jyl
Just learning to focus
What did that camera cost new?
This is from an interesting thread on photo.net
"These prices are from a 1961 Japan Visitor's Guide. All the advertisers push the "Save Money with No Tax". Prices are in U.S dollars. Aside from the no tax, I don't know if the prices were cheaper in Japan or the same as the States. Here are some examples:
Nikon F with 58mm 1.4 cost $179.00
Nikon SP Rangefinder with 58mm 1.4 cost $190.00
Canonflex RP Rangefinder with 50mm 1.8 cost $112.00
Canon P Rangefinder with same cost $131.00
Minolta SR-1 slr with 55mm 2.0 cost $90.00
Minolta rangefinder with 45mm 2.8 cost $42.00
Fujica SE rangefinder with 45mm 1.9 cost $61.00
Bronica 2 1/4 med. format slr with back waistlevel finder 75mm 2.8 lens cost $315.00
Canonet cost $50.00"
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AnaE
This is from an interesting thread on photo.net
"These prices are from a 1961 Japan Visitor's Guide. All the advertisers push the "Save Money with No Tax". Prices are in U.S dollars. Aside from the no tax, I don't know if the prices were cheaper in Japan or the same as the States. Here are some examples:
Nikon F with 58mm 1.4 cost $179.00
Nikon SP Rangefinder with 58mm 1.4 cost $190.00
Canonflex RP Rangefinder with 50mm 1.8 cost $112.00
Canon P Rangefinder with same cost $131.00
Minolta SR-1 slr with 55mm 2.0 cost $90.00
Minolta rangefinder with 45mm 2.8 cost $42.00
Fujica SE rangefinder with 45mm 1.9 cost $61.00
Bronica 2 1/4 med. format slr with back waistlevel finder 75mm 2.8 lens cost $315.00
Canonet cost $50.00"
http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00AnaE
back alley
IMAGES
canon p w/ lens for $131.
oh that hurts.
oh that hurts.
doubs43
Well-known
Lets put this in perspective just a little. In 1961 I worked after school in a grocery store. I averaged 25 hours per week and took home about $35.00! That $131 camera would have cost me almost four weeks' wages...... NOT a sum to be sniffed at!
Walker
Walker
O
Oldprof
Guest
backalley photo said:
According to "Canon User" in the Photo.net thread that would be $827.18 in today's dollars. Does that make you feel better?
back alley
IMAGES
a little.
of course in '61 i was only 11 so 10 bucks was a big deal to me.
also 827.18, is that the inflation conversion number or what he thinks it would sell for toady? that is way outta whack for today's price, me thinks.
joe
of course in '61 i was only 11 so 10 bucks was a big deal to me.
also 827.18, is that the inflation conversion number or what he thinks it would sell for toady? that is way outta whack for today's price, me thinks.
joe
O
Oldprof
Guest
backalley photo said:
Canon User on Photo.net said it was the "inflation adjusted price," not the price for a used one on today's market. But I can't vouch for his accuracy - don't know his methodology.
Last edited by a moderator:
jyl
Just learning to focus
I assume he multiplied the 1961 price by the cumulative consumer price inflation for the period 1961-present.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Oldprof said:According to "Canon User" in the Photo.net thread that would be $827.18 in today's dollars. Does that make you feel better?
That's pretty close to the figure I got. I came up with $816.23 using the NewsEngin Cost-of-Living Calculator (for the "U.S. City Average" setting.)
Feel free to do whichever others you like. For example, $1,183.85 ($190 in 1961) sounds like a pretty good buy on a Nikon SP with 50/1.4, especially considering what Nikon wants for its new repro version!
Those are pretty mouth-watering prices in today's terms, but applying the change in the value of the dollar throws some ice-water on it!
In the same vein, but moving up to 1967, I was making a starting wage at Boeing of $118/week, and in July I bought a used button-rewind M2 body for $150. The new 35 Summicron (8-element) was $163.50. The next April I sprung for a new 90 Tele-Elmarit (fat) for $196. These were camera-store prices. Sounds cheap now but I had to dig deep then.
In the same vein, but moving up to 1967, I was making a starting wage at Boeing of $118/week, and in July I bought a used button-rewind M2 body for $150. The new 35 Summicron (8-element) was $163.50. The next April I sprung for a new 90 Tele-Elmarit (fat) for $196. These were camera-store prices. Sounds cheap now but I had to dig deep then.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
Prices are relative to income, of course. But what I find interesting is, the price difference between, e.g., a Nikon SP and a Bronica setup. The 190:315 ratio is far more than REVERSED now.
Those are 1961 dollars; I have a 1956 ad for the Nikon S2 with 5cm F1.4: $350 through EPOI.
The Nikon SP prices have been driven up by collectors and low production numbers. Only 22,000 or so SP's were produced as opposed to almost 250,000 M3's. A mint M3 will fetch about the same as a "beater" Nikon SP. Now that the SP-2005 is out, count on some user SP's hitting the market. Not mine though!
The Nikon SP prices have been driven up by collectors and low production numbers. Only 22,000 or so SP's were produced as opposed to almost 250,000 M3's. A mint M3 will fetch about the same as a "beater" Nikon SP. Now that the SP-2005 is out, count on some user SP's hitting the market. Not mine though!
N
nwcanonman
Guest
At that time, in JR high, I worked after school sweeping the local pharmacy 6 days a week for $5, cash - no deductions.
I thought I was rich!
Luckily dad let me use his Polaroid and box cameras, didn't get one of my own till much later.
I thought I was rich!
Luckily dad let me use his Polaroid and box cameras, didn't get one of my own till much later.