Why are Rolleiflex's so expensive?

[mike c]

Don't buy a Rolleiflex and let you wife go shopping for clothes for 1 day $$$$$.

Mike

 

[bblhed]

I agree that the prices are high for what you appear to be getting, but I do understand, I work as a designer for a low volume company, so perhaps I can explain this a bit better.

You have to look at what your money is paying for not at the tangible item.

Lets say that Rollei makes 2500 cameras a year and they sell them wholesale for about 4000 USD each and COG's (Cost of Goods) is 1800 per unit.

That works out to about 110 employes at 50,000 USD a year.

Now, would you work making a high precision instrument getting paid 50,000 USD a year?

And that is where the money goes. The price is high, but that is what it takes to keep the factory afloat in theory, they also have taxes, duties, rent and so on to contend with.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

I bought an Automat IV on Ebay. The craftsmanship is amazing. What startled me most was when I made a print from shots off the Rollei. It's shockingly sharp. Didn't expect that from a 75 year old camera.

 

[KenR]

Recently saw the Vivian Maier show at the Howard Greenberg gallery in NYC. All of her self portraits from the 1950's and 60's show a Rolliflex, so I assume that all of the rest of the photos were taken with the same camera. They are all tack sharp, with no flare and technically are the equal of anything that can be produced today. I suppose that is why the prices remain high - an amazing tool that is as good today as it was 50 years ago (if given a little TLC).

 

[John NYC]

I have a 2.8F in near mint condition. It costs way too much money and is only fractionally better than many cameras that are a half, a third or a tenth of the price.

Rolleiflexes are expensive because of the collectibility of them. It drives up the price for even samples that no collector would consider owning.

 

[eddie]

You have to think of the original cost in terms of the working life of the camera. A Rolleiflex has a good chance of operating for 50+ years. I have a 3.5f, which I was given about 4 years ago. It had been in a family friend's attic for about 30 years, after being used for about 20 years. I brought it in for a CLA, and was told it was operating perfectly. Shutter speeds were right on. Nothing had to be done to bring it up to spec. The technician wouldn't even take money from me, having only done a lens cleaning.
There aren't many analogue cameras, and zero digital cameras that will operate that well after about 60 years. All in all, amortized over the camera's life span, it's relatively inexpensive.

 

[Ric Trexell]

Thanks for the replies to my question about Rollei's.

Thanks for the replies. I was really wondering if there was a reason for their expense other than being made to exact standards by well paid workers. For example, I was wondering if the lenses are made to the highest standards where by a lense had to meet a resolution of so many lines per inch and if it varied by two lines it was rejected, or if the body of the camera was made with some exotic metal, or are they the quietist shutter ever made. When you consider a TLR that is not able to use several different lenses, no interchangable backs, and what ever else a camera such as the Mamiya or Hasselblad's made over the years (as well as others), you are paying a lot for a very limited camera. Even if Japan, China or Taiwan were to make a TLR today (like Yashica and Mamiya did), if they were to make a really great TLR for say $1500 to $2000, it would be hard to find a reason that a Rollei would cost three times more. I mean they used the same Copal or whatever shutters that other cameras used, and there would have to be something really special for a camera that probably would not have pictures enlarged more than 20 X 20, to compete with other cameras. Eddie's post about getting a camera that had sat idle for years and was still in perfect time might be true of other cameras that were not exposed to high humidity too. I still am not too impressed with why a camera needs to be that expensive. However, like one person pointed out, people buy watches and such for thousands of dollars that are no more accurate than a good quality watch at your local jewler. My Pulsar that I bought 25 years ago still is super accurate and I only paid $110 for it. My Minolta X-700 that I bought the same year is still working and proving that I'm not a real photographer, just another imposter. Ric.

 

[John NYC]

I think we already answered your questions in numerous ways. Not sure what you are looking for. There is nothing special about a Rollei compared to another high end camera of the day. There are good and bad samples out there. Sure quality control was higher than Kiev. But Zeiss was just as good at control.

 

[Rolleijoe]

Some people aren't bothered by $6000 or so for a classic low production camera that is collectible and nice looking. Some people don't use those cameras either. The same people that would buy a brand new leica rangefinder, airstream camper, klipsch k-horn speakers, or a Gibson les paul. "High end" and lots of timeless cachet.

I'm a user not a collector and prefer cheap and functional and will pay extra for rugged. I have a cheap used rolleiflex that I'm happy with.

Rolleiflexes are more of a old mercedes than a cadillac (which are sold on features and tech). The rolleiflexes are generally more rugged than their TLR competitors and had a premium price and didn't change too fast.

Interesting observation. Obviously I love & use Rolleis, but also only drive old Mercedes', own an old Leica Ia, Les Paul gold top, 3 vintage Gretsches. Yes, I use all of it and more. Buy quality once, and will last a lifetime.

 

[John Austin]

Aaah, the "no interchangeable lens or back" debate

My second boss, when I said I wanted to go 35mm with a few lenses said "You can take 85% of everything on a Rollei and if you want to do anything else use the Speed Graphic - And stick to TriX, if you need anything faster than TriX (HPS in those days) there is phuq all light, so why waste your time? - Now get back into the darkroom and stop wasting mine - And don't mention a Linhof, they are crap compared to the SG, I know, I've been in charge of this photo department since Pontius was a pilot. . . blah blah blah"

He was of the old school, with language to match, which I have mainly removed - It was one of those early learning conversations I remember, but I still use the Rolle

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Aaah, the "no interchangeable lens or back" debate

My second boss, when I said I wanted to go 35mm with a few lenses said "You can take 85% of everything on a Rollei and if you want to do anything else use the Speed Graphic - And stick to TriX, if you need anything faster than TriX (HPS in those days) there is phuq all light, so why waste your time? - Now get back into the darkroom and stop wasting mine - And don't mention a Linhof, they are crap compared to the SG, I know, I've been in charge of this photo department since Pontius was a pilot. . . blah blah blah"

He was of the old school, with language to match, which I have mainly removed - It was one of those early learning conversations I remember, but I still use the Rolle

That all sounds like excellent advice to me

 

[summicron1]

The classic Rollei TLR sold today is not the same as the classic Rollei TLR sold 40 years ago -- it doesn't have the auto-load mechanism, so it's really a Rollei-T model, but that's quibbling.

Rolleis have always cost a lot -- adjust the cost of one in 1955 for inflation, it probably works out to about $5000 in today's money. Ditto for the Leica IIIF, the Contax IIa and others -- pro-level equipment has always cost that much. In the case of the modern Rollei, it is still pretty much hand-made, low production, super-high quality and not that much off the price of a Hassy, or the pro-level Canon DSLRs the guys at the local newspaper use.

I suspect the Rollei TLRs made today are really for people looking for camera jewelry or collectors. Maybe some people actually use them to take pictures, I dunno.

If you want a REALLY nice Rollei, one that is a joy to use, find yourself a 2.8 E or earlier model (cheaper meter than the F, a lot cheaper camera) for about $500 and have it serviced by someone who knows what he's doing. In the end, you get the same camera sold today, with the same lens, for a lot less money, plus you get auto-load. Fleenor is a genius with those things.

Rolleicords are cheaper because they are far more basic cameras than the Rolleiflex. Get less=Pay less, and they were more common. The Rolleicord IVb is the most expensive because it was the last and has a removable hood -- whoopie-do.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

...

Rolleis have always cost a lot -- adjust the cost of one in 1955 for inflation, it probably works out to about $5000 in today's money.
...

Here's a price sheet from 1952.

Dead Link Removed

 

[M. Lointain]

I have bought and sold 3 Rolleis in my life, a 2.8D, 3.5E and 2.8F. I just could never really get on with them for some reason. They always seemed like a good idea when I bought them but I ended up never using them. I have a Zeiss Ikoflex TLR with a Tessar these days that is a nice camera, not Rollei nice, but nice. I get along with it fine. Maybe it is because it is pretty cheap and the lens is more than good enough so I don't really care about it. I also use my Hexar RF more than the M3 I have for the same reason. I would be bummed if I smashed the Leica but don't really care about the Hexar. Rolleis are beautiful cameras though. many an amazing image has been shot with them.

Like the Rollei, Leicas sport a similar ridiculous price these days. Last time I checked an M7 was north of 5 grand. That doesn't even get you a lens!

 

[pgomena]

I bought my Rollei 2.8C in 1981 for $400. It was like new from a collection, original boxes, a few filters and accessories, etc. Over the past 31 years, I have had it in the shop once to re-attach a piece that fell off that I didn't have tools to fix. It works perfectly to this day. At the time, a Hasselblad was about 3X the price of my Rollei. I got a great camera for a good price and 30 years of use. Is it as versatile as a Hasselblad? No, but if my 'Blad goes down for some reason, I know the Rollei works every time.

Peter Gomena

 

[Sirius Glass]

I own a Hasselblad and it is my main camera system.

That said, Rollei has a much higher bling factor when one wears a wide Rollei, normal Rollei, and a tele Rolli around their neck than wearing one Hasselblad and carrying the other lenses. That may be the real reason that Rolleis carry such a high price tag for new cameras.

 

[cdholden]

Don't buy a Rolleiflex and let you wife go shopping for clothes for 1 day $$$$$.

Mike

Hey Mike,
I think your wife hacked your APUG account!

Chris

 

[removed account4]

i think rollei's are expensive for the same reason why an ebony camera is expensive ( from 2K up just for the body )
or cooke lenses, or the recent schneider lenses are expensive .... because they are ..
you pay for quality and workmanship and something that is like a work of art that you can use ...

back when george eastman made the original brownie, they weren't cheap either !

 

[Someonenameddavid]

i think rollei's are expensive for the same reason why an ebony camera is expensive ( from 2K up just for the body )
or cooke lenses, or the recent schneider lenses are expensive .... because they are ..
you pay for quality and workmanship and something that is like a work of art that you can use ...

back when george eastman made the original brownie, they weren't cheap either !

I thought Alice B. Toklas made the original brownies....

David

 

[vpwphoto]

Take an econ class...!
As long as enough sell to keep making them they will make them. (PS I'm not hooked.... I like a Sweedish SLR that is worth every penny...

 

[John Austin]

I own a Hasselblad and it is my main camera system.

That said, Rollei has a much higher bling factor when one wears a wide Rollei, normal Rollei, and a tele Rollei around their neck than wearing one Hasselblad and carrying the other lenses. That may be the real reason that Rolleis carry such a high price tag for new cameras.

As a photographer who used both Hbd and Rollei in his working career I find the Rollei much easier to use, especially in the landscape - As far as bling is concerned the Hbd is a very handsome camera and the bling factor of the SWC must be right up there

I am keeping my wide, tele and standard Rolleis, but selling my Hasselblads including the SWC - I never take more than one at a time, knowing in advance what I plan to do

 

[removed account4]

I thought Alice B. Toklas made the original brownies....

David

the original "KODAK" ( maybe i mispoke by saying it was a brownie )
cost $25 in 1888, 3 months salary ... sounds pretty expensive to me !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwBlf3AeLRM&feature=related
( around 10.50 mins )

 

[summicron1]

Here's a price sheet from 1952.

Dead Link Removed

A while back I was transcribing letters from my parents in which they discussed how much my dad was earning in 1952 -- about $135 a week. Using an on-line calculator I discovered that prices from 1952 to today would be easy to figure -- just add a zero -- so dad's salary would be about $1,350 a week now, not bad, not terrific.

Ditto with the Rollei at about $250 back then, and that's for the relatively simple MX version, no meter. Two weeks wages for a middle-class working man, or about $2,500 now.

 

[jbphoto]

Just go for a used one they're worth every penny

I actually have a Rolleiflex FX. I bought it for about $2700 used. It was crazy expensive even at that but I've shot about 200 rolls of film through it over the last 4 years. They are incredible instruments that are lightweight, easy to handle and the glass on my fx is superb; jonballportfolios.com

Worth every penny if you use it like I do, and I plan on using it for the next 20 years unlike that canon eos 5d mkII at the same price that'll be a paper weight in 10 years (or less).

 

[ntenny]

Ditto with the Rollei at about $250 back then, and that's for the relatively simple MX version, no meter. Two weeks wages for a middle-class working man, or about $2,500 now.

...a bit cheaper than the Bessa III, which is perhaps the closest modern comparison: a top-flight user MF camera with a fixed lens. Note that those were the 3.5 Tessar/Xenar Rolleiflex models, and surely the 2.8 (listed as "coming soon") carried a bit of a premium.

There's a 1954 price list at http://www.djcphoto.com/transfer/rollei_prices_1954.pdf; the prices seem to be the same as in 1952. Oddly, the 2.8 isn't listed at all, though accessories for it are; what gives? I know they were making them then, because my 2.8C is a 1954...

-NT