[rollei_list] Re: Rolleimot...first Rollei SLR
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 15:47:32 -0700
I think the nice term is gentlemens' agreement. Sorry I disagree. He was fat
and happy and making money so this is the alleged reason, I think it is a
legend not really fact.
My post is not THAT different. He was "talked out of it" by Rollei. They
allege a genetlemens' agreement. Just because it is written that way does
not make it true.
I think production #s are meaningless. Sales are what is important. Two very
different things. GM produced many cars, but sold fewer. Hence they went
bankrupt. Same for F&H.
Your turn Carlos. I mean, I am not trying to step on your ego here. I know
you are a big fish in our little pond. :-)
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 3:33 PM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter, this is the time machine, we already discussed this topic, we
> agreed on the TLR with interchangeable lenses, but now you added the
> SLR prototype within the same causes for the SLR no production in
> 1957, you wrote:
>
> ".. From what I have read, Heidecke did not lose interest. He was
> talked out of the idea of producing an SLR by the management of
> Rollei. These were the same geniuses who talked him out of putting the
> interchangeable lens TLR
> that he developed into production. They were comfortable and making
> money so they did not want to change..."
>
> Your post below is saying now a different thing regarding the SLR
> prototype, you now writes that "he", Heidecke ABANDONED the SLR
> project in 1957 quoting the meeting with Hasselblad, now you are
> separating the facts regarding the TLR and the SLR, "to ABANDON" and
> "to LOSE" interest are different ways to say similar things To abandon
> the SLR production with the protype ready to do it was a Heidecke
> personal decision.
> If you compare the production for Hasselblad and for F&H from 1948 to
> 1958, the fact a few pros started to use Hasselblad to replace
> Rolleiflexes did not affect Rollei sales very much, this fact was one
> of the causes for Heidecke error about the SLR no production, if
> Rollei was losing a lot of market there was not a meeting Heidecke/
> Hasselblad, but businesses were good for the TLR, Heidecke only wanted
> to avoid Hasselblad could make a TLR, it was right for the Rollei
> numbers in the fifties.
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
> 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > Carlos,
> >
> > No I am not mixing facts. I guess the easiest way to rebut what I say is
> try
> > to discredit the source as many lawyers do. But I will not go away that
> > easily.
> >
> > My source is the same as yours, Prochnow. The only difference is I do not
> > believe everything he writes verbatim. I wrote an article for Shutterbug
> > maybe 12 years back and corresponded with Prochnow and also Rollei
> > Fototechnic. The latter provided some copies of old documentation and
> loaned
> > me several books dealing with Rollei. Prochnow was kind enough to clear
> up
> > some questions I had and allowed me to use some photos.
> >
> > This is from the article:
> > "With Mamiya’s introduction of a TLR with interchangeable lenses in 1957,
> F
> > & H experimented with the idea of converting a Rolleiflex 2.8 E.
> Reinhold
> > Heidecke approved the plan for a prototype , PR178 in 1958 which was
> created
> > with 3 interchangeable twin lenses (see Photo). They were the standard
> 80mm
> > F2.8 Planar, a telephoto 135mm F4 Sonnar lens, and a wide angle 60mm F5.6
> > Distagon lens. Technical management convinced Reinhold Heidecke that
> there
> > would be too many drawbacks with interchangeable lenses and F & H
> abandoned
> > the project. Even so, this was the basis for the development of the
> > Tele-Rollei of 1959 with a 135 F4 Zeiss Sonnar lens, and the Wide-angle
> > Rollei of 1961 with its 55mm F4 Zeiss Distagon lens."
> >
> > Reading between the lines, basically Heidecke was older and wealthy and
> did
> > not need or want to fight this. his health was also not very good.
> Remember
> > he passed away less that two years later in 1960. Ten years after Franke
> who
> > died in 1950.
> >
> > As to the SLR, it was SLR development originated in 1955 (this was the
> > original SLR Prototype) and abandoned in 1957. The reason he ABANDONED
> the
> > SLR was he and Hasselblad allegedly had some sort of gentlemens
> agreement.
> > Rollei would not make an SLR and Hasselbald would not make a TLR. I think
> > Victor was a much smarter business man. Hasselblad had no need to make a
> TLR
> > as his SLRs was selling exceptionally well and replaced many Rolleis pros
> > were using at that time. Two years after Heidecke's death Rollei began
> > development on the SLR again. This was 1962 and the start of the SL66.
> >
> >
> > Peter K
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:16 AM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Peter , I noticed now that you are mixing the facts completely, the
> >> first SRL prototype and the interchangeable lenses prototypes were two
> >> different cameras, they were not produced for different reasons and I
> >> don think to repeat those different causes.
> >> It's very difficult to discuss with someone mixing facts, it does not
> >> make sense to continous this topici if you don't distinguish between
> >> 1955, 1957, 1958 and 1962/63.
> >>
> >> Carlos
> >>
> >> 2010/4/11 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > What is your source Peter? Where did you obtain that info? Who was
> >> > better informed than Prochnow that integrated the team that developed
> >> > the prototype?
> >> >
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> > 2010/4/11 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >> Carlos,
> >> >>
> >> >> All this is interesting but have to say that a lot of this is what
> one
> >> >> would
> >> >> call romanticizing the past. I read that management convinced
> Heidecke
> >> >> to
> >> >> abandon the interchangeable lens TLR.
> >> >>
> >> >> Now I am sure you have been in executive meetings. The term "he lost
> >> >> interest" reminds me of one where after an hour of discussion, the
> >> >> President
> >> >> of the company I worked for listened to what myself and a colleague
> had
> >> >> to
> >> >> say, then turned to us and told us "This is not open for discussion,
> >> >> you
> >> >> will ...." And believe me I am using very nice language to describe
> the
> >> >> discussion much like Prochnow does in his book. Of course the press
> >> >> release
> >> >> read that we had reached an accord in doing...." This is what I call
> >> >> romanticizing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bear in mind, Heidecke was older, tired and his health was declining
> at
> >> >> that
> >> >> time. It was only a few years before he passed on and not long after
> >> >> later
> >> >> Rollei was in financial troubles. So I for one do not buy the claim
> >> >> that
> >> >> Rollei TLR sales were good. At that time you had immense competition
> >> >> from
> >> >> Mamiya, Minolta, Yashica, and others. Granted the Rollei was the
> pro's
> >> >> choice, but Mamiyas sold well and were eating away at Rollei's
> market.
> >> >> They
> >> >> had a very good quality camera at a lower price point with excellent
> >> >> and
> >> >> interchangeable lenses. So you could buy the TLR and 2 lenses for
> what
> >> >> a
> >> >> Tele Rollei would cost.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Peter K.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 9:23 AM, CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> He lost interest Peter. A team of three engineers developed the 1955
> >> >>> SLR prototype, two of them were Richard Weiss and Claus Prochnow,
> they
> >> >>> finished the camera for 1957 and according Prochnow, Heidecke lost
> >> >>> interest in the SLR production for two reasons: 1) The TLR sales
> were
> >> >>> very good; 2)Viktor Hasselblad and Heidecke talked on the issue
> during
> >> >>> their 1955 meeting in Göteborg: " After its completion in 1957,
> >> >>> _Reinhold Heidecke lost interest in the 6x6 SLR_. There was a good
> >> >>> turnover from the Rolleiflex and his colleagues persuaded him that
> >> >>> they could develop other cameras... The decision was also a result
> of
> >> >>> a meeting between Reinhold Heidecke and Victor Hasselblad in
> >> >>> Gothenburg..." (Report 2, page 26-538 and SL 66 brochure).
> >> >>> BTW the SLR production in 1957 would mean a continous improvement
> for
> >> >>> the model 10 years before the SL 66 regular production and an
> earlier
> >> >>> competition regarding Hasselblad when the market was still
> different,
> >> >>> but as a results of that decision, Rollei R&D became only dedicated
> to
> >> >>> design improvements and accesories for the TLR including the
> >> >>> Rolleimot, it only changes in 1962, after Heidecke death in 1960,
> when
> >> >>> Rollei new management decided to develop the SL 66 and to
> manufacture
> >> >>> a 35mm camera, but it's necessary to say things were good for the
> >> >>> Rollei TLR up to about 1960
> >> >>>
> >> >>> We commented several times on the interchangeable lenses TLR camera,
> >> >>> the prototypes were ready for production in 1958, this time the
> >> >>> Rollei management had a stronger influence on Heidecke to decide the
> >> >>> camera no production, deviating from the original design towards the
> >> >>> Tele and Wide Rolleiflexes. Anyway, "it was clear that this was not
> a
> >> >>> substitute for a single-lens reflex camera" writes Prochnow on the
> TLR
> >> >>> with interchangeable lenses in the previous page, but it was a
> direct
> >> >>> competition against the Mamiya TLR with interchangeable lenses, they
> >> >>> started to lose their own market.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2010/4/10 Peter K. <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >>> > From what I have read, Heidecke did not lose interest. He was
> talked
> >> >>> > out
> >> >>> > of
> >> >>> > the idea of producing an SLR by the management of Rollei. These
> were
> >> >>> > the
> >> >>> > same geniuses who talked him out of putting the interchangeable
> lens
> >> >>> > TLR
> >> >>> > that he developed into production. They were comfortable and
> making
> >> >>> > money so
> >> >>> > they did not want to change.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > If you think about it, these idiot managers thought the Rolliemot
> >> >>> > was OK
> >> >>> > to
> >> >>> > develop but not an SLR? Talk about stupidity. The Rolliemot is odd
> >> >>> > or
> >> >>> > maybe
> >> >>> > useless but it was what I would call the Edsel of accessories. I
> am
> >> >>> > sure
> >> >>> > there are odd accessories things developed by other cameras makers
> >> >>> > throughout the years. Even Leica (are they still in business these
> >> >>> > days?)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --Peter K
> >> >
> >> ---
> >> 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
> >> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Peter K
> > Ó¿Õ¬
> >
> ---
> 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
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
