Most Ovepriced MF Camera?

[eric friedemann]

When I read some time ago that there would be a new wide Rolleiflex

TLR, I noted with some amusement that Rollei didn't include even a

ballpark list price. Given that vintage Rollei wide TLRs are selling

in the $4-5,000 range due to their scarcity, I assumed that Rollei

would try to rape consumers. And Rollei didn't dissapoint.

 

The first new TLR with the 50mm f/4.0 lens I've seen for sale is now

on eBay with a starting price of $4,100. And you know that some

camera-polisher will pay that to buy the camera and stuff it in a

safe deposit box. Don't get me wrong, Rollei TLRs are wonderful

cameras and this new Rollei wide has some nice features, but what

person who didn't have more money than brains and who actually shoots

photos would pay $4,100 and up for this fixed lens TLR.

 

When I decided to get a Mamiya 6 system, I bought three bodies, two

50mms, three 75mms and two 150mms on eBay. I kept two of the bodies

and one each of the lenses, winding up with all pieces in like new to

like new minus condition. I resold the rest. And, for this whole

system, I paid under $3K even with all the buying and selling. I

would bet money that the 50mm f/4.0 on the Rollei TLR is not better

in any way than the 50mm f/4.0 for Mamiya 6s.

 

Pardon my venting. I'm just incredulous about what the current

Rollei owners are doing with the Rolleiflex name.

[lex_jenkins]

Hah! Before even reading your opening volley my first response was "New Rollei TLR!"

 

And I'm a big Rollei fan.

 

Shame. 'bout as shameful as Leica prices. I'd almost settled on an M5, figuring that because it's the ugly duckling of the M-series it'd be cheaper on the used market. Wrong-o. Back to shopping for a III-series.

 

Yeh, for the price of a new Rollei TLR of any kind you could get a serious start on a MF *system* camera. $4-5k for a Rollei wide? Puh-leeze. For that I'd get a Fuji GX680 or mebbe even a Silvestri, ditch my Nikon SLRs and PC-Nikkor and do some serious work.

 

Ah, well. Still plenty of reasonably priced used Rolleis around.

[the tightwad]

Rollies are a good example of really great quality being sold at whatever the market will bear. It goes without saying that some (?) folk's get so mad about the price because they want one so bad.

 

From my point of view manufactures that think to much of their product as Rollie does simply are NEVER considered for ANY of my money either

new or used. I don't need them as much as they need me as a customer.

 

So if enough folk's refused to pay the high price both new and used

market would eventually come down to reason. But don't count on it.

P.T. Barnum was right...."There's a sucker born every minute."

[raymond_tai]

I imagine myself wandering around Mongolia or Nepal with both the FW, FX, a Gitzo

1127 and mini ball head. The whole thing would weight around 6 pounds. I

wonder how good the 50mm Super-Angulon actually is on the Rollei FW. I don't

recall seeing this lens on anything else so it is a new design specifically for this

camera? Where are the reviews! Yes it is expensive at $4k and I can't afford it but I

wish I can. Imagine the FW body being a Leica M6 and the 50mm lens a Summicron

lens. The $4k all of a sudden sound reasonable as long as the 50mm is Summicron

quality.

[douglas_green1]

This level of gouging is not reasonable when Leica does it either. The main difference is, nowadays, there are reasonable alternatives for Leicas (Cosina Voigtlander Bessas, and Konica Hexar RF spring to mind). There ARE no other current generation TLRs around, and the TLR HAS proven itself to be a fundamentally useful camera design.

 

But, the short answer is, as Eric pointed out, to get a MF rangefinder with a wide angle lens. (Along with a used normal lens TLR - in my case, a Rollei 2.8D with a Xenotar). On the MF RF front, Eric went for a nice Mamiya 6 system. I spent even less, and got a used Koni-Omega Rapid M, with 58mm, 90mm, and 180mm lenses. He spent over twice as much as I did, but I get to lug 3 pounds more around than he does, and rely on a handheld meter. You pays your money and you makes your choice. And you leave the silliness to the collectors and the companies that fawn over them.

 

And whatever ridiculousness you consider this Rollei-wide to be, it's not NEARLY as obscene as them charging a $1000 premium to re-badge a Bessa R2 with the 35mm and 75mm framelines tweaked up to 40mm and 80mm.

[jay_.]

<<Most Ovepriced MF Camera?>>

 

Any new MF camera today is overpriced, because the used prices are so low. But IMO the most overpriced new MF camera is the mongrel Fujiblad with the non-Zeiss lenses trading on the Hassy name.

[gregory_gardner]

The sticker shock on the new Rollei's is pretty extreme. I'm curious what the price of 40 year old TLRs would be in today's money -- does anyone know?

[eric friedemann]

I like the Koni- and Rapid-Omegas alot:

 

http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/korapid.html

 

Also, I like what Bob Hutchinson does with Konis, Rapids, Graflexes and Mamiya Press cameras for reasonable prices:

 

http://www.bigcamera.com/

 

http://skgrimes.com/paqpro/index.htm

[kevin_hundsnurscher]

That IS pretty hardcore considering I could buy a used Bronica SLR at the local camera store for $350.00, rating 8+.

[david_goldfarb]

I don't think I've spent $4100 on my Bronica S2A system with two bodies, six backs, ten lenses, a tilt-shift bellows, various extension tubes, adapters and such, and a few CLAs and some custom work thrown in there.

[eric friedemann]

Bronica SLR equipment offers a lot of value for the buck. And you can get most of the stuff dirt-cheap used on eBay.

[jorge_oliveira2]

"Every minute, a crook and a sucker are born. One day they will meet and a deal will be made..."

[chip l.]

Opinions are like .....

[oskar_ojala]

Well it would be a useful camera unless it would cost so much, which it does, because so few

were/are made and they atract collectors. But frankly, I think that overpriced MF numero uno

is the Hassy; used (and not even mint) stuff costs a lot, new stuff costs a fortune and the

bodies are way overpriced. Here in Europe, a Hassy H1 costs twice as much as a Rollei 6008AF

and I frankly don't see what you get for the money (compare it to AF 6x4.5 cameras and it seems

even more ridiculous). And look at the prices of 200-series bodies! Compared to Mamiyas, Rolleis

(6000-series) and view cameras, they are very expensive systems.

 

The most economic way to buy a Rollei TLR is still buying used: there are plenty available,

the prices are very reasonable and the cameras are simply great.

[h._p.]

"I'm curious what the price of 40 year old TLRs would be in today's money "

 

1965 prices from the Wallace Heaton Blue Book:

 

Wide Angle Rollei: £224, TeleRollei: £224, 2.8f £176

 

I can't be bothered to look up the inflation but I guess if you multiply by twenty you're in the general area - anyone got a more accurate idea of how to adjust the figures?

[gregory_gardner]

Thanks for the data, Harvey. At this site: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf we see that in 1965, the pound was worth .547 of a 1970 pound, and in 1998 it was worth 5.92 times that in 1970. So, with a bit more inflation to take us through today, we need to multiple the 1965 prices by about 11. With this, the current prices are a little higher than inflation, but not tremendously so - Robert White lists the FW for 3019, and inflation would put the 1965 model at 2464.

[douglas_green1]

Still, the mere fact that this new wide TLR is priced AHEAD of what inflation would have done to the original Rollei-wide, is, in and of itself, rather breathtaking. I'd wager than NO other basic camera type aside from a Rollei TLR has actually seen it's new price out-pace inflation over the past 30-50 years. That would be akin to a Nikon F5 selling for around $6000-8000, even neglecting the numerous fundamental advances that an F5 has over an F or an F2. well, maybe the Nikon S3 counts, but that was NEVER intended to be anything BUT a collector's camera.

[cxc]

I suspect that Rollei is trying to compete with the SWC. The SWC, however, qualifies as the more overpriced, since they have been selling the same basic camera for half a century, by which time clearly the design and tooling cost amortization should have brought the price down.

 

And yes, I would gladly have *either*, but I can't afford them.

[chip l.]

Keep in mind you are basing this off of eBay and a camera that is most likely in short supply. Since new FX's are going for $3000 it would not be off the mark that the FW will be about $3500 street.

 

Using the 1965 and converting it from the 1965 GBP to USD (.36GBP=$1USD in 1965), then using a US inflation calculator we come up with a 2002 USD of $3349. Not far off of the mark of what we might expect off a dealer shelf if quanities are not kept at collector levels.

 

But one can not look at inflation alone. In 1965 I would guess that Rollei made many more TLR cameras than they do today. So it is concievable that costs to produce are much higher today than in 1965. Also given some of the additions to the FX (not sure that the FW shares the TTL), this is not bad for what is the most part a custom made camera.

 

We need to also remember that MF is shrinking in the market place. As production numbers go down the costs will go up, unless new technologies come about to lower production costs. Or you cut corners and produce a lesser quality product. For brands like Rollei, Hassy, and Leica that can be dangerous. Look at Leica and the CL, by most accounts it almost killed Leica (to be fair the M5 also helped). These companies were built on the reputation of their quality. Anything less would doom them.

[douglas_green1]

Quality issues were NOT what caused Leica to discontinue the CL. The problem with the CL was the HUGE extent to which it canibalized M5 sales. Leica found out that by selling 4 times as many CLs as they had expected, and half as many M5s, they nearly went bankrupt, because their margin dollars plummetted.

[caliber_60]

It's overprice. But it's the only new brand new Rollei-wide camera in the world. If you want it, you pay. $4,000 can get you a pretty good system. I would say the new Rollei-wide is mostly target at collectors. Performance-wise, there are many selection out there can do the same in less than $1,000.

[gregory_gardner]

<i>I'd wager than NO other basic camera type aside from a Rollei TLR has actually seen it's new price out-pace inflation over the past 30-50 years. That would be akin to a Nikon F5 selling for around $6000-8000, even neglecting the numerous fundamental advances that an F5 has over an F or an F2.</i>

<p>

Interesting statement. The Malaysian site lists a 1964 Nikon F with Photomic finder and 50mm lens at $478. eh.net claims this $478 is worth $2,770 in today's dollars. photo.net claims that a new F5 with 50mm f/1.4 lens runs about $2200. I'd call that "roughly equivalent", for I bet that I could pick different dates, and get the new camera to outplace inflation by a little bit.

<p>

I hear a lot of people complain that they don't make cameras like they used to. It seems like there are some cameras that are still made "like they used to", but you have to be willing to pay what you used to, adjusted for inflation, to get them. Myself, I'm quite happy that both the new plastic wonder cameras and 40 year old used cameras built like tanks allow me entry to this hobby on my budget.

[douglas_green1]

The Malaysian site's inflation factor is off. You were closer when you said in your earlier post that the difference in current dollars and 1965 dollars is a factor of 11. That would mean that an F5 would need to sell for over $5000 to have exceeded inflation.

 

And, directly to the point, $300 Rollei-wides in the 1950s vs. a $4500 Rollei-wide now.

[wayne_crider4]

Ever check prices on a Alpa 12? I guess you could call them MF since they

use mf backs.

http://www.alpa.ch/alpa/pricelist.htm Skip to the bottom for package prices.

How's 10 grand and up sound.

[alex_ragen]

What do people mean when they talk about the Rollei TLR's "unsurpassed quality"? Do they mean that Rollei images are instantly recognizable and that no other camera could have made them? That when you see a Rollei image and you will say "No way a Mamiya or a Pentax could have done that!"?

Because if they do, then I would like to see one of those images. But if they mean build quality (the camera will last a thousand years) or resale value, then I wonder what this has to do with photography, as these considerations equally apply to jewellery or other useless collectibles.