cost of hasselblad/rolleiflex before the advent of digital?

msbarnes · Apr 19, 2012

I'm wondering, how much did these cameras cost before the digital? It amazes me how we can get such high quality cameras for "relatively cheap" in comparison to full-frame DSLR's.

Which models in particular? IDK, I just wanted a rough estimate, but I guess a 500cm+Planar and a Rolleiflex 2.8F.

IloveTLRs · Apr 19, 2012

Where I am, Rolleiflex 2.8s still haven't come down in price that much. Especially if they're in nice condition, I still see them for around $2,000.

Hasselblads, on the other hand, suddenly seemed to lose popularity overnight. A few of my local dealers were almost inundated with Hasselblad gear. Compared to 2 to 3 years ago, one can be had for less than $1,000 (they were at least twice that much before.)

John Austin · Apr 19, 2012

In England in 1967 they were 187 Pounds, 8 shillings and 5 pence - Sorry this site does not have real currency symbols

This is a drool sheet of mine from that time, it took until 1976 before I graduated to a 2.8f from a borrowed T - I never descended to the depths of using a fuzzy lensed Yashica

John

msbarnes · Apr 19, 2012

Thanks.

It seems that they really haven't come down in price thaat much (for the case of the Rollei, atleast).

I looked at some online calculators and it looks like 187 pounds is ~ 300 USD which is approximately ~2k USD when inflation is taken into account.

filmamigo · Apr 19, 2012

Grumpy Old Man said:
I never descended to the depths of using a fuzzy lensed Yashica

Pardon my cheekiness but I can't resist the bait

I recently sold my 2.8F because it had equal sharpness but poor contrast and colour compared to my razor sharp Yashinon-lensed Yashica Mat LM.

Nick Merritt · Apr 19, 2012

Seems like a basic Hasselblad outfit (body, 80mm, WL finder, A12 back) can be had nowadays, in excellent used condition, for $800 in the USA. The same setup in, say, 2000, would have been twice that, easy.

Jeff Kubach · Apr 19, 2012

I have a Rolleiflex 2.8. I don't know how much it is worth, but I don't care. I'll be long dead when I get rid of it.

Jeff

film_man · Apr 19, 2012

A brand new Hasselblad 503CW kit can still be bought from Hasselblad UK for about £6k. That's 6x of what I paid for my 501CM/80CB/A12 kit two years ago.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 19, 2012

When I worked in the camera store (2-years ago), this gentleman came in with 2 A-12 Hasselblad backs; he wanted $700 a piece as he had paid almost $1000 each in 1998. We told him they were about $100-150 and he walked out, complaining we were trying to low-ball him.

msbarnes · Apr 19, 2012

Thanks! I wasn't questioning/arguing the value/worth--I just wanted to know how much they cost when new. I don't own a Rolleiflex Planar (although I want one!) but I too could care less for how much it would sell for or how much it would be worth in the future.

Kevin Kehler · Apr 19, 2012

I can't remember who, but someone once showed that the price of a new Leica, adjusted for inflation, has remained constant from the 1950's. My RZ kit (body, 4 lenses, winder, 4 backs) was almost $10k in 1991 - I know this because when I picked it up from the original owner, I found the receipt in one of the bags. I purchased a consignment Yashicamat 124G while working in the camera store; $319.74 including tax on the original Sears receipt, stapled to the warranty card. Even the price of digital has remained fairly constant - see the price of a Nikon D1 in 2001 with the price of a new D4 and it is fairly close when adjusted for inflation.

Shootar401 · Apr 19, 2012

If you want to pay over $1,000 just for a name, sure get a hassleblad.

Sim2 · Apr 19, 2012

Not sure what the new prices were before the advent of digital but a new Hasselblad 503CW can be currently bought for £2466.00 from Richard Caplan (UK), expensive yes but not really extortianate.

Sim2.

Rolfe Tessem · Apr 19, 2012

I think Hasselblads came down in price dramatically because wedding photographers dumped them on the market enmass as they went digital.

Rolleis were always owned by a more diverse group and the pricing has reflected that as well.

Sirius Glass · Apr 19, 2012

Before I could only dream about owning a Hasselblad. I would not dare to touch one for the fear of a horrendous GAS attack.

Now I own a Hasselblad 503 CX, a Hasselblad 903 SWC, and lenses!

mike c · Apr 19, 2012

1978 I paid $1100 for a new 500cm kit 80mm T star. Got it for shooting weddings, now use it on a tripod and no flash.

Mike

Richard S. (rich815) · Apr 19, 2012

Sirius Glass said:
Before I could only dream about owning a Hasselblad. I would not dare to touch one for the fear of a horrendous GAS attack.

Now I own a Hasselblad 503 CX, a Hasselblad 903 SWC, and lenses!

:eek: Just for the name???

John Austin · Apr 19, 2012

filmamigo said:
Pardon my cheekiness but I can't resist the bait

I recently sold my 2.8F because it had equal sharpness but poor contrast and colour compared to my razor sharp Yashinon-lensed Yashica Mat LM.

Some of the 1960s Yashinons were very low quality lenses - By the time QC was tightened up I was into Rollei - A friend of mine in Oxford at the time bought a SH Yashica and that had a terrible lens - A few years later another friend, in the Pilbara, had one that had a really sweet lens - So it was a QC or assembly issue at that time

Your post brings up again the Zeiss/Leitz argument between contrast and resolution, where a contrasty lens, Zeiss, can appear sharper than a lens with higher resolution, Leitz - Also, there is the question of corner quality between the Planar/Yashica, did you compare that as well - Anyway breakfast is ready, so no more digression

John

John Austin · Apr 19, 2012

Shootar401 said:
If you want to pay over $1,000 just for a name, sure get a hassleblad.

Or buy one of my prints and get quality as well as the name for the same price

ic-racer · Apr 19, 2012

I had figured this out and posted it earlier. When you take into account inflation, new Rolleiflex 2.8 TLR cost much more today than it did in the late 1960s.

Moopheus · Apr 19, 2012

msbarnes said:
Thanks.

It seems that they really haven't come down in price thaat much (for the case of the Rollei, atleast).

I looked at some online calculators and it looks like 187 pounds is ~ 300 USD which is approximately ~2k USD when inflation is taken into account.

Except that the exchange rate was $2.80-$2.40 to the pound in 1967 (there was a devaluation in there then). So the dollar equivalent would have been more like $500.

dpurdy · Apr 20, 2012

It is all a moot point. We live in a different time/ circumstance/ reality/ value system/ everything else now. It was what it was/ it is what it is. One thing for certain, or maybe anyway, don 't buy new.
Dennis

Slixtiesix · Apr 20, 2012

I just took a look into a B&H catalogue from the late 90s.

Hasselblad 501cm+80CB+A12 = 2,695 USD
Body only = 1,585 USD

Hasselblad 503cw+80CF+A12 = 4,211 USD
Body only = 1,797 USD

Hasselblad 903 SWC+Finder+A12 = 5,681 USD

Hasselblad 203FE Body only = 5,358 USD

Hasselblad 205FCC Body only = 6,991 USD

(Planar 110/2 would add 3,731 USD to this, E12-Back would add further 974 USD)

Steve Smith · Apr 20, 2012

dpurdy said:
It is all a moot point. We live in a different time/ circumstance/ reality/ value system/ everything else now.

I like to compare prices in terms of the average wage at the time.

Steve.

cost of hasselblad/rolleiflex before the advent of digital?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency