica even longer. I would agree with most of what has been suggested.

Still, I think that Daniel did the best job of describing my experience:

I've always thought that Hasselblad was a state-of-mind. if anyone could make the transition it would be Leica owners, as Hasselblad's are cantankerous, problematic, and horrendously user-unfriendly. in other words .. perfect! :)

Art

-- Art (AKarr90975@aol.com), September 26, 2001.

By the way, another observation:

I have, for 31 years, found the Hasselblad very difficult to focus. Makes no difference what the screen is. Still, I use it. It is like the Leica; put up with a rotten body to use the good glass. You adapt. If you use an F100 or an F5 you can make the camera do what you want. If you use a Leica or a Hasselblad, you adapt to what it will do.

Now for me and what I photograph, I like rangefinders. I am looking at the Bronica.

Art

-- Art (AKarr@aol.com), September 26, 2001.

Frank

Art has named the camera you are looking for. It's the new Bronica RF645. If only there was an f 2.8 lens available it would be a hit...

-- Lutz Konermann (lutz@konermann.net), September 27, 2001.

Lutz:

I agree. Still, for most of my stuff, I set the ap at 8 and adjust the shutter speed. My Tri-elmar is f/4. It may all work well. If I want f/2 or f 1.4, I always have my Leica equipment with me.

Art

-- Art (AKarr@aol.com), September 28, 2001.

I don't own any MF at the moment, so you can take this with a big grain of salt.

But if I DID buy a larger camera, I would run (not walk!) to the Rollei twin-lens. It wouldn't fulfill your macro needs, but for studio use - well, see Irving Penn/Richard Avedon et al. I personally love the square format - it's the main reason I'd consider anything beside 35mm.

In that vein, if I DID need the macro/interchangeable lens capabilities, I would probably go for the 600x Rolleis, too. They outsell Hasselblad in Europe (for pros) about the same amount that Hasselblads outsell Rollei in America.

I have tried Hassy several times in the past - the basic 500 series. I just didn't like the 'thickness' of the protruding film back.

Just one photographer's opinion.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 29, 2001.