|
Paul MaudDib posted:I mean, even Rolleiflex isn't that expensive and their stuff has insane build quality with incredible lenses. They've been viewed as the most bang for the size for basically their entire production span (like 1930 to 1990), but they're not status symbols and thus don't command the insane prices of Leica. Eh, a Rolleiflex 2.8F in good condition will sell for $1500+, which is probably more than a solid DS M3 and a collapsible 50 mm Summicron will run you. And modern Rolleiflex's sell for like $5K, which is right in line with what Leica sells the M7 and MP for. So yeah, Rollei is that expensive.
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 20:37 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:If you buy the latest models, yeah. But you're not comparing against a top-of-the-line Leica there. I got a 3.5E Xenotar for $400 and there's a freshly CLA'd T with a Tessar that's been sitting in my local store for over a year. I've seen quite a few 2.8s going for $600-800. And you can get a Mamiya 7 for roughly $1200-1300. I was trying to compare models from a similar time-period, during which the 2.8F and the M3 were absolutely the top-end Rollei and Leica models. The M3 was the last Leica ever made entirely out of brass and they introduced the M2 as a bargain alternative to it. I'm not saying that the 3.5 models or that a Mamiya 7 aren't a better deal, but Leica isn't really so significantly out of whack when it comes to used gear.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2012 04:24
|
|