How much did a Nikon SP cost new?

[jlw]

I was flipping through the new Pop Photo piece hailing the new D3 as "the greatest Nikon ever."

This got me wondering: how does the D3 compare in terms of price to what I would consider the greatest Nikon ever, the SP?

The SP was introduced in September 1957 and the D3 almost exactly 50 years later. Comparing historical prices is always a bit dodgy with technological products, because you can buy things now that you just couldn't have bought in the past at any price, and vice-versa.

(Or as Jay Leno explained when talking about the huge amount of labor involved to work on the engine of his Duesenberg: "This car was built when labor was cheap and technology was expensive; now it's the other way around.")

But still... what kind of rough conversion can we make?

I can find out with a visit to the B&H website that a Nikon D3 costs $4,999. A 50mm f/1.4 AF D Nikkor adds $285, for a total of $5,284.

A visit to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis CPI calculator page (click here) shows that in terms of CPI, that amount corresponded, in 1957 dollars, to $719.73

Now here's an odd thing: despite having both the old and new Rotoloni books, I don't know what an SP cost in 1957! I did find this post (very end of the thread) on Photo.net saying that at the end of its run, a Nikon SP with 50/1.4 listed at $375. Assuming that the end of the run was in 1964, the equivalent of the D3 price in CPI-adjusted dollars would be $794.01.

In other words, in CPI-adjusted dollars, the SP was less than half the price of the new D3!

Another interesting quirk: The limited-edition Nikon SP reissue of 2005 cost 690,000 yen (with a 35/1.8 lens.) I don't have any historical dollar/yen exchange rate data, but at current exchange rates plus CPI adjustment that would be $6,703. That's about 27% more than the D3.


What does all this prove? Nothing -- except that Leno was right!

 

[VinceC]

January 1958 Nikon US ad lists SP with Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 at $415; with Nikkor 50mm f/2, $369.50.

At same time, the S2 listed for $345 with f/1.4 and $299.50 with f/2.

July 1958 ad lists SP with identical price as above, but adds the new S3: $355 with f/1.4 and $309.50 with f/2.

Prices dropped with introduction of Nikon F SLR:
January 1960 ad lists prices of SP and Nikon F as identical: $329.50 with f/2 lens. F1.4 lens not yet available for F cameras that early, but SP with 50/1.4 was $375.

The ads I referenced are reprinted in the 1990 Nikon Data book by Paul Comon and Art Evans.

 

[pkreyenhop]

My October 1960 duty free price list from the Matsushima store in Tokio lists the following prices:

Nikon SP with 50mm f1.1 = $243.69
Nikon SP with 50mm f1.4 = $190.28
Nikon SP with 50mm f2.0 = $164.64
Nikon SP body only = $126.17

 

[1948nikon]

1958 Nikon Price List

1958 Nikon Price List

These are the official 1958 listings

SP with 50mm f2 $369.50
SP with 50mm f1.4 $415.00
Sp with 50mm f1.1 $564.50

Motor Drive $169.50

Meter $23.50

BC4 Flash $18.75

So by the time you add the motordrive, meter and flash to bring
the SP near the specs of the D3 you are getting close to your estimate.

If any one is interested I have pricing on every Nikon product made from 1948.
All official Nikon listings for U.S. and Australia.

Hope this helps.

 

[VinceC]

>>Your point is correct you have to add the meter, motor drive, to make it equal, even if they were then accessories.<<

The modular approach of older systems is more to my personal liking.

It's interesting that, adjusted for inflation, the prices of the bodies and features are more or less comparable between then and now, but the lenses have gotten considerably cheaper.

 

[jlw]

The modular approach of older systems is more to my personal liking.

Interesting point. To put it another way, if you wanted a motorized SP, you could add an accessory.

But what if, for the sake of compactness, you want a manual-advance D3? You can't get one at any price!


Side note: Has there ever been an AF SLR with manual advance, other than the Minolta Maxxum 9000? Back in my film days, for a long time the 9000 was my standard SLR (at one time I owned three of them) and one of the things I liked most about it was that if you wanted to, you could remove the motor and other accessories and be left with a very small, tough, full-featured camera body that would run nearly forever on two AA batteries.

And: Has there ever been an interchangeable-lens digital camera with manual advance, other than the Epson R-D 1?

 

[kully]

Side note: Has there ever been an AF SLR with manual advance, other than the Minolta Maxxum 9000?

The Pentax ME-F?

 

[NIKON KIU]

My October 1960 duty free price list from the Matsushima store in Tokyo lists the following prices:

Nikon SP with 50mm f1.1 = $243.69
Nikon SP with 50mm f1.4 = $190.28
Nikon SP with 50mm f2.0 = $164.64
Nikon SP body only = $126.17

I'll take two of those please 😉

Kiu:bang:

 

[Jarle Aasland]

Film vs. digital

Film vs. digital

I'm surprised no one have mentioned the major and obvious reason why you can't really compare prices between a film and a digital camera:

The digital camera comes with a lifetime's worth of film and development.

How much does it cost to shoot and develop 100 rolls of film? How about a 1000 rolls? A SP without film is worthless (for real photographers, anyway).

Not trying to start a film vs. digital debate - simply pointing out the obvious. Even if you need a computer and storage space, digital is a lot cheaper than film ever was. But you can't beat the feeling of a Nikon RF loaded with Kodak Tri-X!

Jarle

 

[dave lackey]

I'm surprised no one have mentioned the major and obvious reason why you can't really compare prices between a film and a digital camera:

The digital camera comes with a lifetime's worth of film and development.

How much does it cost to shoot and develop 100 rolls of film? How about a 1000 rolls? A SP without film is worthless (for real photographers, anyway).

Not trying to start a film vs. digital debate - simply pointing out the obvious. Even if you need a computer and storage space, digital is a lot cheaper than film ever was. But you can't beat the feeling of a Nikon RF loaded with Kodak Tri-X!

Jarle

A hundred rolls of film? Thousands of images on my D2H?

I shoot at the most one roll of film a week and a hundred frames digitally per month in studio after working my day job.

The digital is FAR more expensive than my S3 2000 including all of my developing. Not to mention that computer time for post processing which, incidentally has cost me the use of my left arm.

I use the D2H/D80/D300 professionally and PP as necessary.

I shoot film for myself and do no photoshop work at all.

Next step is 8x10 and platinum printing.

No, it is not a digital vs film war for me...it's sanity vs. insanity and matching the tool for the task...easy choice for me.

YMMV...and that's okay...

 

[jlw]

I'm surprised no one have mentioned the major and obvious reason why you can't really compare prices between a film and a digital camera:

The digital camera comes with a lifetime's worth of film and development.

That's a very good point, if you're comparing total life-cycle cost of using the product.

I was simply trying to get a handle on the cost of buying into Nikon's top-of-the-line camera in 1957 vs. now.

But it's certainly true that digital has made photography a somewhat less expensive activity (although film advocates are bound to point out that film comes with a lifetime supply of archival storage media, which for digital you have to buy separately and keep updated.)

 

[Jarle Aasland]

matching the tool for the task....

Exactly. Well said.

Personally, I've shot some 50.000 photos with my D2X so far. Admittedly, I would never take such an insane amount of photos with a film camera, but still.. Like I said: Apples and oranges.

Jarle