cost of hasselblad/rolleiflex before the advent of digital?

[msbarnes]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Sim2]

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]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.