[rollei_list] Re: Decline of Rollieflex/Film

Hi Carlos,

How about prices from 1958-1960?  That is more the era we're talking about.
Comparing a price of a newly introduced item may not be truly reflective of
the prices some 10 years later, when the market was more established.

I'm not sure that %15 price difference you cite for today's market would
make someone choosing between the two wince.  Today, people buy a Rollei TLR
because they specifically want one, and today, they certainly are most used
by "advanced amateurs".  I'm not sure it's a choice between the two, at
least as far as new ones goes.  Used ones, certainly.  Because there were so
many more Hasselblads made than Rolleis, the used Hasselblads are much
cheaper than an equivalent Rollei.  A 500 C/M in near mint condition can be
had for under $1000.  A 2.8F will cost you upwards of $1800+.

Again, I'll ask...if the Hasselblad weren't around, and someone wanted a
high quality 6x6 camera, what would their choice have been in 1958, if a
Rollei wasn't the choice?

Regards,

Austin

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of CarlosMFreaza
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 5:34 AM
> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Decline of Rollieflex/Film
>
>
> And this is a Hasselblad 1600- Rolleiflex 2.8C Xenotar or Planar
> prices comparison:
> A Hasselblad 1600 F complete kit with Kodak Ektar 2.8/80 lens costed
> U$S 535 in 1948 (I enlarged the image to see the price below the
> camera image on the right):
> http://www.hasselbladusa.com/about-hasselblad/history/a-new-age-ca
> mera.aspx
>
> A Rolleiflex 2.8C top of the line in 1954 costed U$S 291.50:
> http://dobleobjetivo.blogspot.com/2006/10/list-prices.html
>
> Rolleiflex TLR cameras were always cheaper than Hasselblad cameras, it
> had nothing to do with quality, it had to do with different targets
> -markets- and production volume _during the fifties_ ; these prices
> differences always existed and even today a cheapest  basic Hasselblad
> 503 with Planar 2.8/80 lens and standard back costs U$S 6024 at B&H
> NYC and a Rolleiflex 2.8 FX U$S 5339 in B&H too.
>
> Carlos
>
> Prices were other significant cause Hasselblad was not a direct
> competition for Rollei TLR cameras.
>
> Carlos
>
> 2010/3/26 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > 2010/3/25 Austin Franklin <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> >> ...It seems to me Prochnow was talking about TLRs.  Hasselblad
> didn't make aTLR...>
> >
> > Hi Austin:
> >                 You wrote above the cause Hasselblad was not
> > competition for Rollei during the fifties,  this meeting explains some
> > things about Hasselblad-Rollei relationship:
> >
> > http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HS/HSHmeetsR.aspx
> >
> > Carlos
> >
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>

---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: