DHW Fototechnik in insolvency

[AgX]

The long history of demises of the Rollei company has got a new (last?) chapter.

The latest spin off DHW, who continued manufacture of classic Rollei cameras and projectors in the Rollei plant, but who also took over toll-design and -manufacture of photographic apparatus is in severe financial trouble.

 

[Oren Grad]

A comment directly from the company:

http://www.getdpi.com/forum/601243-post13.html

 

[AgX]

Thank you for that update.
Though I'm surprised that lack of advertizing as indicated in that statement is that important in that niche of a niche market where I expect possibly interested buyers would have got the "news" of Rollei cameras still being manufactured.
A different situation sure is with those people not yet linked deeply to photograophy but willing to spent money on some collectors items.

 

[AgX]

About 500 views and no comment yet.

I guess you all think that if a company has experiences with demises it is "Rollei", and that with all that used gear on the market one should not bother either.

 

[R.Gould]

I am adopting a wait and see option, after all, I, and I am sure many others here, would love a new rollei tlr, but don't have a hope in hell of ever buying one, and are content with their used cameras, also, rollei seem to have a history of becoming insolvent and re emerging from the ashes, plus as far as I can see they can still trade under German law, so I don't see any reason to Panic yet

 

[AgX]

Yes, they can trade. But "they" means a bankruptcy trustee who is running the business now. (In contrast to the Kodak case where managment still could go on.) Such trustee of course takes another perspective on the matter.

And if a represantative states that marketing is of major importance to them, than lacking a booth at Photokina seems a severe deficite. Though there are other means too.

 

[Cybertrash]

They're the guys who manufacture the "modern" super-expensive Rolleiflexes?

 

[AgX]

Yes. Those classic TLR's.
And the meanwhile classic 6008 SLR, the new Hy6 SLR, a technical camera, lenses and 35 and 60mm slide projectors.

http://www.dhw-fototechnik.de/en.html

 

[RattyMouse]

Yes, they can trade. But "they" means a bankruptcy trustee who is running the business now. (In contrast to the Kodak case where managment still could go on.) Such trustee of course takes another perspective on the matter.

And if a represantative states that marketing is of major importance to them, than lacking a booth at Photokina seems a severe deficite. Though there are other means too.

When Kodak was bankrupt a judge had the final say on how the company was run.

 

[AgX]

Kodak was in bancruptcy under "Chapter 11" and that typically allows the management to go on.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I really really really really wish that I could have afforded to buy one of their cameras. I'm actually surprised they aren't more expensive.

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak was in bancruptcy under "Chapter 11" and that typically allows the management to go on.

Yes, but the managers answered to a judge. They were not independant. For example, a judge had to approve of the effort to sell their patents.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/01/11/kodak-bankruptcy-patent-sale/1566326/

 

[polyglot]

Is this the same company that makes the Rollei C41 chemistry? Or was that a rebadging exercise from an independent supplier?

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I would like to go on record as strongly and sincerely encouraging anyone who has the money and the desire to buy one of their cameras to do so as soon as is practicable. It would be a terrible shame to see this line of products vanish.

That said...

I could have bought the standard Rolleiflex 80mm model, but chose instead to go the Mamiya C330S TLR route. And when all was said and done I ended up with a nicely robust camera with both a 55mm and 80mm lens, all latest model and in like-new NOS condition, for about $800, shipping not included.

The equivalent capabilities in Rolliflex TLRs right now from B&H comes in at $18,048, shipping not included.

Now a C330S TLR certainly isn't a Rolleiflex TLR. No argument there. But then the C-series cameras can take seven lenses, five of which the current Rolleiflexes can't cover. And the Mamiya lenses aren't dogs either.

AND... at current prices the difference of $16,048 will buy 3,216 rolls of Ilford HP5+ in 120 from Freestyle...



Ken

 

[AgX]

Is this the same company that makes the Rollei C41 chemistry? Or was that a rebadging exercise from an independent supplier?

The "Rollei" company fell apart some time ago. With one company owning the Rollei brand, another (DHW) taking over the manufacturing facilities and stocks.

The branding company licensed the Rollei brand name to Maco who changed all their film/paper names to Rollei and who buy chemicals/have them packaged, that they too designate as Rollei.

 

[RattyMouse]

I would like to go on record as strongly and sincerely encouraging anyone who has the money and the desire to buy one of their cameras to do so as soon as is practicable.

The equivalent capabilities in Rolliflex TLRs right now from B&H comes in at $18,048, shipping not included.



Ken

Dang....your post came a day late. I just dropped my last 18 grand getting dialysis for my daughter's hamster.

A shame.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Dialysis? Aren't you supposed to eat those things??

:eek:

Ken

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...I could have bought the standard Rolleiflex 80mm model, but chose instead to go the Mamiya C330S TLR route...The equivalent capabilities in Rolliflex TLRs right now from B&H comes in at $18,048, shipping not included....Now a C330S TLR certainly isn't a Rolleiflex TLR...

I think you made the better choice. Your Mamiya's film path has no bends between the supply spool and gate. The Rolleiflex's goes around a sharp 90-degree turn first. Unless one shoots an entire roll in rapid succession, typical 120 acetate film base takes a "set" on that feed rollerand then becomes far less flat when advanced to shoot the next frame. You done good.

 

[ghart]

The Rolleiflex's goes around a sharp 90-degree turn first. Unless one shoots an entire roll in rapid succession, typical 120 acetate film base takes a "set" on that feed rollerand then becomes far less flat when advanced to shoot the next frame.

Hey Sal, setting aside the grammatical inaccuracies, do you have evidence to support your assertion that a turn as weak as 90 degrees makes any noticeable difference? No need to remind you that other MF holders turn the film much more severely than do Rollei TLRs.

George

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

I think you made the better choice. Your Mamiya's film path has no bends between the supply spool and gate. The Rolleiflex's goes around a sharp 90-degree turn first. Unless one shoots an entire roll in rapid succession, typical 120 acetate film base takes a "set" on that feed rollerand then becomes far less flat when advanced to shoot the next frame. You done good.

Agree completely on the bending issue. In fact, this was one of my two main reasons for choosing the Mamiya.

I've owned (as the original owner) a Yashica MAT 124G since they were introduced, so I have experienced the 90-degree issue first hand. In that camera the roller is a tiny 1/4-inch diameter guy. He's positioned to ideally fall between frames, but the issue remains, especially when the frame spacing is not perfect.

After having seen blurriness in a few frames* I began shooting only entire rolls. That cured the problem, but at the obvious cost of a little inconvenience in the Yashicas. And with a straight path, the cost in the Mamiya cameras of a larger camera body, which with my larger grip I actually prefer. The 124G was always a bit precious in my hands.

The other reason was, of course, interchangeable lenses. I currently have the 55, 80, 135, and 180 samples, all as latest blue dot shutters. In the near future I am going to fill in the remaining three (65, 105, 250) for the full set. Rolliflex can't touch this capability. And as I mentioned, the lenses are well-regarded. Only the 135 falls down to just average.

The choice of Mamiya over Rolleiflex was based entirely on capabilities, not on price. But the price difference is certainly not to be ignored...

Ken

* Note to 'ghart': The blurred frames only seemed to occur for me when a partially exposed roll was left in the camera for an extended period. Meaning, as I recall, several months on the shelf over one of our typically long winters around here. For more frequent users this problem may never occur.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

...Your Mamiya's film path has no bends between the supply spool and gate. The Rolleiflex's goes around a sharp 90-degree turn first. Unless one shoots an entire roll in rapid succession, typical 120 acetate film base takes a "set" on that feed rollerand then becomes far less flat when advanced to shoot the next frame...

Hey Sal, setting aside the grammatical inaccuracies...

Aside from my haste resulting in the omission of a space between "roller" and "and," what grammatical inaccuracies are you referring to? Has this something to do with two different languages, i.e. English and American? Or is your confusion a result of only quoting one of my related sentences instead of both?

...do you have evidence to support your assertion that a turn as weak as 90 degrees makes any noticeable difference? No need to remind you that other MF holders turn the film much more severely than do Rollei TLRs...

Agree completely on the bending issue. In fact, this was one of my two main reasons for choosing the Mamiya.

I've owned (as the original owner) a Yashica MAT 124G since they were introduced, so I have experienced the 90-degree issue first hand. In that camera the roller is a tiny 1/4-inch diameter guy. He's positioned to ideally fall between frames, but the issue remains, especially when the frame spacing is not perfect.

After having seen blurriness in a few frames* I began shooting only entire rolls. That cured the problem, but at the obvious cost of a little inconvenience in the Yashicas...The blurred frames only seemed to occur for me when a partially exposed roll was left in the camera for an extended period. Meaning, as I recall, several months on the shelf over one of our typically long winters around here. For more frequent users this problem may never occur.

I've been off line for quite a few hours, but am happy to see that Ken posted "evidence." I'm completely familiar with this phenomenon, especially after having performed extensive tests using medium format film holders that turn the film even more severely prior to exposure. Ken's experience that taking a "set" requires extended period to occur may be related to his local weather. In my tests, depending on ambient temperature and humidity, it can happen in as little as 15 minutes.

The resulting bends can be seen both when looking at undeveloped film removed from the camera (orient it so straight lines, such as window blinds, are reflected in it) as well as in linear areas of unsharpness if negatives are developed and examined with a loupe or enlarged.

 

[lxdude]

Aside from my haste resulting in the omission of a space between "roller" and "and," what grammatical inaccuracies are you referring to? Has this something to do with two different languages, i.e. English and American? Or is your confusion a result of only quoting one of my related sentences instead of both?

I suppose it was the colloquialism you used: "You done good."

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Ken's experience that taking a "set" requires extended period to occur may be related to his local weather. In my tests, depending on ambient temperature and humidity, it can happen in as little as 15 minutes.

Since readers are reading this with some interest, to clarify I first noticed the issue after an extended (multi-month?) storage of the 124G with a roll of b&w film in it. That doesn't mean it took that entire storage period for it to "set". It just means that's when I happened to notice it. Unlike Sal, I never followed up with more rigorous testing to pin down a time frame. I just assumed if it happened even once, it could happen again. So I took steps to avoid it thereafter.

If it can happen in as little as 15 minutes, and that claim raises no common sense red flags with me, then I'm even more pleased that both my Mamiya TLR and the Fujifilm GF670 I also own are both designed to avoid sharp turning film paths completely.

The 124G experience has also made me aware that I also should not leave film for extended periods in my Calumet C2 6x7 roll film adapter for my 4x5 cameras.

And a small correction to my earlier post, the roller on my 124G that accomplishes the 90-degree film turn is actually a 1/8-inch polished chrome guy, not 1/4-inch as I stated. He's really a tiny circumference little fellow.

Ken

 

[lxdude]

He's really a tiny circumference little fellow.
Ken

Geez, you didn't have to embarrass him in front of everybody!

Seriously, I suppose the rationale was that the bend would be so sharp as to fit between frames.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

The 6000 series Rolleis had backs that fed the film straight with no bends.

I have owned probably 3 or 4 Rollei TLRs over the years. I would always get a romantic feeling about them after seeing Newton or Avedon with one so I would buy one, but I was never really comfortable shooting with them myself so I would sell it. I did have a 6003 for a few years and would still have it today, but that wasn't up to me. These days I have an Ikoflex that is a little beat up that is more than adequate for the rare time that I want a square.

It will be sad to see those cameras go.