Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,571   Posts: 1,545,606   Online: 976
      
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 73
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Helinophoto View Post
    I agree with the OP.

    Nothing justifies that price, no matter what it says on the camera.
    A Hasselblad 503 is imo a much better and more flexible tool and you can pick up a mint Hasselblad for 1500 bucks.

    Imo rolleiflex is pricing themselves right out of the market, you'd have to be pretty high from darkroom fumes to buy one at that price
    By that logic, Hasselblad is also pricing themselves out of the market, since the price of a new 503 is $3500 for just the body. And the prices for the lenses are like $4000 each. A Mamiya RZ is a relative bargain; you can get one with a lens for $3500. But somebody has to be willing to pay these new prices, or the rest of couldn't get the good used deals.

    None of these cameras are cheap, or have ever been cheap relative to other cameras. They're low production, require higher grades of materials than consumer cameras, higher levels of quality control, and let's face it, tend to be made in places with higher skilled labor costs.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    965
    Images
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by ic-racer View Post
    Dealer price list from 1972 shows the 2.8F at $577.50 which would be $3,107.71 today. So, the price of a 2.8 has doubled since then.
    And of course, the market for them has not. Presumably in 1972 they sold a lot more of them. They're effectively a custom-made object at this point; if no one was willing to pay that price, they wouldn't be for sale at all.

  3. #23
    jp498's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Owls Head ME
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,467
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by IloveTLRs View Post
    I heard that old Rolleiflex Automats are cheap on eBay these days. $300 or so? That's cheap for such a great camera.
    I have a 1953-54ish automat mx with the 75/3.5 tessar, and it's a great camera. I paid $225 for it locally. It's more rugged than a comparable yashica and both use the same filters and bay-I accessories. The rolleiflex shutter is only inaccurate with sub-freezing weather, it gets a stop slow. Probably a CLA would fix that, as that has already been done to my Yashica.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    1
    Buy yourself an old Mamya TLR for a fraction of the price of a Rolleiflex and spend the rest of your money on a long vacation.

  5. #25
    TheFlyingCamera's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Washington DC
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    8,367
    Blog Entries
    51
    Images
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by lithprinter View Post
    Buy yourself an old Mamya TLR for a fraction of the price of a Rolleiflex and spend the rest of your money on a long vacation.
    No - just get a used Rolleiflex and spend the rest of the money on a nice long vacation with the Rollei. The Mamiya C220/330 is a great camera no doubt, but the ergonomics and aesthetics of it are a LONG way from the Rollei. I would use the Mamiya TLR in the studio any day. In the field, hand-held, I'd much prefer the Rollei.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,914
    Images
    54
    Don't buy a Rolleiflex and let you wife go shopping for clothes for 1 day $$$$$.

    Mike

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    North America just north of that sharp right turn North America makes on the Atlantic coast.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    602
    I agree that the prices are high for what you appear to be getting, but I do understand, I work as a designer for a low volume company, so perhaps I can explain this a bit better.

    You have to look at what your money is paying for not at the tangible item.

    Lets say that Rollei makes 2500 cameras a year and they sell them wholesale for about 4000 USD each and COG's (Cost of Goods) is 1800 per unit.

    That works out to about 110 employes at 50,000 USD a year.

    Now, would you work making a high precision instrument getting paid 50,000 USD a year?

    And that is where the money goes. The price is high, but that is what it takes to keep the factory afloat in theory, they also have taxes, duties, rent and so on to contend with.
    "Would you like it if someone that painted in oils told you that you were not making portraits because you were using a camera?"
    "Shouldn't it be more about the joy of producing and viewing the photo than what you paid for the camera?"

    Me

  8. #28
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,996
    Images
    6
    I bought an Automat IV on Ebay. The craftsmanship is amazing. What startled me most was when I made a print from shots off the Rollei. It's shockingly sharp. Didn't expect that from a 75 year old camera.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    105
    Recently saw the Vivian Maier show at the Howard Greenberg gallery in NYC. All of her self portraits from the 1950's and 60's show a Rolliflex, so I assume that all of the rest of the photos were taken with the same camera. They are all tack sharp, with no flare and technically are the equal of anything that can be produced today. I suppose that is why the prices remain high - an amazing tool that is as good today as it was 50 years ago (if given a little TLC).

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    61
    I have a 2.8F in near mint condition. It costs way too much money and is only fractionally better than many cameras that are a half, a third or a tenth of the price.

    Rolleiflexes are expensive because of the collectibility of them. It drives up the price for even samples that no collector would consider owning.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin