Related Links:

Editor's Note: Marc Hult's Post below provides a very interesting comparison between the cost of 35mm, med fmt, and large format lenses. His striking conclusion is that large format is quite a bit less than medium format lenses in cost, even including shutters...

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1998
From: "Marc F. Hult" [email protected]
Newsgroups: xrec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: MF v LF lens cost:

It seemed to me that there were really two conclusions here: 1) that "aerial lens resolution[] [tests] confirm that 35mm and medium format lenses generally outperform ... large format lenses" and (2) "large format lenses [are] ... much more expensive [than] 35mm and medium format lenses".

The first conclusion has already been dealt with in part in other posts.

But there also is no data to support the second assertion/conclusion although elsewhere on the web page there is a comment that might be interpreted to say that large format lenses are 10 to 20 times more expensive than 35mm lenses.

So here are prices from the March 1998 B and H price brochure (or see www.bhphoto-video.com) for a ultra-wide, wide, normal, and portrait lenses for manual focus 35mm, 645, 6x6, and 6x7cm medium-format, and 4x5" large-format lenses:

35mm manual focus:
Nikon  AIS     20f2.8/28f2/50f1.4/105f1.8     530+600+299+650 = $2080

Medium Format:
Mamiya 7       43f4.5/65/4/80f4/150f4.5       2600+1600+1300+1800 = $7300
Mamiya 645     35f3.5/55f2.8/80f1.9/150f3.5   1030+660+660+600    = 2950  
(no shutters)
Mamiya 645 LS  24f4/55f2.8/80f2.8/150f3.5     2110+1620+1300+1590 = 
6650   (w/leaf shutter)
Mamiya RZ67    37f4.5/65f4/90f3.5/150f3.5     2690+1870+1390+1490 = 7440 
Bronica SQ     40f4/65f4/80f2.8/150f4         1800+1440+1100+1570 = 5910
Hasselblad CF  40f4/60f3.5/80f2.8/150f4       4000+2040+1720+2760 =$10520
Rollie         40f4/60f3.5/80f2.8/150f4       5520+3460+1930+3110 =$14020

Large Format (4x5):
Nikkor         65f4/90/8/150f5.6/210f5.6      990+790+510+630   = $2920
Rodenstock     65f4.5/90f6.8/150f5.6/210f5.6  1200+920+560+830 =  3510
Schneider      65f5.6/90/8/150f5.6/210f5.6    1200+950+670+950 =  $3770

Note that all 12 large-format lenses include a Copal shutter (#0 is $235 at B&H; #1 is $313) but the 35mm and some of the medium format lenses don't.

Adjusted for the price of the shutters, all three large format sets are less expensive than any of the 35mm or medium format sets. Surprised ?

Clearly "large format lenses" are NOT "much more expensive [than] 35mm and medium format lenses".

Hope This Helps (to explain why all this seemed to be a parody) ... Marc

--
Marc F. Hult
[email protected]

Date: Mon, 18 May 1998
From: David Seifert [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] On Rollei Prices

Not exactly true. For reasons I don't fully understand it is now quite possible to buy new PQ lenses for nearly the same prices (or less) than their 'blad equivalents.

For instance (quoting the B&H Pro SourceBook)

                    Rollei PQ               Hassleblad CF

30/3.5 Distagon     4495                    5797
40/4 Distagon       4195                    3995
50/4 Distagon       1999                    2696
120 Makro-Planar    2999                    2774
150/4 Sonnar        2199                    2756
250/5.6 Sonnar      2599                    2107

I am not sure whether these prices are real (or perhaps grey?) but if so, Rollei has decided to get in the game, big time. Prices for MF lenses are shocking to begin with. In the past the prices for the Rollei versions were absolutely mind-numbing. Remembering that the Rollei versions use the much more sophisticated shutter technology and 1/3 stop diaphrams these prices represent quite a value. I guess it is hard to use the term "value" when talking about things with pricetags like this but you know what I mean (grins).

Best Regards,

David Seifert
[email protected]

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998
From: Simon Stevens [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Camera prices

I don't know why there is so much surprise at the cost of Hasselblad equipment. We are, after all, buyers of precision, individually hand crafted equipment built in SWEDEN and GERMANY - two European countries with some of the highest salaries, taxes and employee benefits in the world. Germans in particular, work an incredibly few number of hours, which I understand has become increasingly a political issue there with those worried about the competitiveness of German goods. As a point of interest, for two years I worked in an office two blocks from the Schneider factory in Bad Kreuznach. I was always amazed at how often that parking lot was empty in comparison to a US plant of similar (actually, rather small) size.

The reason why Hasselblad, Zeiss, Leitz, Schneider et al, still succeed when so many other similar firms have failed, is because there is a market, albeit a small niche one, for their fine products. I am sure that they could break into the mass market, but they would have to change a few things that we love about them. First, they could drop individual product testing. I understand that of the Japanese lenses, only Nikon's are individually tested. All the other manufacturers rely on batch testing, which must surely be cheaper, but increases the chances that a user will end up with a lemon. They could also move their factories to a country with lower production costs. Rollei tried making their cameras in Singapore, Contaxes, and some of the Zeiss lenses for them are assembled in Japan, and Leitz had a factory in Canada (which they did for a different reason.) In every case the result has been the same - we the consumers scream! And when we react like that the reputation of the company, and the product has been damaged as a result. I see this every time I compare the value on the used market of my Canadian Leica, versus an otherwise identical Wetzlar model.

My point is that this is just how it is if we choose (which we all did freely) to buy these particularly wonderful, but very expensive toys. There are, after all, lots of competitor cameras out there, also good, competing for out Dollars, and Yen, and Pounds and Francs (or is it Euros?) etc."Greedy" or not, that's the wonderful thing about the capitalist system.

Simon Stevens
http://www.wizard.net/~simon/

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
From: Richard Mendales [email protected]
Subject: Re: LF vs. MF lens costs

Bob,

Thanks for raising these interesting issues. As for shutters, think of how many shots a MF photographer will take in rapid succession--that is, of course, one of the major advantages roll film gives us. You can run through a dozen rolls of 120 film in the time it takes to set up a single LF shot--and the MF shutter may have to take the stress of motorized operation in the deal. The repeated stress of rapid operation is foreign to the whole concept of LF photography, which is part of its own peculiar charm. Another point that I forgot to raise in my earlier post is that LF lenses don't need automatic diaphragms, which also have to be able to take heavy stress from rapid operation.

Your points on growing the MF market are more serious, and I wish that I could think of better answers. The problem is that most people just aren't interested in getting anything more out of photography than 4x6 prints--or, increasingly, things that will go on the exalted TV screen and therefore need even less resolution--and medium format won't make any difference at that level except for requiring them to spend vastly more money and carry much heavier equipment than the average P & S. Something is missing here; people need to get a better sense of what a *good* image is. Part of it, I think, is that people, especially in the U.S., have become too passive; they want to be entertained, and don't feel the excitement of doing something that requires skill to the extent that hobbyists did a generation ago. Also, people just aren't getting as much exposure to the arts as they used to; art programs are among the first things to go when school budgets get tight. I caught the photo bug when I learned to process my own pictures back in high school--but that kind of experience is less available than it was then. Maybe the best thing Hasselblad could do to broaden its market would be to donate equipment, or lease it at low prices, to school systems. There might even be some tax benefits lurking there.

Regards,

Richard Mendales
University of Miami

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Camera Repair Parts

I have ordered repair parts for my Mamiya camera(s) from Mamiya USA and was NEVER asked to give any kind of serial numbers or warranty card information.

Here is a little known fact: Manufacturers are required to supply repair parts to those who need them. There are only a few extenuating circumstances where that can refuse - if they do not have an ample supply of parts to meet 'expected Repair needs', for example. It is the same for repair books and manuals as well. The costs are high to most peoplre who need them, or it can be.

Editor's Note: I have included this interesting post regarding pro promotions and grey market for the rest of us ;-) - note the pricing variability in different countries such as India and Israel due to marketing strategies..

Date: Sun, 05 Jul 1998
From: "Abhay Singh" [email protected]
Subject: Re working photographer

[snip discussion re: canon vs. nikon]

>No.3 : Price of lenses. For example: To buy a lens with a zoom
>range of 20-35 mm D2.8 AF from Nikon costs in Israel $3570 vat
>included while a c 17-35 mm EF L 2.8 AF USM costs in Israel $1990 vat
>included
>(these prices are for working photographers and not normal retail prices).

>No.4 : AF technology in c allows a much better working velocity
>(even in very difficult situations) than the existing in Nikon.  
>Try to work (F5 with AF 80~200mm f/2.8D ED compared to an EOS1N
>with AF EF 70~200mm f/2.8 L) in a situation where people are
>moving all the time and coming in and out without knowing from
>where and when. Please don't compare it with taking a shot of a
>nice view or a nice flower.

I didn't get any of the equipment (as you've probably guessed) but I got to use it extensively. I work with one of the photogs who got the stuff. My impressions are as such: The autofocus is superb, the AF/Manual simultaneous focus is a great feature but im so used to Nikons' central AF sensor that I found myself using only the central sensor on the 1n. The 1n is very well constructed and very well designed, so is the 70-200 L but I didnt much care as far as build quality is concerned for the rest of the stuff...the F50 has better construction than the A2e, the 17-35 although a wonderful lens, has an awfull plasticky feel. My misgivings were justified when we took the stuff on a shoot for the Indian Army, we were shooting moving tanks in the afternoon heat, with dust swirling all around. Neither Canon body came back alive. Nothing would bring them back to life (sure its the person behind the camera but the damn thing has to work..). We were 200kms away from Delhi (where Canon has a dealership), they sent a technician to repair the stuff overnight he cleaned them up to get them working again. In the meantime however the job was finished with an F90 and an aging F801.

My pro photog friend is sold on Canon (who wouldn't be considering all they do for him), but people like me who must pay for stuff will buy Nikon, in India in the heat, humidity and dust, durability is paramount. A small measure of thanks also goes to the bustling grey market that supplies all the Nikon gear, at very low prices (I recently picked up a new FM10 body for $130), otherwise I might well have been subscribing to the Canon list.

Thank you for your attention, and I hope it was not boring.
Same here.
Abhay Singh.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (James Chow)
[2] Re: why do lens costs differ so much?
Date: Sun Jul 12 1998

I think a signficant portion of the costs is in the tooling. When you build a lens, you might have to have every part made if it doesn't use any existing parts from an existing lens. This is going to cost $$$ and will only repay itself after a large number of lenses are sold. For one, MF doesn't have the sales volume as, say, a 35mm format nikkor lens. I doubt that the materials for a contax/zeiss 180/2.8 sonnar and a hasselblad/zeiss 180/4 sonnar are going to differ by a factor of four or five as the price of the lenses. After all, you can buy a front element for a zeiss MF lens for only around $150 USD contrary to popular belief (it doesn't cost a fortune though a shop might charge a fortune). The bottom line is that mass production/sales reduces costs,which is probably the main reason why the 80mm "normal" lens is the least expensive available.

--Jim

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (CWood 7000)
[2] Re: why do lens costs differ so much?
Date: Sun Jul 12 1998

Another hidden cost that some people may not be aware of are the software/code writers that develop the programs. Their salaries are not inconsequential!

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "David Foy" nomail@this_address.please
[2] Re: why do lens costs differ so much?
Date: Mon Jul 13 10:36:51 CDT 1998

Apparently one reason Mamiya discontinued their TLR lenses, even though there is still a market for them, it that the tooling was wearing out, and the cost of re-tooling was so high it wasn't economical.

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998
From: michael collier [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: why do lens costs differ so much? Re: Glass Manufacturers

> What are the sources of the differences which justify the huge
> differences in price between lenses? between formats?

i am not sure R&D costs can be so easily discounted. i expect they are significant. however, i suspect the main factor is economies of scale. if you can prorate R&D and tooling accros 100K units, you are going to be able to offer it for a lot less than an equivalent lens that sees a production run of 1K units. i have a number of mamiya RZ and 645 lenses with serial numbers in the 1000 - 10000 range, suggesting not a whole lot of them were made.

as well, while medium and large format have perhaps comparable market volumes, large format lenses, given the variable flange distance (versus fixed for medium format), can be of more "conventional" design (symmetric or nearly so), which don't need nearly as many hoops to be jumped through to get good performance out of them. in medium format, you have to go to telephotos (direct or retro, for the wide angles), which are much more complex. as well, medium format glass must also cover a ffairly large area with acceptably good and consistent resolution and illumination. finally, in medium format, you have the whole issue of zooms. net effect: medium format glass is both the most "difficult" and among the least desired, and therefore the most expensive.

this is my guess, anyway.

> In short, looking at say Nikon ultrawides, I discovered third party
> lenses of same speed and focal length (similar element counts etc) vs.
> Nikon prime ultrawise lenses were typically 1/3rd the cost of the Nikon
> primes. Why the huge markup in the Nikon primes vs. Tamron, Tokina, Sigma???
> (see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronwide.html for details etc)

don't have an explanation for this one. i agree that within a given format and "genre" (i.e. format, SLR versus rangefinder, etc), R&D, tooling, and materials should all be similar in price regardless of manufacturer. everything is certainly of comparable quality (unlike, perhaps arguably, 135 glass). i can't imagine labor and/or international distribution making a big difference either. 'tis a puzzlement.

> David Foy has suggested that Rollei medium format lenses cost only circa
> 1/10th their final selling cost to manufacture, which suggests that
> rather a lot of the cost differences are not in the lens manufacturing
> but in the distribution channel and overhead costs?

again, i am guessing they are amortizing R&D over a small production run. markup through the distribution network shouldn't result in multiples of 100%.

--
Michael H. Collier
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (SCOOTERTRS)
[1] Re: Mail Order vs. Local Stores
Date: Thu Jun 25 1998

Something else that adds a nice bonus for mail order sales is the sales tax...

in florida it is a 6.5% hit

thus if the comparison was a $1000 lens if bought at local store and $900.00 if bought mail order (from out of state store) add $11 for shipping to the mail order and $65.00 to the local sale...the difference in price is $$911 to $1065 or $154 less for mail order!

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Medium format trends... read this, Rollei.

>When it comes to APS cameras and most 35mm stuff, I buy it locally and pay
>a bit more... but enjoy service.
>
>Compare Rollei list prices (which are what retailers always charge) versus
>Wall Street mail order (excellent service)... the difference is just too
>much.  If my good local store, who rents 600x lenses to me, would charge
>only 15% more than Wall Street.. they would have my business.
>
>The debate of sales tax versus shipping costs makes sense on inexpensive
>items.  Sales tax adds another 8.5% here, thus the shipping costs of Rollei
>priced items becomes negligible.
>
>I wonder what the difference in dealer costs would be?  Mail order can run
>on lower margins, but...

Be aware that the really low priced Rollei stuff is gray market.

Also, watch out for the sales tax thing. You are legally obligated to pay your state's sales tax in most states no matter where you buy. Last year Connecticut did an audit of some of the big NYC mail order companies and sent bills to photographers in CT for the sales tax they should have paid. A good friend of mine got a bill for almost $ 7,000 !!! They went back some years, I don't recall how many, and the people who got the bills had 30 days to pay up.

I am sure other states are looking at what CT did and thinking of doing the same.

Bob

Date: Fri, 3 Jul 1998
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Medium format trends... read this, Rollei.

you write:

state's sales tax in most states no matter where you buy. Last year Connecticut did an audit of some of the big NYC mail order companies and sent bills to photographers in CT for the sales tax they should have paid. A good friend of mine got a bill for almost $ 7,000 !!! They went back some years, I don't recall how many, and the people who got the bills had 30 days to pay up.

I am sure other states are looking at what CT did and thinking of doing the same.

Bob

Pennsylvania has also done the same. I think only PA residents who bought from NY retailers were affected because NY has some kind of reciprocal agreement with PA. Delaware has no sales tax and is a vast source of potential usetax revenue, but there is no such agreement and only when the cops catch you on Route 202 with that contraband TV in the trunk are you likely to have to pay.

John McFadden

From: Brent Horton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998

Hi all -

I've been an aspiring photographer (whatever that means) for years and have grown up around photography - just bought my first system - N90x, couple of lenses, etc... My question is this - what is the reason that faster lenses cost more money than slower? For instance - the 80-200/2.8 I bought cost more than the 70-210/4-5.6. Both Nikkors are D lenses. Does it actually cost more for Nikon to make a lens with a speed of 2.8 rather 4-5.6? Or is the explanation simply that they know we are willing to pay extra for a faster lens, so they will charge more for it? Same goes with primes - faster primes cost a lot more than slower primes of equal focal lengths (duh, everyone knew that) but my point is why? Does a 400/3.5 take more money to make than a 400/5.6, or again - we are willing to pay the extra so they jack it up?

Just a little curiosity on my part - I've never really had anyone tell me why - nor have I ever asked.

Thanks.

Brent H.

From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: black bodies and pot shots at photogr. Re: heat damaging to cameras..
Date: 21 Jul 1998

Good question - why are camera bodies black given sun heating issues?

I understand black body cameras such as your nikons were the result of requests by photographers with chrome camera bodies during the Vietnam Wa

Naturally, the reflective camera bodies attracted unwanted attention from VC snipers taking pot shots, so to speak, at these photographers ;-) So the surviving pros quickly asked for non-reflective, black body cameras ;

since pro photographers had these black cameras, dim-witted amateur photographers figured, hey, there must be something special about those black body cameras that takes better pictures than my old chrome camera.

Soon mfgers like Nikon were innundated by requests for black camera bodies. naturally, seeing a good thing, and considering extra costs, they socked it to these black camera body demanding amateur photographers.

So we continue to have a large differential cost and value to so called pro black camera bodies over the regular chrome bodies.

Canon has sensibly shown you can change to grey, both lighter and cooler and distinctive, as their lenses have shown.

Naturally, you can buy whatever kind of leatherette or Moroccan leather that you like and arrange for a local camera repair tech to glue it on there in place of the usual stuff. Nifty, and distinctive. You can even do it yourself - see my page at:

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/glue.html

grins bobm

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE:Rollei to consolidate USA distribution.

>Thanks for the insight.  What's your take on the recent price reduction of
>Rollei lenses?  Is it early reaction to the pending distribution
>consolidation?  Is it DM exchange rates (considering the yen rates,
>Japanese cameras can drop 25%!)?  Or the start of a new marketing campaign
>with lower prices leading the parade?
>
>
>regards,
>WL

Wilf,

I don't know full details as yet, but I do expect to see either some deep cuts in prices or some significant rebates on Rollei pro products. The new distributors are leaner and more aggressive, and want to get product out and in use. They understand that if they get lots of cameras into use, sales of lenses and accessories will naturally follow. I know the DM exchange rate has improved in our favor, so this will figure into the equation as well.

Bob

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998
From: David Foy [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Japan, Germany, the US

Marc is correct. To expand somewhat:

The most overall productive economy in the world is the US, ahead of Japan, and far ahead of Germany (The Economist Magazine reports this annually). Decisions about sourcing are complex -- labor rates and overall productivity are only a part of the equation. Otherwise we'd be getting high-end lenses built in the US.

However, though highly productive, the US is not a good place to produce high-quality, mass-market optical goods like medium-format camera lenses. The reasons are historical. The US optical industry, and the infrastructure around it, once led the world, but was abandoned (remember Ilex and Wollensak? the Kodak Ektars?) for sound economic reasons -- the Germans out-innovated, out-produced, and out-marketed them, and the Japanese rode in on the Germans' coat-tails before eventually taking leadership. After WWII it became much more sensible to source optics from Germany and Japan than to continue producing yesterday's lenses in outmoded plant. Investment in new plant was an option, of course, but at the time this was happening, the US was putting its financial and intellectual capital into newer technologies. Quite frankly, I have to believe the US is better off leading the world in microchip technology than it would be leading the world in medium-format lenses.

A cursory look at what the Germans make and sell suggests to me that they continue producing low-volume, high-quality lenses in modern, productive, but low-volume plants in Germany. Investment in higher productivity in Germany would be pointless unless a considerably larger market developed for those products. The Germans seem to turn to Japan, where there exists a high-volume, high-quality industrial capacity, for the lenses they expect to sell in greater volumes. There would be little point in producing boatloads of Japanese Hasselblad lenses that can't be sold. There would be no point in producing them in Japan in a plant designed to build them by the boatload instead of by the dozen, especially when the smaller plant already exists in Germany.

The economic logic of sourcing lenses is relentlessly driven by the continuing decrease in market share enjoyed by SLR and medium-format equipment. Every year, fewer and fewer of these are sold. I know SLR's are sold in absolutely decreasing numbers (about 800,000 last year in the US vs some 7 or 8 million ten years earlier). I don't know the MF numbers, but I know MF market share has always been low, and if I had to bet, I know what I think the safest bet would be.

It's easy to criticize the German owners of proud names like Rollei, Zeiss, etc. but when you take a look a the sobering marketplace realities they must work in, the fact is they seem to be making the kinds of decisions necessary to keep high-quality optics available in a shrinking market.

_____________________________
David Foy
MarkeTactics(TM)
1431 6th St NW
Calgary, AB T2M 3E7
Canada
(403)282-0512, voice and fax
-----Original Message-----
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected] [email protected]
Date: Friday, June 26, 1998 7:11 AM
Subject: [Rollei] Japan, Germany, the US

|Since the middle 1970's, hourly rates for labour have been more expensive
|in Japan than in Germany or the US, but productivity remained higher in
|Japan until about 1990.  Since then, it has been cheaper by any index to
|produce a like item in either the US or Germany than in Japan.  (I'm
|serious:  check out the last quarter-century of the Wall Street Journal or
|the Economist).
|
|What saves Japan today is that they have modern factories and a
|mass-production infrastructure which Germany and the US lack.  This is
|changing, slowly, but it will be some years before Japan slips from the
|industrial perch it now occupies.  It has been challenged, successfully, in
|most fields by Korea and Taiwan, but the general Asian economic malaise has
|muted this challenge a bit in the past several years.
|
|(Honda has made quite a stir by pointing out that their US plants are more
|productive than are their Japanese plants, incidentally.)
|
|Marc
|
|
|[email protected]  FAX:  +540/343-7315
|Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] med fmt market sales statistics? any figures? Re:...tlr's

>Does anybody have recent photo industry sales stats that suggest overall
>sales increases? increases in marketshare by Rollei? HB? Demographics on
>new buyers? recent historical trends up or down? thanks ;-) bobm

Bob

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998
From: David Foy [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] med fmt market sales statistics? any figures?

I had a look at the economics of selling large format last year. There is tremendous technological advance going on, but very, very few buyers. Thus so little advertising, such small representation at trade shows, so few stores carrying new gear, etc. The dollar volume is tiny, geographically spread out, and hard to find. It's a very tiny industry -- I think it was Bob Shell who wrote somewhere that Arca Swiss, one of the dominant companies in the field, has only about 25 employees. It seems like the much of the large-format industry is in the hands of people who believe the better-mousetrap theory, which is not a good theory to invest in.

_____________________________
David Foy
MarkeTactics(TM)

Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998
From: Henry Matthes [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Medium format trends... read this, Rollei.

>I wish this was the case but from all I gather reading the net, 90% of
>people want the cheapest price not service.. I'm in the 10% but others
>don't see why they shouldn't go look at a camera at the local store, get
>help deciding what they need and then go mail order/buy it from somewhere
>cheaper but that has no service.. People don't think they need to pay for
>service.

When it comes to APS cameras and most 35mm stuff, I buy it locally and pay a bit more... but enjoy service.

Compare Rollei list prices (which are what retailers always charge) versus Wall Street mail order (excellent service)... the difference is just too much. If my good local store, who rents 600x lenses to me, would charge only 15% more than Wall Street.. they would have my business.

The debate of sales tax versus shipping costs makes sense on inexpensive items. Sales tax adds another 8.5% here, thus the shipping costs of Rollei priced items becomes negligible.

I wonder what the difference in dealer costs would be? Mail order can run on lower margins, but...

Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1998
From: Isaac Crawford [email protected]
Subject: Re: why do lens costs differ so much? Re: Glass Manufacturers

There isn't as much markup in lenses as you might think. For example, most 35mm lenses sold through mail order are at cost or close to it (Check B+H prices for cost). So there isn't any markup from the retailer. If you look at the differences in price between grey market and official import, you'll see that there isn't a ton of markup in the distribution...

My guess as to why lenses differ so much price-wise has to do with economies of scale. Tamron can make the same lens for Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, and even Olympus...They have a much wider potential customer base, make more lenses (I'm guessing), and therefore the price per lens goes down. The build quality also has something to do with it, although I don't know how much.

eyes

Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1998
From: bills [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rollei USA. When??? Asian Econ

When our own government is trying to drive the street price of hi tech items higher, then the Asian Econ is in real trouble and that could spell trouble for Rollei.

Pres Clinton views the Asian econ as a national security issue. If China's econ fails what will happen in terms or Asian and World peace.

It would have been nicer if Rollei could have remained in the Western Econ net. then if push came to shove more control could have been exercised. A silver lining may be if its primary work is in the US it still can be bailed as a European company. Time will tell. Who knows may own check book may fail by then.

BS (me and what I do best)

From: "Roger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji XPAN price in japan Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 18:21:47

Amateur Photographer in the UK says it is the equivalent of 650 pounds in Japan. I don't have the pounds-to-yen conversion rate handy but 650 pounds is about US$1100.

The identical Hasselblad X-Pan will probably sell for well over 1000 pounds in the UK. A rip-off or what?

Roger

don ferrario wrote

>I'm not sure what Fuji calls their equivalent of the
>Hasselblad XPAN - but does anyone know what the
>Fuji camera sells for in the Japanese market?  I assume
>it would be a lot cheaper without the Hasselblad name
>on it!
>
>don

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1998
From: Dan Cardish [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 300/2.8

Has everyone noticed the prototype 300/2.8 lens displayed at Photokina for Hasselblad? Estimated price is (approx. conversion to US dollars): $25,000 - $30,000.

Don't all rush out to your dealer at once! ;-)

Dan C.

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 300/2.8

At 08:22 AM 1998-09-23 -0700, Tom Clark wrote:

>I had always assumed that the optical "formula"  lens of any given focal
>length was the same regardless of speed - except that the elements get
>larger in diameter to permit more light.

That isn't generally true. Each formulation of the basic lens design is a unique concoction of glasses, curves, and spaces. I suspect this lens costs so much as Zeiss anticipates it to be a benchmark but recognizes that production will be extremely low. (And look at the 5.6/1000 Mirotar -- the latest price I have for one of these is $60,000, more than the mortgage on my house!)

Marc

Date: Wed, 23 Sep 1998
From: ghost who walks inside [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 300/2.8

> That isn't generally true.  Each formulation of the basic lens design  is a
> unique concoction of glasses, curves, and spaces.  I suspect this lens
> costs so much as Zeiss anticipates it to be a benchmark but recognizes that
> production will be extremely low.  (And look at the 5.6/1000 Mirotar -- the
> latest price I have for one of these is $60,000, more than the mortgage on
> my house!)

My impression was that making a 300/2.8 to cover a 6x6 neg would be considerably more difficult than one to cover a 24x36mm neg.

Last time I got through to Contax USA-NJ, the 1,2/210 N-Mirotar was "estimated" at about $28,000. They said they would have to contact Contax Japan for a full quote.

In comparison, a bargain. *grin*

-jon

Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] New Rollei EL lenses

>Photodo News has reported the Photokina introduction of 3 new economical
>lenses for the Rollei 6000 series:
>
>>In a economic line of lenses for the 6000-system Rollei are
>>showing three new lenses. Distagon 50/4 HFT EL, Planar
>>80/2.8 HFT EL and Sonnar 150/4 HFT EL.
>
>Presumably, a response to Hasselblad's recent CB line. Are these the lenses
>Bob Shell describes in his recent post?:
>
>>...When I visited Rollei
>>at photokina they showed me their new lenses (all from Zeiss, BTW), their
>>newly redesigned lens barrels for the three lenses they make under license
>>from Zeiss (main difference, 67 mm screw thread instead of bayonet on the
>>front)...
>
>I'm curious about what is traded off in this newer lens line, bayonet
>filter accessories aside? Can someone elaborate with a comment of more than
>'increased production efficiencies'.
>(For example, its clear the some of the Hasselblad CB lenses are of
>different optical design than the CF series.) Will both EL and PQ optics of
>similar speed and length remain in the line? How significant is the price
>reduction?
>
>Many thanks,
>
>M.Phillips

Yes, these are the lenses I mentioned. Optically they are identical to the earlier ones, so no tradeoff in optical quality as with the Hasselblad CB lenses. The barrel is all that was changed, shutter and glass are the same. They must have simplified the construction is all I can think of. The focusing action felt very smooth and positive in the samples I played with.

I was told they had been brought down in price so they could more easily be sold with the 6001 camera, which has also been introduced at a low price point.

Yes, this is to compete against Hasselblad.

But the whole MF game is now changed by the Contax 645, with its autofocus Zeiss lenses. I spent considerable time with this camera and can only say they seem to have got it all right. It handles well, the autofocus works nicely, and the lenses are probably sharp.

Bob

From: "Isaac H Crawford" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hasselblad falling behind others
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1998

Errr... I hate to tell you this, but Mamyia owns about 75% of the medium format business in the world right now. Hassey is the next in line with about 15%, and everybody else (Pentax, Fuji, Bronica, Rollie, ect) has the rest. I think this is based on new camera sales rather than number of users.

From Medium Format Digest:
From: Al Thompson Subject: Response to Any truth to the rumors about the Arsonal? Date: 1998-09-26 At a recent large Southern California camera show (Sept. 98) I was buying some Kiev things from a personable west coast Kiev importer/dealer who is from Kiev in the Ukrane. (I'm sure some of you will know who I am referring to.) We got into a friendly discussion about the financial problems in the post-Soviet states. He told me two interesting things.

(1) During his last visit to Arsonal, Hassleblad representatives were in the next room trying to buy Kiev 88. Seems that Kiev has been selling so many 88's in Europe and the U.S they have been eating into Hassy's sales and profits. Arsonal refused to sell. If this story is true it means that Hassy would like to buy Kiev 88 and kill it.

(2) He said that Arsonal is financially healthy because they keep everything denominated in dollars. And as money gets tight people tend to buy the less expensive equivalent item. I have also been told this by pawn shop operators, who said that bad times actually help their business. Arsonal is probably one of Ukrane's few cash cows.

I make no guarantee on the accuracy of the above, other than it is what I was told at the big monthly Sequoia camera show by someone who goes to the factory on visits to his home town. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

If Arsonal ever converts to cloth shutters, installs an MLU, and implements strict quality control, look out!

Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998
From: Richard Mendales [email protected]
To: Hasselblad [email protected]
Subject: Re: HB Price Increase Schedule?

Stu,

It appears that to the extent there is an increase, it will be included in the cost of new equipment models. For example, the new CFi lenses, which are due out soon to replace the CF lenses, are supposed to cost 3% more. It seems reasonable to expect that new bodies to take advantage of the CFi features will be priced accordingly.

There may be some new restraints on price increases, though. The strongest one will probably be increased competition--the new Rollei prices, for example, put some downward pressure on Hasselblad, and the new Contax MF system should further increase competitive pressures. Lower world commodity prices and alliances with companies such as Fuji may also help keep prices down.

Regards,

Richard Mendales
University of Miami

From: [email protected] (Peter Mikalajunas)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 35mm vs. medium format :35mm is equal to MF ?
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998

On 9 Dec 1998 14:53:03 GMT, [email protected] (NYCFoto) wrote:

>>>>But you're right if you're suggesting that --- considering the price of
>Zeiss glass -- their performance could be better.<<<
>
>       I don't want to side with the MF lens manufacturers in the area of price, but
>there is some justification as to the higher prices of their lenses, due to
>several factors.  First, there's the economy of scale, if hasselblad or  Rollei
>sold as many lenses as nikon or canon, that would reduce the price.   Second in
>a MF lens you have the addition of shutters built into each lens, in  addition
>the MF lens has to cover a much larger area of film, and that requires a larger
>lens with larger glass surfaces.
>       Still I'm not crazy about what I've had to pay for my MF glass,  but it just
>comes with the territory......

All the reasons you give are good. But take a look in the other direction.

All the reasons above also apply to a large format lenses, coverage even more so. The cheapest lens in any system is the one that is considered the normal lens for that format. Here are some examples of current pricing for 6x6 vs lf lenses. To keep things fair, I limited the mf selection to 6x6 system lenses.

These prices are directly from the B&H website.

Hasselblad Zeiss 80mm f/2.8 CF Planar T* 1719.00
Bronica 80mm f/2.8 1,099.00
Mamiya 75mm f/3.5 1299.00

Rodenstock - APO Sironar S 150mm f/5.6 749.00 4x5
Schneider - Apo-Symmar 150mm f/5.6 711.00 5x7
Nikon - Nikkor W 150 549.95 4x5
So, I can get a lens that covers 5x7 and contort my 4x5 into a pretzel for less than a 6x6 system lens. It isn't till you move up to 8x10 or larger that lf lenses go over the top in pricing.

From: [email protected] (WINDOWS 2000 USER)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In defense of the Hasselblad way
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998

[email protected] says...

> >Its a sad day when a name like Hasseblad doesn't live up to the
> >reputation it has built over so many years.   Their lenses were so
> >good and so sharp that at one point you nearly  couldn't call yourself
> >a professional photographer if you didn't own one of their systems.
> >But lets face it, times have changed, and worse yet, the film got
> >better.   When you start pulling medium format quality 8x10 images
> >from a 35mm negative it points out you can do more with less.
> >Why should I spend thousand and thousands of dollars more for a good
> >German optic system when the Japanese systems do a  nice job for a
> >heck of a lot less money?  On average, what size images do you make,
> >8x10's?  11x14?  Can you honestly look at an image and say "That was
> >made with a Hassy,  or that was made with a Bronica,  or that was made
> >with a Mamiya? Don't kid yourself, the new Japanese lenses are very
> >very good.  I have a new Mamiya 645 zoom lens (ULD Glass) that blows
> >the socks  off of everybody who see's the images blown up to  point
> >where you can see the grain from ASA 100 film.
> >If Hasseblad wants to sell cameras in the new era, they need to do it
>
> >>Hasselblad just like other major optical manufacturers are cutting  back 
> >>and employing more economical (cheaper) methods and materials to fatten
> >>up the bottom line. This is just the normal progression of  technology. I
> >>guess that by the year 2010 we will be using lens optics mounted inside
> >>of recycled toilet paper tubes!
> >>
> Another story about my lens blows away another lens. Does the lens take the
> picture alone. Do we not need a body to mount the lens and provide a  means to
> view the subject through the lens, and how about something to hold the  film.
> Bringing the pieces togather is what Hasselblad does best. Thats why Hasselblad
> is the bench mark camera that the Japanese companys have been trying to  catch
> for over 50 years. I have owned and used both the Mamyia 645 and 6x7  cameras,
> plus the newest Bronicas ETRSi. They are fine cameras. But they are no
> Hasselblad. I have a 35 year old Hasselblad lens that is still sharper then any
> of the Mamiya or Bronica lens. But go ahead and buy a Broncia see if  its still                   
> runing strong after 20 or 30 years. But please remember that we all have
> favorites, and you will have to decide like I did which system to invest in.
> P.Peterson      

After 20 years of Hasselblad ownership, I am dismayed at the new construction and the astronomical pricing to boot! I enjoyed my Blad gear but don't lead anyone into thinking that they are perfect. I had to have routine maintainence and a number of nagging repairs made to a number of lenses. My brand newe 350CF came in with a 1/16" air bubble in the second element in from the front!!!! What kind of quality control is that, I ask you???? (Hassey in New Jersey replaced the entire lens immediately and apologized). The fact is that many other optic manufacturers are making glass of equal quality to Zeiss. This does not reduce the mystique or allure of German optic skill, but rather makes the statement that there are other equally superb optics available today. Ultra modern computer technology makes this all possible! Computer designed and driven machinery grinds precision glass now, not little silver haired men laboring in dimly lit laboratories. I respect your right to adore Hasselblad and its reputation. However, there is a new milenium upon us and as Bob Dylan sang, 'the times, they are a changin'.

From: "WEILL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: In defense of the Hasselblad way
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998

>I respect your right to adore
>Hasselblad and its reputation. However, there is a new milenium upon us
>and as Bob Dylan sang, 'the times, they are a changin'.

Until my Hasselblad equipment was stolen last year I had mostly excellent experiences with it. So my point is not to destroy the reputation of one of the best MF manufacturer and the one I was so adept of.

My biggest concerns with Hasselblad are:

1) The ratio between quality and price paid for Hasselblad equipment is in constant degradation. Why? Just because many other MF manufacturers improved their production without increasing their price level, so the difference of price to pay to get an Hasselblad is less and less technically justified. Obviously, the quality of the Hasselblad products didn't decrease (in average) but they are no more far above the average of other available MF systems as far as quality is concerned but the price difference stays.

2) The most technically advanced Hasselblad cameras (the 200 series) went to wrong solutions for the situations they are designed to cope with. One of the worst shortcomings of Hasselblad cameras using leaf shutter lens is the total lack of "communication" between the lens and the camera body. So, when the prism finder was used, you have to manualy set the maximum aperture of the lens in use on the prism and to transfer the EV indication onto the lens after measuring (it means a risk to forget the first step and the necessity to stop sighting at the subject to transfer the measure. Anyway a slow process). From the late 60's until the appearance of the new 200 series, this had condemned the Hassy to be desperately slower than an average medium format SLR from most the of other manufacturers (not to speak of 35 mm SLR's). This was a major mistake in camera development of the Hasselblad system.

When the electrical (electronic) communication was established between the new 200 series camera bodies and the new "electrical" F lenses, (lenses without shutter) and Hasselblad went to automatic exposure capacity, the attitude of the technical management of Hasselblad ran wild.

They choose to give the new camera body a straight spotmeter built in and developed a now abandoned system refering to Ansel Adams zone system in relation with the new magazines (also with electric contacts). This prooved to be a failure. Why ?

Just because, "Responsible Photography" theory or not, when a photographer has to resort to auto-exposure, he has no time to make average measures or pinpoint measures. All he requires is to point focus and shoot. Otherwise he has all his time and more to use good ole' manual settings.

This lead Hasselblad management to introduce the 203 body, where a 1970's vintage compromise was done in enlarging the surface of the measure to a wide center circle. Doing this they somewhat corrected the risk to have an inappropriate auto exposure for average subjects when it is obvious that point and shoot is the rule, but they negated the advantage to have a spot measure in manual conditions.

Anybody familiar with the technics developed during the late 80's and the 90's know very well that to date the best answer to autoexposure problems (more than 90% of the practical situations) lay in the auto analysis of the light by a matrix system. That it is far better, faster and reliable than the to take the measure lock it and then go the final framing of the picture. Practically it answers much better the problem of fast capture of a subject, where auto exposure is really needed.

To the present days, Hasselblad has not developed a matrix metering equiped body. The only amelioration in the system appeared in the last Photokina: having the CFE lens developed to keep the relation between the body and the lens when leaf shutter equiped lenses are used. To much dismay of the photographers, however, they were unable to permit this liaison to operate in MANUAL position when using the leaf shutter, the lens transmitting the position of the speed ring to the body, though, for obvious reason, I recognize it was impossible to extend the option to auto exposure, because mechanical shutters are used.

It seems that despite a lot of good features and a commendable record of reliability, like "Windows 2000" aptly put, Hasselblad is not ready yet for the new millenium.

Personally, obliged to resort to a second hand old Mamiya 645 1000 S with three lenses as an interim measure, I first envisaged seriously to wait until I will be able to buy a new Hassy. Finally, even if the optical results are somewhat inferior to what I got from my old Hassy C lenses (80mm excluded by the way), I'm not going to buy a Hassy system but change my old 1000 S body for a brand new 645 Pro S model which has now the same TTL OTF flash system as an Hassy. With the induced savings, I hope to be able to have much more lenses and accesories than I ever had with my Hassy equipment.

Hassies are good, no doubt, but the best ones (leaf shutter lens only bodies) are desperately lagging behind in terms of technology and the 200 series went to a dead end by "virtue" of Hasselblad management technical options. I agree to pay more for optical quality, but as this feature is eventually also no more vastly superior when compared to other makes, I'm forced to admit (though reluctantly) that Hassies are grossly overpriced for what they really offer and are technically overtaken.

I sincerly hope that Hasselblad managment will realize that and correct the aforementioned shortcomings in the beginning of the next century. but to date they've lost at least one potential customer.

FPW

From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: New Hassey lenses cost less to manufacture
Date: 23 Dec 1998

Hi

Actually a cheaper method may be High Tech. I project managed the production of optical assemblies for the govt. I introduced new CNC computer methods of assembly that were far cheaper and higher quality then if the lenses were hand assembled. Nobody lost their job. We just made better optics at half the cost.

Larry

From: Scott Walton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: "Photography as economics"
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998

Here is the address for that article: [Ed. note: page was at: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/98/1228/6214149a.htm before 2/2003]

Whitney88 wrote:

Interesting essay by Thomas Sowell in the 12/28/98 issue of Forbes.

Date: Tue, 11 May 1999
From: Dirk-Roger Schmitt [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 2,8 GX

>At 10:20 AM 5/11/99 +0200, Dirk-Roger Schmitt wrote:
>
>>2,8 GX again in production.
>
>What shutter do these new-production cameras use?  I had understood that
>the supply of 0 sized shutters had been exhausted and that neither Compur
>nor Seikosha shutters were available.

I don't know. I only got the information that enough shutters for the current production batch are available.

However, I also heard that the shutters are extremely expensive now, taking one third of the shelf price of the camera or so.

dirk

From: "Chris Lee" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no grey market MF cameras?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

....

>>>And what's becoming more interesting now is the boom in international
>>internet commerce, which now makes it easy to shop internationally, thru
>>email. Will this force companies like MAC to lower their prices if
>>individuals start grey marketing their own goods? This of course, is a
>>whole 'nother topic, and only time will tell.

I think all of these pricing inconsistencies can be due to the fact that the volume is so much lower in certain places, especially for MF. On a per unit basis, the cost goes up dramatically when you're importing in small numbers, which is probably true in the case of Pentax in Germany. To cover the same costs of marketing, distributing, servicing, packaging (especially in a different language) etc for such a small volume, they probably have to jack up the price to retain the profit. There's also a currency exposure. Besides, if Pentax doesn't have a direct subsidiary in Germany and relies on a third party distributor, there needs to be one more share of profit.

I have no idea if brand name rights are relevant in this context, but if anything the lower sales volume of MF gear probably makes it less worthwhile for grey market. By definition when a grey market importer makes his/her purchases, he/she probably buys from a volume distributor/wholesaler overseas (i.e. not from Nikon/Canon directly). When the volume is low, you don't get volume discounts, and the shipping/distributing/warranties become much more expensive etc.

From: [email protected] (John F. Opie)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why no grey market MF cameras?
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 1999

...
The low volume aggravates the situation, since small markets tend to have less price competition. Packaging is a European market thing, since there is just one user's guide with French, German, English, Italian and Spanish. But the infrastructure is already there from the 35mm sales: the marginal cost is relativaly small. It's a case of charging what the market will bear, and the loss of sales is more than offset by the increase in profits. This is not only true of cameras, but also for automobiles, for instance: a BMW will cost less in Italy than it will in Germany, despite transportation charges and a higher VAT in Italy than in Germany.

>I have no idea if brand name rights are relevant in this context, but if
>anything the lower sales volume of MF gear probably makes it less worthwhile
>for grey market. By definition when a grey market importer makes his/her
>purchases, he/she probably buys from a volume distributor/wholesaler
>overseas (i.e. not from Nikon/Canon directly). When the volume is low, you
>don't get volume discounts, and the shipping/distributing/warranties become
>much more expensive etc.

Correct! It's a seller's market, and not a buyer's. I think you can characterize the US market as very much more a buyer's market (I've always been able to knock a few bucks more off prices in the US (excepting B+H and Adorama, since I'm always amazed by their prices) by spending the salesman's time driving a deal and then putting it off: almost invariably they'll say "What do I have to do to so that you walk out of here with this?".

John