[rollei_list] Re: More R and H price comparisons and production figures
- From: CarlosMFreaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 18:48:18 -0300
Yes Richard, I agree with you, most of your points are my points too.
To be precise, the studio camera definition suffered changes along the
years according the cameras were evolving. I used the term "studio
camera" in a very wide sense meaning a camera to be used on tripod
mainly to obtain the best results in general, within a photographic
studio or out of it. Decades ago, a "studio camera" meant a view
camera with an adjustable back and the lens board, a film holder
section that tilts vertically or horizontally, and a lens board that
moves up, down, or to the side for distortion control, this camera
could stand on the floor, usually with pneumatic or hydraulic
mechanisms called pedestals to adjust the height, and were usually on
wheels, in other words a "studio camera" was a camera that you could
rarely move from the photographic studio. From this point of view, a
Hasselblad 500 C or a Rollei SL 66 wouldn't be "studio cameras", but
the term evolved and the Rollei SL 66 designers thought it as "studio
camera" mainly, I read it in the Report 2.
Carlos
2010/3/27 Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "CarlosMFreaza" <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: <rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2010 6:24 AM
> Subject: [rollei_list] More R and H price comparisons and production figures
>
>
> 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
>
> Check publications like _U.S.Camera Annual_ for the credits given for
> photographs. The annual reproduced both journalistic and commercial
> photographs of the year. The are several years during the mid 1940s to late
> 1960s where the greatest number of pictures that mention the camera type
> were made using Rolleiflex cameras. Probably the most common one after that
> was the Speed Graphic. Advertising pictures of the period were mostly made
> with large-format view or studio cameras but fashion photography shows an
> increasing number being made with Rolleis.
> I think what cut into Rollei sales was the general move to 35mm. One of
> the most influential cameras was the Nikon F-1. This was about the first
> "modern" single lens reflex in that it had an instant return mirror and
> other features missing on earlier SLRs regardless of format. Nikon displaced
> most other 35mm cameras until it was displaced in turn by Canon, who had a
> better sales organization. The German camera industry never caught up.
> Because Hasselblad was always an expensive camera it was mostly used by
> professional photographers. BTW, the 1600F is the one that I was talking
> about when I said the early shutters were very prone to break. Hasselblad
> soon discontinued this model and went to a shutter limited to 1/1000th
> second, which proved much more reliable. Hasselblad's were mostly sold to
> pro's who used them in controlled settings although not necessarily in a
> studio. They are noisy cameras, especially those with focal plane shutters
> where the Rolleiflex is nearly silent. That can be a critical feature for
> some types of work.
> About the only competition the Hasselblad had was the Exakta 66 which
> also had a reputation for being mechanically unreliable. It was not a
> long-lived camera.
> Nikon established itself with the first Nikon rangefinder camera, I've
> now forgotten the model number, which featured an f/1.4 lens based on the
> Zeiss Sonar. These were very good performers and many were adapted to the
> Leica M-2/M-3.
> Keep in mind that in the mid-1950s a great many new cameras, especially
> those made by the Japanese, came on the market and offered pretty stiff
> competition to both German and USA makers, and indeed, Hasselblad.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> ---
> 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:
