[rollei_list] More R and H price comparisons and production figures
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 10:24:49 -0300
While I'm waiting for my ordered prices lists, I found some data about
the Hasselblad 500C price in 1957 with the numbers in DM, Deutsche
Mark, it allows a direct comparison with the Rollei prices in the
Report 2, also in DM.
A basic 500 C kit in 1957 costed DM 2000, the more expensive
Rolleiflex model from 1956 to 1959 was the Rolleiflex 2.8E, it costed
DM 820 with Planar 2.8/80 lens and built-in lightmeter.
Hasselblad sold 3000 1600F cameras from 1948 to 1952 and 10000 1000F
(it costed about U$S 400) from 1952 to 1957, 13,000 cameras.
F&H manufactured 517,470 TLR cameras from October 1949 up to the
ending of 1956 and then these production figures don't include great
success cameras like the F, T, and Rolleicord Va and Vb, to no mention
Rolleimagics, Wide, Tele and E2 and E3 models.
Hasselblad 500C cameras were bought and had great initial success for
fashion photography and studio work, Rollei TLR _never was a studio
camera_ .
BTW, beyond the Japanese competition, the TLR camera as design idea
was losing popularity during the sixties and seventies and it affected
the TLR cameras in general. Rollei tried to keep their TLR
professional and advanced amateur market up to the eighties
manufacturing F models and Tele and Rolleicords and T during the
seventies, but the production had no comparison point with the
production figures during fifties and early sixties; they even sold
special Rolleicord Vb and T kits for the schools, but the 35mm cameras
with the very significant improvements for 35 film quality destroyed
the advanced amateur market for Rollei TLR and then the Rollei 35 and
Rollei QBM mount cameras.
Carlos
2010/3/26 CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Austin:
> When you talk about market strategies, the words exact
> meaning could vary regarding their real meaning. Rolleiflex was born
> as an advanced amateur camera for the pre-war market, professional
> cameras were the Large Format cameras as Richard K explained very
> well, Hasselblad cameras did not exist at the time.
> Due to the quality of its construction and the TLR compact format and
> no black-out issue and MF frame size advantages for certain kind of
> works , Rollei TLR cameras were adopted for photojournalism, fashion
> photography, scientific work, artistic author photography, etc.,
> Rollei became a pro camera for those uses mainly, but F&H never
> abandoned their original market, the dedicated/advanced amateur
> photographer, the Rollei TLR was a success for decades and they
> manufactured models thought for different targets but keeping the
> main features and the quality for every model, Rollei had a mass
> production and there were up to almost 3000 workers during the "golden
> age".
>
> Mamiya "Professional" was a marketing concept, the lenses at the time
> were not as good as Zeiss and Schneider lenses but they were good
> enough for several uses where the final product, f.e. a printed page,
> could not reflect the quality difference as Allen commented about the
> Yashica TLR, anyway I'd say the Mamiya lenses were better than the
> Yashica lenses from the beginning; in general, Japanese lenses were
> very good copies from the original German designs during the fifties.
> Mamiya Flex C cameras were cheaper than Rolleis as Prochnow explained
> regarding the Japanese assault to the world market and it had
> interchangeable lenses and bellows for close-up images (I wrote
> "folded" because I copied the info), it was the real competition for
> the Rolleiflex TLR for decades, not only during the fifties.-
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/3/26 Austin Franklin <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> Hi Carlos,
>>
>> From what I remember of the Mamiya, the lenses were not near as good as the
>> Hasselblad or Rollei 80 Planar. It would be interesting to see a
>> comparison. It wasn't folding but had a bellows. And, it was called a
>> "professional", which if the Rollei was an "advanced amateur" market camera,
>> then I'm not sure how that all fits...seems like it would be more
>> competition to Hasselblad than Rollei.
>>
>> But, certainly the Mamiya displaced some Rollei sales, and perhaps more than
>> Hasselblads did. But, Hasselblads certainly did displace some Rollei sales.
>> Personally, given the lense quality, I wouldn't have considered (and never
>> did consider) the Mamiya when considering a Rollei (or a Hasselblad)
>> alternative. I saw only one Mamiya TLR used in my entire life at a wedding
>> in North Carolina many many years ago. But, I do remember hearing they were
>> "popular", but in my experience, the Hasselblad was far more popular.
>>
>> Do you happen to have any price information from 1958-1960 on the Mamiya?
>> Any sales figures?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Austin
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> [mailto:rollei_list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of CarlosMFreaza
>>> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 9:04 AM
>>> To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Subject: [rollei_list] Re: Decline of Rollieflex/Film
>>>
>>>
>>> Austin:
>>> I have ordered right now Hasselblad and Rolleiflexes prices
>>> list from 1957 to 1960, you'll see the prices difference between the
>>> 500C and the top of the lines Rolleiflexes, your approach on this
>>> issue is wrong from the beginning.
>>> Your question is very easy to answer, in 1957 Mamiya entered at the
>>> professional market in a big way, with the giant "C" series of folding
>>> models with interchangeable lens sets, eventually ranging from 55mm to
>>> 250mm. Mamiya had started to manufacture low end TLR cameras from
>>> 1948, but the serious problem for Rollei was this Mamiya Flex C
>>> Professional TLR 6x6cm in 1957 with interchangeable lenses, it was
>>> the reason Rollei developed its own TLR with interchangeable lenses
>>> and making a new error, they decided to produce the Rollei Wide and
>>> the Tele Rolleiflex abandoning the interchangeable lens prototype
>>> ready for production.
>>> This Mamiya camera was the main competition for the Rolleiflex from
>>> 1957 and not the Hasselblad 500 C.
>>>
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/3/26 Austin Franklin <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> > 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
>>> >> //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
>>> > //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
>>> //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
>> //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
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
