From: goldis@news.weeg.uiowa.edu (Al Goldis)
Subject: Re: Blad vs Mamiya (Lenses, Weight, Other)
Organization: University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:53:41 GMT

WARNING:  I really shouldn't be posting on this subject.  I'm just not
qualified.  I have a Pentax 645.  I've never owned either a Hasselblad
or Mamiya.

However, things are slow, and I'll throw caution to the wind and spew
out some of my unsubstantiated opinions. (Got to counter the
Hasselblad evangelists. :-)

In <122380043@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> mic@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Marc Clarke) writes:
>I have been using 35mm for 20 years.  I am planning the purchase of a
>medimu format camera.  I have so far been looking at the Hasselblad
>and the Mamiya RZ67.  The Hasselblad seems to have: a very wide range
>of really superb lenses; 20 year old metering technology; light
>weight; and a very hefty price tag.  The Mamiya seems to have: (maybe)
>OK lenses; a very large negative (6x7cm); a high weight (compared to
>any of its competitors); and a reasonably wide range of useful
>accessories, such as an add-on motor drive.

>I plan to use my camera to take B&W photographs of my the excellent
>scenery available in my home state of Colorado: landscapes; foliage;
>rocks and rock formations; streams; and sunsets.  I plan to use my
>camera to take color negatives in my basement studio by photographing
>flowers and glassware (non-commercially) under Tungsten lighting.

>Hasselblads are areally expensive.  Mamiyas are really heavy.   I got
>that far on my own.  :-) 

RBs and RZs certainly are, but don't rule out the 645s.

>I am struggling with a number of value judgement questions.

>1) The Hasselblad rep says that the Zeiss lenses are so much better
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't suppose he'd be doing his job if he you told you Mamiya
lenses are better ;-).

>   than the Mamiya lenses that Hassleblad's 6cm by 6cm negatives
>   cropped to 6cm x 4.5cm will enlarge to a 20" by 24" print which
>   will look just as good as the same sized print made from the
>   Mamiya's 6cm by 7cm negative.  The Hasselblad people have a
>   stunning portfolio in the Denver Robert Waxman's camera store's pro
>   section to back up their claims.  The Denver store's sales people
>   say that the prints from the Hasselblad blow away prints from the
>   Mamiya 645, and equal those of the RZ67.  Are the RZ's lenses that
>   much poorer than the Zeiss lenses that the Zeiss lenses and a 30%
>   smaller cropped Hasselblad negative (6cm by 4.5cm) can overcome the
>   size advantages of the Mamiya's 6cm by 7cm negative?  The Mamiya

No.

>   reps claim that the new Z series of lenses for the RZ67 are
>   significantly upgraded and tilt the advantage in favor of the RZ67.
>   Does anyone in netland have data or first hand experience comparing
>   the Zeiss CF T* lenses against the RZ67's Z series of Mamiya Sekor
>   lenses on the same size negative (apples to apples)?

>2) Do people really shoot their Hasselblads handheld?  I think that if
>   I have to carry around a tripod it seems to me that the weight of
>   the camera is not all that big a deal.  Am I really missing
>   something here?  Even though I weight 230 lbs and lift weights,
>   horsing the Mamiya RZ67 around at the dealers is a grunt.  Do
>   people get around this weight problem with sophisticated monopod
>   technology?  Do people carry their Mamiya RB67s and RZ67s in the
>   field (in backpacks, maybe) or do they leave them at home in the
>   studio on a tripod?

The RZ is a studio camera.  Nobody wants to lug it around in the
mountains.  If you're going to spend a lot of time in the field, you
probably want something lighter; either a Pentax 67 or drop down to
645 format.  The new Mamiya 645 Pro looks quite nice.

I wouldn't dream of saying Hasselblad equipment isn't any good.  It's
just that I've never thought it was worth the high price.  However, RZ
prices are not exactly cheap either and I'm sure someone will talk
about the great Hasselblad resale value.  But then again, I prefer to
buy a camera to take pictures with--not to resell it. :-)

If you want a camera you can carry around, get a 645.  If you want a
big negative, get a 4x5 (and optionally a roll-film back).

>Hasselblad and Mamiya RZ67 (and RB67) owners, please educate me.  I am
>really struggling to understand what is important to me.  The blad
>weighs 1/2 as much as the Mamiya and costs 2x as much.  I have found a
>cherry previously owned (but virtually unused) Hasselblad 500C/M with
>two 120 backs and a polaroid back, a 50mm, an 80mm, and a 150mm, and a
>45 degree meter/prism viewfinder for $5,500 (which seems like a pretty
>good price to me after looking at the used prices in the Shutterbug).
>I don't expect the kit to stay in the dealers for more than a few
>days.

Don't be rushed into a decision.  Other good deals will come along.
For over $5,000, take your time and be sure you made the right
decision.
--
Al Goldis           alan-goldis@uiowa.edu
"Pictures are moments truth, touched by light, that show character."
                          --Annie Griffiths-Belt
Newsgroups: rec.photo