[rollei_list] Re: Decline of Rollieflex/Film
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:11:38 -0400
At 05:13 PM 3/25/2010, Austin Franklin wrote:
>
>> A much stronger case can be made that Hasselblad
>> demolished the Zeiss Ikon MF line than that it
>> hurt Rolleiflex.
>
>That may be true, I have no knowledge of that.
>
>> No one who wanted a reliable
>> camera ever considered buying a Hasselblad 1600F
>> or 1000F: these cameras were denounced in every
>> review for their erratic behavior.
>
>That is somewhat of a myth, and I'd like to see these "cited" reviews.
>Though the 1600 did have some shutter problems (mostly with accuracy of
>speed, not with reliability of operation), the 1000F was far more "stable".
>Having a top shutter speed for a medium format camera at that time of 1600
>was quite a feat. Hence, why they reduced it to 1000. Most of the problems
>people had were of their own making. Sticking things into the shutter
>curtains. People being clumsy is hardly the camera's fault. Even the first
>1600F that was brought here to demonstrate, had someone get their tie caught
>in the shutter. Amazingly enough, the tie was extracted, and the camera
>operated perfectly.
>
>> (To keep the record straight, Austin, I own a
>> Voigtländer Bessa, a Bessa 66, two Super Ikontas,
>> two Ikoflices, six Rolleiflex TLR's, and three
>> Hasselblads. I have run a LOT of film through
>> all of these, but I can honestly say that I have
>> no bias here, just love for the different abilities of all of
>> these cameras.)
>
>...but no 1600Fs and/or 1000Fs, eh? ;-) I have all the above (and then
>some) and about 6 of the early Hasselblads, 3 1600Fs, and 3 1000Fs, and I
>have no bias either. I don't use the early Hasselblads much, but I do know
>a lot about them. I'd rather use a Rollei from that era than a Hasselblad,
>that's for sure!
Austin
You DO know about the demise of the Ikonta line
-- you are, after all, one of the acknowledged
whiz-kids on the brand. You are the Postwar
Simon Worseley! I am drafting an article, slowly
but very surely, on the Zeiss Ikon Business Plan
for the MF Folders for the Zeiss Historica
Journal. Yes, they DID have a Business Plan,
shocking as that seems, given that we are
discussing Zeiss Ikon, a firm wedded to the
belief that "profit means you are doing something
wrong". When Otto gets his next translation
across the pond, I will be able to knock out the article over a weekend.
I own the perfected 1000F, a Kiev 88. Absolutely
accurate. Absolutely bullet-proof. This is what
Hasselblad OUGHT to have made!
Both Jason Schneider and Herbert Keppler spent a
lot of time with the 1000F. Both left the camera
with relief, finding it erratic and unreliable --
Keppler later stated, "great lenses, bad
camera". Peter Dechert, a working pro of the
1950's, also found the 1000F very
unreliable. The stories of the 1000F's
unreliability may well be mythical -- lord, life
is full of such myths! In any event, I do not
believe that a serious pro in the 1950's would
have used a 1000F. Schneider and Dechert were
given cameras by Hasselblad to test, and both
sent them back with nastygrams. Schneider
recorded his comments in one of his three volumes
of classic camera reviews. Dechert's comments
can be found in one of his monographs -- the one on the Contax S perhaps?
I believe Burt Keppler is now dead and Schneider
is retired, but I suspect our valued List member,
Ed Meyers, can put you in touch. (His friend Bob
Schwalberg also did not seem to have liked the
1000F very much, from a comment in a 1990's
article in MODERN.) I can put you in touch with
Rick Nordin and Peter Dechert. And, for a
British perspective, I can put you in touch with
Ivor Matanle (no fan of the 1000F) and Peter Loy.
Austin, we may be talking at cross-ends here.
First, I am NOT disdaining the Hasselblad. I
just think you are jumping to first impressions
instead of thinking the business developments
through. Hasselblad did not impact on Rolleiflex
sales much, if at all, into the late
1950's. And, by that time, Rolleiflex sales were
dying as the amateurs went to miniature-format
gear. I wished you had asked me this a decade
back, as I could have then put you in touch with
guys, now all dead, who owned camera stores at
the time. I have a bunch of their reminiscences
in my files. I will try to dig them out -- but
most of the commentary was on Leitz and Zeiss
Ikon. As one of them said, "Rolleiflex was just
the icing on the cake: we sold them as fast as
they came in", but that might have been the
result of my taking his picture with a 3.5E as I talked to him!
Second, I lack your huge fiscal reservoir, so I
do not have the vast holdings of rare cameras you
own. I stand in honor of your holdings, sir, and
a Glass with You! Someday, you and I ought to
drive to Philadelphia to meet up with Charlie
Barringer and Dan Black. Now, those guys have
SERIOUS collections. (Drawer after drawer after
drawer of camera bodies ... ) Charlie is quite
ill and a lot of us are worried about what will
become of the Zeiss Lens List for which I have
been bugging you folks for
decades. NUMBERS. INDUSTRIAL ARCHAEOLOGY. It
will be preserved and it might even finally be
made available on the 'Net, though we are still negotiating that point.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
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
Other related posts:
