Original prices of the Nikon RF's

[Sonnar2]

Hi folks,

I've found a 1956' price-tag for the Nikon S2 in the Sears-catalogue:
299.50 USD with the Nikkor-H 2/5cm - 349.50 USD with the Nikkor-S 1.4/5cm (Contax IIa was just 50 USD higher, Leica M3 with Summicron was 447 USD at that time)

How were the SP and S3 priced originally?

AFAIK there was a general price decrease in RF cameras towards the end of the 1950's, even with Leica. A Canon P was sold for 249 USD or even less with a 1.8/50 lens. Contrary to that, high quality SLR's kept their level or even increased (Nikon F black with Photomic and f/1.4 lens in 1962: 436.50 USD).

kind regards, Frank

 

[xayraa33]

from my copy of the April 1959 Modern Photography mag.
SP w 50/1.4 = $ 415
S3 w 50/1.4 = $ 355

the 50/2 was $ 45 cheaper on each model

mind you this was list price .

 

[Sonnar2]

A lot money for these days..!

 

[xayraa33]

when the avg. factory worker made $60 to $ 75 a week , yes that is a lot of money.
Joe Ehreinreich did not offer too many discount deals to the U.S. Nikon dealers either.

 

[VinceC]

According to a Consumer Price Index calculator at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, $415 in 1959 would be worth $2,902 today. $355 would be worth $2,482.

$299.50 in 1956 would be worth $2,241 today.
The $447 Leica would cost $3,344 in today's dollars.

 

[xayraa33]

the B&H S3 2000 kit price today is about equal to the 1959 retail price of the original S3.
our Japanese friends can actually buy a new S3 cheaper at this very moment than an american buyer could in 1959.

 

[Stanton]

I bought a brand new S-2 with a Nikkor f1.4 for $175 in 1958. Henry's, a big photo shop in Los Angeles was closing them out because of the SP and S-3. Wonderful dea!! It and a 35mm, 135mm, and viewfinder, case, etc. was stolen in a house burglary in about 1979. I'd still like to find it. I've since bought an SP and an S-2, both well used. But I certainly remember that orignal black dial S-2 and curse the burglar regularly. Dave

 

[jonmanjiro]

It needs that high level of trained workers and engineering, that it can be done in Japan, in Germany, maybe in the US, but no way in Mexico or China.

I cannot comment about Mexico, but can you really say that about China?

Some of the stuff coming out of today's China is very high tech and very high quality! I have no doubt at all China could churn out high quality photographic equipment if they wanted to! But why would they want to? The market it already sown up by several well established players, some of which even have factories in China.

 

[kuvvy]

Just wanted to say there is an article in this weeks Amateur Photographer magazine on Nikon RFs. Not read it as yet myself.

 

[VinceC]

>> but no way in Mexico or China.<<

Umm, that sounds a lot like the "made in Japan" mentality of people in the 1950s (those people outside of Japan, anyway).

 

[Sonnar2]

Some of the stuff coming out of today's China is very high tech and very high quality!

In which kind of "old" (mechanical) technique China is superb? The last products I bought with a "Made in China"-tag were DVD-players, trailer tires, cooking pots, wodden toys and children's books (German written). No hightech.

But I will not buy a Chinese power-saw, or car, or machine tools.

I have a few problems buying Chinese products in a great amount. First, the workers in China aren't free people (compared to German, Japanese, or US workers after WWII). Second, Chinese industry don't respect intellectual property of foreign companies, thus buying their products will probably jeorpardize worker's jobs in my neighborhodd. Third, Chinese industry polutes the environment in a extreme matter, thus jeopardizing the survival of future generations even in the part of the world where I live...

 

[jonmanjiro]

In which kind of "old" (mechanical) technique China is superb? The last products I bought with a "Made in China"-tag were DVD-players, trailer tires, cooking pots, wodden toys and children's books (German written). No hightech.

But I will not buy a Chinese power-saw, or car, or machine tools.

I have a few problems buying Chinese products in a great amount. First, the workers in China aren't free people (compared to German, Japanese, or US workers after WWII). Second, Chinese industry don't respect intellectual property of foreign companies, thus buying their products will probably jeorpardize worker's jobs in my neighborhodd. Third, Chinese industry polutes the environment in a extreme matter, thus jeopardizing the survival of future generations even in the part of the world where I live...

Ummm looks we've strayed fairly far off topic ......

I think I'd better refrain from any more comments here and leave the last word with you.

Edited: oops, well ok just one more word!

 

[Sonnar2]

what's about Guantanamo, Fred?

 

[VinceC]

To be fair, Sonnar2 specifically said "post-World War II"

Leica, of course, has a pretty clean reputation in this area ... Leitz family helped Jewish families emigrate (when the US would not allow refugees to enter because of race-based exclusion quotas) by pretending to hire them, then transferring them to overseas branch offices.

I suppose Soviet cameras also have a dicey moral legacy. However, I've always been intrigued by the very earliest FEDs, the ones made in the '30s by Ukrainian orphans.

 

[mackigator]

Time machine

Time machine

I'm scanning old family photos at the moment and that's exactly what we all need - a time machine. At least I have the pictures, and they are certainly priceless in my small market!

Ok, I just found an inflation adjusting calculator (it uses the consumer price index - http://www.westegg.com/inflation/). According to it, $400 in 1959 is equal to $2693.79 in 2006, the last year the calc would adjust for. If each mint camera is worth $15,000 (today's dollars), we're still doing pretty well. That is an 8% return compounded over 47 years (http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator/present_value_calculator.htm).

 

[VinceC]

Market factors -- supply and demaind -- play a factor here. Mint black Nikon SPs are worth $15,000 today because of their fantastic rarity. If you had 100 mint black Nikon SPs, then they would not be so rare. Even if you did not divulge that you are in possession of 100 of these sets, as you gradually sold them, the price would gradually go down. The first buyer at $15,000 would be buying on scarcity. But I'll bet the 100th buyer would be paying less than $4,000.

 

[VinceC]

>>need some workers divert some of the Ukrainians from their forced vacation in Siberia, and call them "orphans."<<

More likely, they were the children of those sent to Siberia.

But teenagers, when enthused, can have an infectious can-do attitude toward things. In the 1930s, it wasn't at all clear that Communism would not work, and they patriotically set out to show the world they could build a Leica for the masses. Once they succeeded, the bureaucrats took over. That kind of stuff happens everywhere, even in New York.

 

[rxmd]

If ever we found out how a time machine works and make wrong usage of it some kind of alien police will appear to tell. Thanks Stanislaw Lem who found out.

Unless the Thursday version of ourselves hits us over the head first, that is. 😉

Philipp

 

[VinceC]

I think there weren't any original black SPs.

The NikonWebmaster has been traveling back through time and has been selling SP-2005s to people back in 1957 in order to create a demand. He has then been reselling them over the decades at great profit. The jig was up last year, however, when the SP-2005 was finally introduced in "real time," thereby undercutting the prices.

 

[xayraa33]

what is really rare is the original Canon F1 body in chrome.