Rolleiflex TLR vs top 35mm camera values, 1959 - 2013

[Eddie Vaughan]

It is interesting to look at film camera advertisements and reviews in old photography magazines and observe how values have risen or fallen over the years. For example, 1959 editions of the (German) Photo Magazin ran advertisements for several German-made cameras that had recently come on to the market: the Rolleiflex T; the Voigtlaender Bessamatic; the Zeiss Contaflex Super; and the Kodak Retina Reflex S. The Rolleiflex T was easily the cheapest of the four at DM444. Even if fitted with a light meter, it was still cheaper than the other three cameras, whose prices ranged from DM575 to DM597 (for the Contaflex). Even the relatively ordinary Braun Paxette automatic Super III cost more than a new Rolleiflex T. A glance at current eBay auction prices shows how much the tables have turned since then, with a Rolleiflex T in good cosmetic and working condition fetching at least $600 while the other cameras mentioned above can often be bought for less than $100.

German-made SLR cameras declined sharply in value after top-quality Japanese SLRs, notably Nikon, entered the market, but even the superb Nikon SLRs have declined in value relative to the Rolleiflex TLR. The 1974 Australian Photography Photo Directory listed the price of a new Nikon Photomic FTN with 1.2 Nikkor lens as (AUD) $732. A Rolleiflex 2.8F with Planar lens was then priced at $690; a 3.5F at $610; and a Rolleiflex T with light meter at $473. Again, a glance at current eBay auction prices shows how much things have changed. Nikon Photomic FTN cameras now sell in many cases for USD $300 or less, often with lens and accessories, whereas Rolleiflex TLR prices continue to rise. A Rolleiflex 2.8F in excellent condition now usually fetches more than USD $1,750; a 3.5F more than $1,000; and the Rolleiflex T more than $600. It is difficult to explain, but there you are.

Despite their rising prices, Rolleiflex TLR cameras are arguably still a good investment. Their value to classic camera collectors will probably continue to rise while the values of modern expensive digital SLR cameras will most likely suffer the same fate as their once illustrious film ancestors.

Eddie Vaughan

[rolleiclubleader]

Besides the undeniable quality of most Rollei badged products it may have to do with a general revival of many retro looking items. Especially the good looking ones.
Rollei cameras have "the looks" as we say.
That 'retro' revival may be powered by a behaviour where we ditch the digital camera of the year of only 12 months old without even thinking because this years model is a tad better. We know that it is wrong to do so and off-set that feeling by embracing 'the good old days'.
I often wonder how many of the new generation Rolleflex FX , FW and FT are sitting on shelves just 'looking' at their owners , essentially blind though as they will never contain a film and just as often never had.

Just a bit philosophical perhaps , but given the polarity of the Rolleiclub for more than 10 years now it could be true ?

Jacob

[Eddie Vaughan]

I agree that old Rolleiflex TLRs have a very cool retro look, although I am not sure that this explains entirely their high value relative to once more expensive classic film SLR cameras from the same period, such as the Nikon Photomic FTN or Voigtlaender Bessamatic. Nor is the difference likely due mainly to renewed interest in medium format film photography, which seems to me to have been driven in large part by an inexplicable fascination with lomography and cheap Holga cameras. There is something special that distinguishes Rolleiflex TLRs and explains their rising value in a market where top quality 35mm film cameras, with few exceptions, are becoming almost worthless. Rolleiflex retro aesthetics are certainly part of it, at least for me, but the general 'retro revival' is superficial and has more to do with style than function or mechanics. I notice, for example, that some modern expensive compact digital cameras, such as the Fujifilm X20, are praised for a retro styling that simulates the appearance of 35mm range-finder cameras of the 1960s. These cameras usually also offer, among other choices, a choice of creating images that reproduce the look of 1960s colour print photographs, or, perhaps even more bizarrely, of photographs shot with cameras that have cheap plastic lenses. I could be wrong, but I doubt if Rolleiflex buyers and users feel much interest in that kind of retro revival.

Eddie Vaughan

[DPurdy]

It might be that when the digital industry exploded a larger percentage of 35mm photographers went that way and those that didn't started buying medium format in an attempt to stay ahead of digital in quality. It might be that the digital cameras look more like 35mm cameras so people who didn't want to go digital went towards cameras that don't look digital.
It is interesting to see that Nikon now has put out a very high quality retro looking digital camera.. the Nikon Df. It even uses all the old lenses. Maybe it is an attempt to get some of the film loving digital hold outs to finally invest in a good digital camera.
Dennis

[rolleiclubleader]

The retro looking digital cameras ( I own a Olympus OM-D-EM5 ) certainly make (me) as a once full time film photographer feel warm and fuzzy
But from a manufacturers point of view it might be the best thing to do : the plastic digitals which flooded the markets for years are phased out by photo-snapping-phones. The large professional DSLR is becoming an expensive doorstopper way to soon after purchase many realise. So the manufacturers finally realise that they have to listen to the market instead of dictating it. And that means building durable cameras like in the film days , cameras that can uphold their quality and 'appearance' for a long time. Somehow Rollei knew this from almost the beginning.
Why do we love an old VW Combi Van and do not even want to look at a equally old and perhaps more usable say ... a Toyota van ?
Love for a certain design quality is hard to pin down.
What makes any Rembrandt painting more well known as most paintings made by Turner ?
To me it is the same as the the correct application of the Golden Means in a photographic composition, it is 100% right or ... just not right.
Rollei must be 100% right

Jacob

[Eddie Vaughan]

I am not convinced that the increasing value of old Rolleiflex TLRs, in a market where many other fine old film cameras are now almost worthless, is due mainly to the appeal of their retro look. I suspect the retro revival will not last long because it is a reflection of current marketing strategy whereby, initially, a few digital camera makers introduce a retro look to distinguish their cameras from those of their competitors. If the style proves popular, which it obviously has, then they gain a first mover advantage until their competitors copy the look and introduce retro styled cameras of their own. This is already happening, as Dennis observes about the new Nikon Df. As happens with any popular fashion, digital camera styling will soon become dominated by the retro look. However, we should be mindful that fashions eventually change. Sooner or later a firm will break away from the retro look and introduce a new look that -- if it proves popular -- will start a new fashion cycle. That is the way fashion works, and I do not see any reason why the current retro fashion will prove to be an exception.

If this analysis is correct, then it raises an obvious question about the future value of old Rolleiflex TLRs. Will prices collapse when the retro revival ends and is replaced by another fashion? My guess is that the values of retro styled digital cameras will fall after a new fashion takes over, but I don't think this will happen to Rolleiflex. I do not believe that most buyers of old Rolleiflex cameras pay very high prices for them just because of the way they look. There is something else involved. Perhaps the Rolleiflex name has come to acquire a legendary status that protects it from market fluctuations, and that their buyers are attracted for that reason rather than driven by feelings of nostalgia or a desire to relive the past.

I admit I could be wrong about all of this: the retro look might become a permanent feature of digital camera design, therefore ensuring the future high values of old Rolleiflex cameras, or conversely, the retro look goes out of fashion and Rolleiflex values fall.

Perhaps readers of this forum could say what influenced them to buy an old Rolleiflex TLR. Was it mainly the retro look, or was it something else? In my case, I was luck to be offered one at a price I could not refuse., although I had not previously thought of buying one. I had been using an old Voigtlaender Perkeo folder and had been happy with it. I would have liked a new Hasselblad but could not afford one. The Rolleiflex suited me nicely, but not because of its retro look. I came to love that later.

Eddie Vaughan

[DPurdy]

I actually agree with you. What I tried to say was that #1 a larger percentage of 35mm photographers went digital. Perhaps because digital cameras look like 35mm cameras. #2 it is possible that those who didn't want to go digital decided to go MF to keep ahead of digital quality. So that 35mm cameras like the Nikon FMs became worthless. I think it is interesting that Nikon and I see also Olympus have both put out quality digital cameras that look like 35mm film cameras. Not sure why they went that way but doubtless some market research told them a retro look would sell.
My own personal reason for using Rolleis is the design and quality optics. Actually I am a fan of shiny new cameras... which is partly why I bought an FX. The other reason is the HFT coatings on the planar. I don't care whether it is retro or not. I was actually kind of annoyed when I first got my brand new FX and pulled it out to make some wedding portraits and the bride exclaimed.. look at that beautiful old camera, I bet it is 40 years old. I told her .. no it is brand new. I am actually off the Rolleis now. I still have them and still love them but I can't take square images any more. The camera I use now more often is a Pentax 67. I wish Rollei made a 67. I don't need more than one lens.
Dennis

[Eddie Vaughan]

This is moving off the topic, but I am curious to know why you can't take square images any longer,Dennis Are you saying that it is simply too difficult or inappropriate to compose your favourite subjects within a square frame, or are you saying that you have lately come generally to prefer rectangular images from an aesthetic point of view? I presume the former, in which case I can see how the difficulties that square format impose on composition cannot be solved by cropping after the photograph has been taken.

To say the least, It is unusual to read of a senior Rolleiclub member, especially on the TLR forum, rejecting square format. I worry that you might be denounced for heresy!

Eddie Vaughan

[DPurdy]

I am just currently sick to death of square images. I go through it from time to time. A square doesn't offer me enough sense of motion. It is too held in place by the center. A rectangle has room to breath. A rectangle can read top to bottom or left to right or which ever direction it needs to go but a square doesn't do that very well. I find myself centering things way too much with a square. I could crop of course but with the Pentax 67 I get a larger image than 645 and I have a hard time looking at the image in the camera and composing for a crop.
I love the Rolleis and love writing and talking about them but my primary format is 8x10. Most of my work is still life. The roll film cameras are for getting out and doing landscape or taking on vacation. I have been a photographer my whole life and have always had a separation between commercial work and art work. Or work for money and personal work. Now I am getting older and not doing advertising work the separation has become still life work with the big camera or landscape and travel with the roll film camera. The easiest camera to travel with is the Rollei.

[Eddie Vaughan]

I would be interested to know what other members feel about this and about the original question of why such a wide gulf has grown between the very high prices now paid for of old Rolleiflex TLRs -- including many with lens blemishes that sellers promise "will not affect picture quality"-- and the shrinking prices of classic 35mm film cameras that had once been considerably more expensive.

If you believe the reason to be that digital photography gives better quality than 35mm film photography, but still cannot compare in quality with medium format film photography, then consider this: if the price of digital medium format cameras (retro styled, if you like) were to fall to about the present level of a late model Rolleiflex 2.8F, which is conceivable some day, then would you give up your Rolleiflex and start using a Sony? I know I wouldn't, but it is difficult to know and explain why.

Eddie Vaughan

[manray]

To me , The rolleiflex has a soul , not like the camera there make today ! the fad or the trend of now ,
The Rolleiflex TLR is class in such a throw away age , And the Leica MP that a nice 35mm ! in this age , can not keep up/ with all the new stuff of today ,
give me that camera that made by hand and most of all has a Soul ,

[Eddie Vaughan]

The obvious exception to what has been said about rapidly rising Rolleiflex TLR values is the Rollei Magic. The two Rollei Magic models have not increased in value nearly as much as other Rolleiflex TLRs. The Rollei Magic II, particularly, appears to be presently undervalued. It has a Xenar lens and can be used as a manual camera as well as an automatic, but is presently selling on eBay for roughly the same price as older Rolleiflex automats with a Xenar or Tessar lens, despite often being in much better cosmetic and working condition. The photos shown on the Rollei Magic flickr stream also look to be pretty much indistinguishable from those taken with automats or more expensive Rolleiflex models.

The reason why the Rollei Magic is undervalued is that the camera is still dismissed by Rolleiflex collectors and users as a camera suitable for the beginner or rank amateur rather than the serious photographer. This also explains why they are often found in such good condition; they have had fewer owners and have had done much less work than most other professional Rolleiflex models. This counts in their favour. I would be tempted to buy one if I had not already sworn to stop buying cameras.

Rollei Magic owners usually have good things to say about them. Are there any club members who can vouch for this?

Eddie Vaughan

[LittleOddsEnds]

[LVL]

My love for the Rolleiflex goes back to my father, who always had a Rollei camera, first a Rolleicord and later a 2.8f. These beautiful, serious looking machines always fascinated me. My father let me use the 2.8f sometimes and I never forgot the sensation of handling it: focusing and composing (made me dizzy at first), turning the crank or changing film.
And later, whenever I saw a Rolleiflex, I said to myself ‘one day I want to own a 2.8f.
Only last month I started looking for one. Long story short: I now am the proud owner of a 2.8f type 1. Exactly the same as the one my father used to have. I took it to Will van Maanen here in Holland for a CLA and the camera is now in great working order.
Only shot 4 b+w rolls so far… Results are improving. Coming from a Nikon D700 and a Fuji X100S I do have some problems adjusting to the absolutely no-hurry style of photography that comes with the Rolleiflex. And I love it!
So although my fascination for the Rolleiflex goes back to my childhood, I do believe that the whole retro-thing also influenced my decision to buy a Rolleiflex now (and not, say, two years ago).

[Capt E]

Other than Leica, one vintage 35mm camera that has retained good value are the Nikon Rangefinders. A 1955 model S2 with 50 1.4 lens in excellent condition will sell commonly for over $400 and I have seen asking prices over $1200. I have one and they are a pleasure to use. I also love my Rolleiflex MX-EVS. For me, it is the precision with which they were made. The only camera that gives me as much pleasure is perhaps my old Leica M3, but the images from the Rollei are better. Still, I do have a digital Pentax K-3 outfit which does everything I might need in the way of color photography. I always go b&w with film (home darkroom). There is room for all of it. I am even thinking of getting out my 4x5 kit.

[Eddie Vaughan]

Perhaps one reason for the continuing demand, and therefore high prices, of old Rolleiflex TLRs old is that the combine elegance and simplicity. There is much to be said for both. Retro styling might have been an attempt by digital camera manufacturers to recapture the visual appeal of old film cameras, but their cameras remained bewilderingly complex. This might help explain why sales of DSLRs and digital compact cameras have gone into free fall over the last few years, while sales of digital communication devices with picture taking capabilities, such as smartphones, continue to rise rapidly. You do not need to know anything about cameras and photography, or, indeed, have much interest in either, to capture images with your smartphone and post them on Facebook -- which seems to be where most images end up.

The user manual for my Rolleiflex T runs to 35 pages and the manual for my Rolleiflex 2.8D is a bit bigger, containing 59 pages Both are easy to read and comprehend, using leisurely spaced text and large diagrams or photographs. In contrast, the user guide for my Canon G12 compact digital contains 213 pages of densely packed text, tables, and small images (I imagine the content of DSLR user guides would be even more packed and detailed) and there are separate software packages for editing and uploading images. Most people who take photographs do not want that level of complexity. They want the controls to be simple, and -- if they are seriously interested in photography -- want to be free to use and develop their own judgement.