Why are Rolleiflex's so expensive?

[paul ron]

Because everyone wants one.

 

[Mainecoonmaniac]

It's one of Richard Avedon's favorite cameras. There's a mystique about Rolleis.

 

[ronlamarsh]

I was just reading here about Rolleiflex's and wondered if a person could still buy one new. Guess what! You can, but I'll never be able to. B&H sells the 2.8 for something like $6,600. So my question is, yes, I know they are the Caddy of cameras, but why are they so expensive? I suppose you can use them for 300 years, if you can still get film for them, but really, they are just a couple of lenses, a shutter and a place to put your film. Am I missing something here? Ric.

They are like a Lieca you have to actually hold one and use it to understand.

 

[fmajor]

Because everyone wants one.

^ What he said.

I am, by a loooonnggg shot, not a highly skilled photographer, but it seems to me that my Mamiya RB67 set-up (as well as later iterations) is capable of image quality and use (though handling is very different), etc at least as good as a Rolleiflex. Given their marginal (as claimed by afficionafos) differences there simply is no good reason to pay the exorbitant price a Rolleiflex commands.

This applies to every brand of camera.

If Brand X cameras/lenses were capable of image quality commensurate with the price increase over/above another that would be understandable. Even if a "reasonable" price escalation scheme greater than the increase in image capability was present that could (marginally) be understandable. However, given that the prices are astronomically higher yet image capability remains virtually the same it is (based on image capability/ camera ergonomics, etc) this prices are unreasonable.

So, the prices for Rolleiflexes are unreasonable. Well, unreasonable except for vanity. Vanity/pride are expensive. Always.

 

[reciprocity]

Rolleiflex's why are they so expensive?

To put it simply, because they're good.

 

[TheTrailTog]

Do yourself a favor, get an Automat. You can get a really nice one in full working condition for about $500 and then spend the $$$$ you save on a lifetime supply of film. I would be willing to bet that 99.9% of people could not distinguish a final print shot from Planar or Xenotar from that of one shot with a Tessar or Xenar.

 

[dpurdy]

^ What he said.


If Brand X cameras/lenses were capable of image quality commensurate with the price increase over/above another that would be understandable. Even if a "reasonable" price escalation scheme greater than the increase in image capability was present that could (marginally) be understandable. However, given that the prices are astronomically higher yet image capability remains virtually the same it is (based on image capability/ camera ergonomics, etc) this prices are unreasonable.

So, the prices for Rolleiflexes are unreasonable. Well, unreasonable except for vanity. Vanity/pride are expensive. Always.

There is another element that you are not recognizing. It is not merely a logical matter of image quality and it is certainly not a matter of Vanity and Pride.
Different photographers a drawn to different cameras for many seemingly inexplicable personal reasons including how the camera feels, how the camera looks and how much you enjoy using it. One person loves a camera type and another hates it. Rolleis are so sought after because so many people love them. A lot of people love the RB67, but not nearly so many as Rolleis, so the value is much less. I used Hasselblad in a commercial studio for years and never came to like it. Just personal. I know most people love hasselblad. I leave my Rollei sitting out on the counter because everytime I look at it I want to go use it. I love it as a tool and as an object. Pride and vanity play no part.
Dennis

 

[Sirius Glass]

But vanity is good for the soul!

 

[BAB]

Rollies

Cuz selling one is like selling your children.

 

[benjiboy]

Cuz selling one is like selling your children.

I would be nobody wants to buy them

 

[TimVermont]

No one has written about the 6000 series side of the family. So here goes. Incredible lenses, especially the latest PQ/PQS Schneiders. Before the used market was flooded, if you added up the cost of a motor drive and meter prism as bulky add-ons to a basic Hasselblad package, the Rolleis were cost-competitive and far better integrated in operation. There was even a time when Rollei USA made sure there was rental stock in major cities. OK, that's enough nostalgia............

 

[azdustdevil]

Rolleiflex? No, but thanks anyway.

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

I did. Along with my 35, 4x5, and 8x10. They all have their uses. My Rollei is no more difficult to tote than my Nikon, and although it's limited to a 75mm lens, the negative which is roughly 4x the area of a 35 more than makes up. Polariser? put it on the viewing lens, set it, then transfer it to the taking lens. Parralax? Doesn't matter farther than 10 feet. Weight? About the same as my Nikon, and about 1/4 of my Linhof 4x5. Cost? mine was free. But the other three, that I did buy, broke even or brought profit when I sold them.

Horses for courses; the Rollei is a big negative in a small package.

 

[eddie]

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week.

Apples and oranges...

 

[cliveh]

A Rolleiflex is expensive because it is a classic. Sometimes camera manufacturers get thing just right in terms of design, ergonomics, weight and build quality. The Rolleiflex is such a camera as is the Leica II and M2.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical....
So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand?
Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

You're welcome, I have two. And I don't know what you're talking about with three grand for a used Rolleiflex. I have two of them, both with the preferred 2.8 Planar lens, that I paid less than $600 for each. The first one did need an overhaul, so it ended up costing me around $1K, but that's still a far cry from the three grand you're talking about. And Hassy's are not a beast, at least not to me. It was an incredibly easy system to learn, and to use. No, it's not as fast as a modern 35mm SLR with a zoom lens and autofocus, but that's an apples to onions comparison as well. Yes, twenty years ago, a NEW Hassy system was expensive to buy, but certainly not now, unless you're going for a 203 or 205 series body. You want a bulky beast of a medium format system? Try an RB67. Now THAT's a pig.

 

[MattKing]

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

It is interesting how our opinions change over time

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Ian Grant]

I'll pit my 4x5 against any Rolleiflex TLR any day of the week. That being said, I once owned a Rolleiflex and a Hasselblad. With a couple of lenses plus three or four film magazines, the Hassy was a beast. It weighed like a tank and cost like a space shot. I spent more time fumbling around with the thing out in the field than I did actually using it. The Rolleiflex was somewhat inflexible, but still a mechanical marvel and a pleasure to use. Much lighter than the Hassy but with its fixed twin lenses, not comparable. Even so, my only reason for buying it was because it packed in my suitcase nicely when taking a 4x5 on board an airplane would be impractical.

I have given up on medium format completely and have gone back to 4x5. If I'm gonna lug all that weight around, I may as well go for the best quality I can get. I sold the Hasselblad and the Rolleiflex.

Bottom line is, my Rolleiflex was not flexible at all. No interchangeable lenses! What you see is NOT what you get, thanks to the twin lens design. Need to use a polarizer? Forget that! So with all these limitations,is a Rolleiflex in good used condition worth three grand? NO! So what is keeping the prices so high? The answer is simple: Rolleiflex has a cult following for whatever reason. And just like the old Leicas, prices will continue to be ridiculous. I can find something just as good or close to it for a lot less money.

Thanks folks. You may keep your Rolleiflex.

I agree with the others who say you don't know what you're talking about.

I have and use two Rolleiflex cameras an Automat Opton Tessar and a 3.5E Xenotar, what I see and want to take is what I get. I had given up MF for my project work shooting 35mm which I found I never printed & 5x4, however I went back to 6x6 after buying a Yashicamat 124 off this forum 6 or 7 years ago and getting my Rolleiflex serviced.

A good 2.8 or 3,5E is as good as any modern Rolleiflex and can be found for about £500 / $750 although I was given mine non fuvctional about 15 yearsago, lack of use from new had let the lubrication go solid. My second Rolleiflex the automat was $75 at a flea market and is in excellent working order with a good Opton Tessar.

These days I alwayscarry a TLR alongside my LF kit and do shoot with both.

Ian

 

[ntenny]

Bit of a necrothread, but what the heck. While the, um, secondary-OP?---do we have a term for "the person who resurrected the thread and threadjacked it a bit?"---took a bit of a "highly expressive" tone, I think the actual objections are all points fairly taken; for those who need interchangeable lenses, high accuracy in the viewfinder frame boundaries, polarizers or other filters where direct visual feedback is important, a TLR *isn't* a good fit. And like Leicae, certain Rolleiflexen are clealry priced by a collectors', rather than users', market, and I don't really think there's any photographic characteristic that differentiates a $3K 'flex from a $750 'flex.

Me, I find the limitations of a TLR to be things that don't bother me at all. On the other hand, I think 4x5 is an awkward compromise, big enough for the equipment to be a hassle but too small for contact printing to a normal "hang on the wall" size. I'm with Ian on this one---TLR in hand, LF kit loaded on the nearest pack elephant.

-NT

 

[gleaf]

A few years back Rollei agreed to continue building the TLR on a custom one off price basis and the current price was set at what was needed to pay for such a low production rate and standard of quality.
Quality.. My old Rollei T bought used in 1970 has had one CLA in the 40 years I've owned it and never needed a repair. One of my 50 year old 4 x 5 lenses needed a internal clean between groups. Seems I get whay I am willing to pay for. If price is your deal stopper so be it. Buy a used Rollei. If you want new it will truly cost you its hand built.

 

[Zathras]

The price of Yashica-Mats has gotten rather ridiculous at times in the past too, with 124G's sometimes selling for more on ebay than a good user Rolleiflex with a Tessar lens. I checked ebay today and found eight 124G's that sold for prices ranging from $375.00 to $499.00 :eek: The Yashica lenses can be pretty good, but the build quality of the camera is nowhere near the same quality as the Rollei.

When I bought my 1954 Rolleiflex MX-EVS, I was actually looking to replace my much loved Yashica-Mat EM which had been stolen a couple of weeks before. I went into the old Linda Mar Camera shop in Pacifica, CA to see if a suitable replacement was available. They had two TLR's in the used equipment case. One was a fairly new Yashica-Mat 124G and the Rollei. I remember that the price difference was probably about $30.00 US. After comparing the two cameras side by side, I KNEW that the Rollei was the one to buy.

I only wish that the instruction manual was included in the sale, as I didn't know how to load the film properly and I made the classic mistake of not threading the roll through the rollers. After winding the roll through the camera without stopping or engaging the frame counter, I thought the camera was no good. I made a frantic call to the store and the owner said "Oh crap, I forgot to show you how to load it. I forgot that your last camera was a Yashica. Come on back and I'll show how it works." When I returned to the store, he asked me what film I loaded into the camera, grabbed a roll of the same, and demonstrated how to load it properly. He then gave me two more rolls for my trouble and apologized. My first shots showed me why these cameras are so highly regarded. You definitely get what you pay for, although a new Rolleiflex is way out of my reach financially.

The old girl's shutter is getting kinda sluggish, so I'm going to have her Fleenorized in time for her 60th birthday.

Mike Sullivan

 

[mike c]

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

Chris

She's allready hacked my checking account, so no big deal!! $$$$$$


Mike

 

[Ian Grant]

The price of Yashica-Mats has gotten rather ridiculous at times in the past too, with 124G's sometimes selling for more on ebay than a good user Rolleiflex with a Tessar lens. I checked ebay today and found eight 124G's that sold for prices ranging from $375.00 to $499.00 :eek: The Yashica lenses can be pretty good, but the build quality of the camera is nowhere near the same quality as the Rollei.

When I bought my 1954 Rolleiflex MX-EVS, I was actually looking to replace my much loved Yashica-Mat EM which had been stolen a couple of weeks before. I went into the old Linda Mar Camera shop in Pacifica, CA to see if a suitable replacement was available. They had two TLR's in the used equipment case. One was a fairly new Yashica-Mat 124G and the Rollei. I remember that the price difference was probably about $30.00 US. After comparing the two cameras side by side, I KNEW that the Rollei was the one to buy.

I only wish that the instruction manual was included in the sale, as I didn't know how to load the film properly and I made the classic mistake of not threading the roll through the rollers. After winding the roll through the camera without stopping or engaging the frame counter, I thought the camera was no good. I made a frantic call to the store and the owner said "Oh crap, I forgot to show you how to load it. I forgot that your last camera was a Yashica. Come on back and I'll show how it works." When I returned to the store, he asked me what film I loaded into the camera, grabbed a roll of the same, and demonstrated how to load it properly. He then gave me two more rolls for my trouble and apologized. My first shots showed me why these cameras are so highly regarded. You definitely get what you pay for, although a new Rolleiflex is way out of my reach financially.

The old girl's shutter is getting kinda sluggish, so I'm going to have her Fleenorized in time for her 60th birthday.

Mike Sullivan

I've noticed some ebay sellers trying to get overly high prices for TLRs, in the UK, theres a small number of sellers with listings in the 1,000s asking these extortionate prices, higher than through reputable dealers who give Warranty/Guarantee usually of 3-6 months. The same people do it with LF gear as well, it's so bad that some items are way more than new (thinking some lens boards here where new replacements are still made).

Ian