Why are Rolleiflex's so expensive?

[Ric Trexell]

I was just reading here about Rolleiflex's and wondered if a person could still buy one new. Guess what! You can, but I'll never be able to. B&H sells the 2.8 for something like $6,600. So my question is, yes, I know they are the Caddy of cameras, but why are they so expensive? I suppose you can use them for 300 years, if you can still get film for them, but really, they are just a couple of lenses, a shutter and a place to put your film. Am I missing something here? Ric.

[tomalophicon]

Maybe they'd be $3,300 if they only had one lens.

[Bob-D659]

Low production = high manufacturing costs = high retail pricing, for other examples, see the products from Omega watches, Porche, Bentley, Aston Martin and Rolls Royce. For optical products, even Nikon's 600mm f4 lens at the low end or maybe you want to drop $500k or more on a confocal microscope from Nikon, Zeiss or Olympus..

[Sirius Glass]

What he said.

[CGW]

The same reason Bob Kramer knives aren't cheap:

http://kottke.org/10/03/master-bladesmith-bob-kramer

[Helinophoto]

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

[John Austin]

Rolleiflexes hold their value over Hasselblads because to me they are nicer to use - I say this having both, my Rolleis are loved and my 2.8F been with me since the mid 1970s - My Hasselblads were used commercially for all the obvious reasons, but were too fiddly, had too many flaps, springs, mirrors, shutters and aperture blades flying around at high speed to make the exposure

One good thing about the price of a SH Rollei is that if you don't like it it is always worth what you paid for it

I love my Rolleis but could never come to love a Hasselblad, even the SWC - I should not be typing this as I am trying to sell my Hasselblads at this very moment

I am about to change my call sign to "Grumpy Old Man"

[jp498]

Some people aren't bothered by $6000 or so for a classic low production camera that is collectible and nice looking. Some people don't use those cameras either. The same people that would buy a brand new leica rangefinder, airstream camper, klipsch k-horn speakers, or a Gibson les paul. "High end" and lots of timeless cachet.

I'm a user not a collector and prefer cheap and functional and will pay extra for rugged. I have a cheap used rolleiflex that I'm happy with.

Rolleiflexes are more of a old mercedes than a cadillac (which are sold on features and tech). The rolleiflexes are generally more rugged than their TLR competitors and had a premium price and didn't change too fast.

[jscott]

Reasons for high prices?

"Supply and Demand."
And "you get what you pay for".

[Aristophanes]

Why are Rolleicords cheaper?