cost of hasselblad/rolleiflex before the advent of digital?

Discussion in 'Medium Format Cameras and Accessories' started by msbarnes, Apr 19, 2012.

  1. msbarnes

    msbarnes Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm wondering, how much did these cameras cost before the digital? It amazes me how we can get such high quality cameras for "relatively cheap" in comparison to full-frame DSLR's.

    Which models in particular? IDK, I just wanted a rough estimate, but I guess a 500cm+Planar and a Rolleiflex 2.8F.
     
  2. IloveTLRs

    IloveTLRs Member

    Messages:
    1,116
    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Location:
    Boston
    Shooter:
    Sub 35mm
    Where I am, Rolleiflex 2.8s still haven't come down in price that much. Especially if they're in nice condition, I still see them for around $2,000.

    Hasselblads, on the other hand, suddenly seemed to lose popularity overnight. A few of my local dealers were almost inundated with Hasselblad gear. Compared to 2 to 3 years ago, one can be had for less than $1,000 (they were at least twice that much before.)
     
  3. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    In England in 1967 they were 187 Pounds, 8 shillings and 5 pence - Sorry this site does not have real currency symbols

    Rollei1967UK.jpg

    This is a drool sheet of mine from that time, it took until 1976 before I graduated to a 2.8f from a borrowed T - I never descended to the depths of using a fuzzy lensed Yashica

    John
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2012
  4. msbarnes

    msbarnes Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks.

    It seems that they really haven't come down in price thaat much (for the case of the Rollei, atleast).

    I looked at some online calculators and it looks like 187 pounds is ~ 300 USD which is approximately ~2k USD when inflation is taken into account.
     
  5. filmamigo

    filmamigo Member

    Messages:
    262
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Location:
    Toronto, Ont
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Pardon my cheekiness but I can't resist the bait :tongue:

    I recently sold my 2.8F because it had equal sharpness but poor contrast and colour compared to my razor sharp Yashinon-lensed Yashica Mat LM. :D
     
  6. Nick Merritt

    Nick Merritt Member

    Messages:
    419
    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2007
    Location:
    Hartford, Co
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Seems like a basic Hasselblad outfit (body, 80mm, WL finder, A12 back) can be had nowadays, in excellent used condition, for $800 in the USA. The same setup in, say, 2000, would have been twice that, easy.
     
  7. Jeff Kubach

    Jeff Kubach Member

    Messages:
    6,926
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2007
    Location:
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I have a Rolleiflex 2.8. I don't know how much it is worth, but I don't care. I'll be long dead when I get rid of it.

    Jeff
     
  8. film_man

    film_man Member

    Messages:
    751
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    London
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    A brand new Hasselblad 503CW kit can still be bought from Hasselblad UK for about £6k. That's 6x of what I paid for my 501CM/80CB/A12 kit two years ago.
     
  9. Kevin Kehler

    Kevin Kehler Member

    Messages:
    605
    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Location:
    Regina Canad
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    When I worked in the camera store (2-years ago), this gentleman came in with 2 A-12 Hasselblad backs; he wanted $700 a piece as he had paid almost $1000 each in 1998. We told him they were about $100-150 and he walked out, complaining we were trying to low-ball him.
     
  10. msbarnes

    msbarnes Member

    Messages:
    385
    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2011
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Thanks! I wasn't questioning/arguing the value/worth--I just wanted to know how much they cost when new. I don't own a Rolleiflex Planar (although I want one!) but I too could care less for how much it would sell for or how much it would be worth in the future.
     
  11. Kevin Kehler

    Kevin Kehler Member

    Messages:
    605
    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Location:
    Regina Canad
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I can't remember who, but someone once showed that the price of a new Leica, adjusted for inflation, has remained constant from the 1950's. My RZ kit (body, 4 lenses, winder, 4 backs) was almost $10k in 1991 - I know this because when I picked it up from the original owner, I found the receipt in one of the bags. I purchased a consignment Yashicamat 124G while working in the camera store; $319.74 including tax on the original Sears receipt, stapled to the warranty card. Even the price of digital has remained fairly constant - see the price of a Nikon D1 in 2001 with the price of a new D4 and it is fairly close when adjusted for inflation.
     
  12. Shootar401

    Shootar401 Member

    Messages:
    359
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    New York
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    If you want to pay over $1,000 just for a name, sure get a hassleblad.
     
  13. Sim2

    Sim2 Member

    Messages:
    470
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Location:
    Wiltshire UK
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Not sure what the new prices were before the advent of digital but a new Hasselblad 503CW can be currently bought for £2466.00 from Richard Caplan (UK), expensive yes but not really extortianate.

    Sim2.
     
  14. Rolfe Tessem

    Rolfe Tessem Subscriber

    Messages:
    211
    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Location:
    Egremont, MA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think Hasselblads came down in price dramatically because wedding photographers dumped them on the market enmass as they went digital.

    Rolleis were always owned by a more diverse group and the pricing has reflected that as well.
     
  15. Sirius Glass

    Sirius Glass Subscriber

    Messages:
    20,728
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    Southern California
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Before I could only dream about owning a Hasselblad. I would not dare to touch one for the fear of a horrendous GAS attack.

    Now I own a Hasselblad 503 CX, a Hasselblad 903 SWC, and lenses!
     
  16. mike c

    mike c Subscriber

    Messages:
    2,318
    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2009
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    1978 I paid $1100 for a new 500cm kit 80mm T star. Got it for shooting weddings, now use it on a tripod and no flash.

    Mike
     
  17. Richard S. (rich815)

    Richard S. (rich815) Subscriber

    Messages:
    4,954
    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    :eek: Just for the name??? :tongue:
     
  18. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Some of the 1960s Yashinons were very low quality lenses - By the time QC was tightened up I was into Rollei - A friend of mine in Oxford at the time bought a SH Yashica and that had a terrible lens - A few years later another friend, in the Pilbara, had one that had a really sweet lens - So it was a QC or assembly issue at that time

    Your post brings up again the Zeiss/Leitz argument between contrast and resolution, where a contrasty lens, Zeiss, can appear sharper than a lens with higher resolution, Leitz - Also, there is the question of corner quality between the Planar/Yashica, did you compare that as well - Anyway breakfast is ready, so no more digression

    John
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 19, 2012
  19. John Austin

    John Austin Member

    Messages:
    521
    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    Location:
    Southern For
    Shooter:
    Large Format
    Or buy one of my prints and get quality as well as the name for the same price
     
  20. ic-racer

    ic-racer Member

    Messages:
    7,517
    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2007
    Location:
    Midwest USA
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I had figured this out and posted it earlier. When you take into account inflation, new Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR cost much more today than it did in the late 1960s.
     
  21. Moopheus

    Moopheus Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,129
    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    Except that the exchange rate was $2.80-$2.40 to the pound in 1967 (there was a devaluation in there then). So the dollar equivalent would have been more like $500.
     
  22. dpurdy

    dpurdy Member

    Messages:
    2,272
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Location:
    Portland OR
    Shooter:
    8x10 Format
    It is all a moot point. We live in a different time/ circumstance/ reality/ value system/ everything else now. It was what it was/ it is what it is. One thing for certain, or maybe anyway, don 't buy new.
    Dennis
     
  23. Slixtiesix

    Slixtiesix Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,122
    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2006
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I just took a look into a B&H catalogue from the late 90s.

    Hasselblad 501cm+80CB+A12 = 2,695 USD
    Body only = 1,585 USD

    Hasselblad 503cw+80CF+A12 = 4,211 USD
    Body only = 1,797 USD

    Hasselblad 903 SWC+Finder+A12 = 5,681 USD

    Hasselblad 203FE Body only = 5,358 USD

    Hasselblad 205FCC Body only = 6,991 USD

    (Planar 110/2 would add 3,731 USD to this, E12-Back would add further 974 USD)
     
  24. Steve Smith

    Steve Smith Member

    Messages:
    9,068
    Joined:
    May 3, 2006
    Location:
    Ryde, Isle o
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    I like to compare prices in terms of the average wage at the time.


    Steve.