Monkees and Nikons - RFs in 1968 news photo

V

VinceC

Veteran
Local time
12:13 AM
Joined
Jun 14, 2005
Messages
2,968
I posted this in another thread but found it fascinating enough to highlight with a thread of its own. The AP picture shows the U.S. music group The Monkees in Tokyo in 1968. The official photographers kneeling in front have Leicas but nearly everyone in the press gaggle has a Nikon Nikon SP or a Nikon F.
attachment.php


Here's a closer view:

attachment.php
 
Two reasons..
The Nikon F and RF easily available!
The Leica would have been difficult to obtain..
and the fact that Nikon would also have been way less expensive.
 
Agree the Nikons were easily availabe and that Japanese photographers preferred Japanese cameras, but not sure there was such a cost difference compared to Leicas. Also, by that time (1968) Nikon F SLRs were the benchmark professional news camera. A similar picture in the U.S. would have included almost exlusively Nikon Fs with possibly one or two more Leicas.
 
Don't know about 1968, but in the late '50s an M2 with a 50/2.8 Elmar was $276.00 USD. A Nikon F with a 50/2 in 1959 was $359.50 USD. Can't speak about the prices in Japan at that time.
 
In the front row, looks like the guy on the left has a canonet (original), the guy in the middle has a Canon 7 with aux finder and the guy on the right has a Canon P.
Behind the Canon 7 guy there's a guy with an SLR with aux finder -- Nikon F + 21mm?

That's what I see anyways...
 
I found there was not only Nikon cameras, a Canon 7 was also used by a journalist. Look at the first line, the guy who kneeling down between the black suit and white shirt was holding a Canon 7 with a 28mm viewfinder.
 
Many news photographers in the '60s preferred TLRs. Large negative, square image lent itself to newspaper layout styles of that era and could be cropped for horizontals/verticles.
 
Knowing what a Nikon F weighs, I'm amazed that these guys draped several around their neck and thought nothing of it. Necks of steel I guess.

Jim B.
 
Vince Lupo said:
Don't know about 1968, but in the late '50s an M2 with a 50/2.8 Elmar was $276.00 USD. A Nikon F with a 50/2 in 1959 was $359.50 USD. Can't speak about the prices in Japan at that time.
Click to expand...

Wow, in 1960/1, I think I was making about $74 a month in the US Army. In early 1961 I completed Jump School so I got an extra $55 a month. I think I got maybe $5 more a month when I made PFC.

By the time I got through the pay line, having bought a $25 savings bond, contributed to Army Emergency Relief, and one or two more things, I would have had probably $25 less.

I didn't have to contribute to those things, but life wouldn't have been the same if I didn't. I never did like KP. :D :p

It would have taken me a long time save up for an M2 and lens, even if I could survive without spending a dime on myself.
 
mooge said:
In the front row, looks like the guy on the left has a canonet (original), the guy in the middle has a Canon 7 with aux finder and the guy on the right has a Canon P.
Behind the Canon 7 guy there's a guy with an SLR with aux finder -- Nikon F + 21mm?

That's what I see anyways...
Click to expand...

The two guys on the left look like policemen. Probably lucky to afford the RF he has. Or maybe not, looks like some scrambled eggs on his cap bill.
 
I'm assuming that the prices cited by Vince Lupo were civilian, though. I have an uncle who was in the Army in the mid-1960s & he tells me that stuff like cameras & wristwatches sold at the PX for considerably less than stateside, especially for what would be considered imports back home (import duties being higher & there being no Walmart, etc., back then). Nikon Fs were still 1 of the more expensive cameras, of course.

oftheherd said:
Wow, in 1960/1, I think I was making about $74 a month in the US Army. In early 1961 I completed Jump School so I got an extra $55 a month. I think I got maybe $5 more a month when I made PFC.

By the time I got through the pay line, having bought a $25 savings bond, contributed to Army Emergency Relief, and one or two more things, I would have had probably $25 less.

I didn't have to contribute to those things, but life wouldn't have been the same if I didn't. I never did like KP. :D :p

It would have taken me a long time save up for an M2 and lens, even if I could survive without spending a dime on myself.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom