PDA

View Full Version : You think gear is expensive now?



Michael Graves
1-Sep-2012, 17:01
So I got my hands on a few magazines from 1948. I hadn't thought the ads would interest me that much. I mean, what am I going to do? Call in an order? But then again, it got me thinking.

What did it cost to be an amateur photographer back then, right after the war and all? I went to the US Government Inflation Calculator and did a few comparisons.

A brand new Exacta VX with a 50mm 2.8 Tessar - $325.00. In 2012 dollars, that is like one of us spending $3,089.00.
An Auto-Rollei TLR with a 2.8 Tessar - $259.00. Works out out to $2,747.75 in today's dollars. (I found it odd that the Exacta sold for more than a Rolleiflex.)
A 4x5 Pacemaker Speed Graphic - $279.50. Or about the same as $2,657.00 today.
On the lower end of the scale, that old Argus CIII (The Brick) that we all make so much fun of? $74.50. Not quite as much as $710.00.

On the other hand, 100 feet of Super XX 35mm film was $3.50. I can't find 100 feet of bulk film for $33.50 anywhere I look. I don't know how accurate that inflation calculator is. But it is pretty clear that someone saved up a long time for decent camera. But once they had it, it was pretty reasonable to shoot.

C. D. Keth
1-Sep-2012, 17:38
That's interesting. I remember reading in Edward Weston's daybooks about him taking one of his lenses into Mexico City to sell it to pay bills and the amount he expected to get was in the range of several month's rent.

C. D. Keth
1-Sep-2012, 18:10
By the way, I've noticed something similar with firearms. I have a sharps target rifle made in 1875. When it was new, it sold for $165. That is about $3200 in today's money, which really isn't bad for the premier American target rifle of the day. A serious target shooter now might easily sink $10K into his rifle. The regular model sharps- the everyman's model if you will- cost $75. That's like $1500 where you can get an "everyman" model hunting rifle now for $500. It seems like the regular models of things had a higher threshold for cost since manufacturing was lower quantity but the higher models had a lower threshold since people seemingly had less tolerance for price gauging for upper class items.

If you think of that in camera terms today you can get a canon point and shoot for $200 or a leica X2 for $2K. The difference between the cheap stuff and the high class stuff is far, far more.

Jim Jones
1-Sep-2012, 18:39
The list price for a Leica IIIf with the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar in 1953 was $278, almost three month's pay for a junior Navy enlisted man. I bought mine overseas for $149. The MSRP for a Crown Graphic with 135mm Optar was $503 in 1970. No wonder some of them show little abuse. However, there were bargains in those years. My Government model .45 ACP in nearly new condition cost $40 in the late 1950s. After considerable use and with a pitted bore, it brought $700 at a gun show a few years ago.

jp
1-Sep-2012, 18:52
Comparatively cheap LF gear is why I'm into it. I couldn't afford this stuff in the 80/90's. Now I've bought cameras and lenses (once in a while) for what they sold new for 60-100 years ago without the inflation calculated. I've bought the automat rollei that cost $250 new for <$250 in 2011, the $200 speed graphic for $200 in 2010, etc...

I think our present film (from Ilford/Fuji/Kodak) is worth a lot more $33/100ft; the quality, small grain, consistency is comparatively amazing.

goamules
1-Sep-2012, 19:11
This is why photographers in the 40s-70s probably only had one camera. Today, they are so cheap we can buy them by the wheelbarrow load.

jp
1-Sep-2012, 19:14
And the F4s I paid $2000 for in 1989 is worth $200 now.

Jon Shiu
1-Sep-2012, 22:41
My father bought a Simmons Omega 120 camera around 1954 in New York City for $350, which would be about $3000 in today's dollars. That's amazing!

Jon

Joseph Dickerson
2-Sep-2012, 08:49
Interesting...When I got out of college (mid 60s) I went to work in a camera shop. If memory serves, we sold the Pentax/Honeywell Spotmatic for $279 with a 50mm f/1.8 lens. Seemed like a lot, I guess it really was.

JD

Kirk Gittings
2-Sep-2012, 08:53
It is interesting. I remember really struggling-saving for a couple of years to buy a new Mamiya C330, but I never thought of making the comparison via inflation with today's cameras.

Ben Syverson
2-Sep-2012, 09:28
Then again, only a dedicated enthusiast or pro would buy an Exakta or TLR—most people would settle for a Brownie or similar cheap camera.

I see lots of tourists with 5D-series cameras and $1700 L lenses, so I don't think much has changed.

benrains
2-Sep-2012, 10:19
On the other hand, 100 feet of Super XX 35mm film was $3.50. I can't find 100 feet of bulk film for $33.50 anywhere I look. I don't know how accurate that inflation calculator is. But it is pretty clear that someone saved up a long time for decent camera. But once they had it, it was pretty reasonable to shoot.

FWIW, you can buy 100-ft bulk rolls of Harman's Kentmere 100 and 400 speed b&w films from Adorama for only 29.95$US.

Ivan J. Eberle
2-Sep-2012, 14:03
For many/most things, inflation adjusted indexes seem suspect. Last night I had a beef frank for $7.95. Tin advertisement on the wall from 30's/40's for a 15-cent hotdog.
>53X as much now... A fountain Coke is now $2.50 v. 5 cents.
Photography can look downright affordable today by comparison. A new Linhof might only be 20X as much as in the 40's.

Frank Petronio
2-Sep-2012, 14:48
I don't think that inflation calculator works as well for cameras, most are meant for staple items, cars, houses. Using "a month's pay" is a better comparison, especially if you can compare similar jobs over the years.

Considering a 4x5 Ebony or Canon 5D3 or other nice camera is going to be in the $3-4k range, that jives with a steady tradesperson's or younger technical worker's monthly salary too.

John Kasaian
2-Sep-2012, 15:16
And the F4s I paid $2000 for in 1989 is worth $200 now.
I'd give you $200 for an F4, but I couldn't afford the jet fuel !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Yso73uIG4

cyrus
2-Sep-2012, 17:17
I'm guessing the Exakta was one of the first 35mm cameras so it would be naturally costlier than the Rolleiflex because it was the cool and modern and convenient etc

Greg Y
2-Sep-2012, 18:29
Joseph, ...Seems like those stories you heard a long time ago....walking 5 mile to school....uphill both ways. I graduated High School in '67 and worked the summer in the shipping dept of a dress factory. 50 hours a week for $50 dollars. A year later while a university I bought my first Leica, an M2 for $175.

Brian Ellis
2-Sep-2012, 18:30
I think my digital camera and lenses were expensive because they were.

John Koehrer
3-Sep-2012, 12:00
And the F4s I paid $2000 for in 1989 is worth $200 now.

But the price new not used would be almost $3500.

Joseph Dickerson
3-Sep-2012, 14:03
Joseph, ...Seems like those stories you heard a long time ago....walking 5 mile to school....uphill both ways. I graduated High School in '67 and worked the summer in the shipping dept of a dress factory. 50 hours a week for $50 dollars. A year later while a university I bought my first Leica, an M2 for $175.

Yeah, I get as much for playing a wedding now as union scale was for a six night gig back then...I don't miss the good ole days all that much. Wish I could still get a nice Rollei 2.8F for $300 bucks though. :rolleyes:

JD

Steve Hamley
3-Sep-2012, 18:11
Michael,

Interesting,thanks for posting.

Cheers, Steve

Drew Bedo
3-Sep-2012, 19:33
In 1978 I bought a Leica M-3 body for $250. In the mid to late 90s these were trading at ~ $1000! Today its something like $500 or less.

There will come a time when our grandchildren will throw these things into the re-cycle bin.

Ben Syverson
3-Sep-2012, 20:14
An M3 will still be a great tool even after Kodak stops making film... B&W film will never truly go away.

The lenses, on the other hand, have for the most part increased in value.

Jim Andrada
3-Sep-2012, 20:51
Went to my 50th college reunion a few months ago. Someone joked that we had to pay more for the week than we had paid for a year's tuition which has gone from around $1k to around $60k

eddie
5-Sep-2012, 07:11
Look at it this way. A top of the line digital SLR camera with a medium long fast lens will run you more than $5k easily. And d not forget then u need a computer to access the images. Jow much will that cost?

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 07:16
Look at it this way. A top of the line digital SLR camera with a medium long fast lens will run you more than $5k easily. And d not forget then u need a computer to access the images. Jow much will that cost?

Don't forget a printer if you want prints, software, and the learning curve. I looked into the cost of replacing my not-huge 35mm outfit with a DSLR of comparable quality, lenses, plus all the other neccesary equipment. The cost is comparable to a new car. I have less than $1000 tied up in my Nikon gear.

DrTang
5-Sep-2012, 08:00
and what will these digital wonders be worth in 10 or 20 years?

is anyone even 'collecting' digital camera stuff like they do film camera stuff?

there are only a couple I could name that might be worth putting away.. and certainly not for use

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 08:42
In 1978 I bought a Leica M-3 body for $250. In the mid to late 90s these were trading at ~ $1000! Today its something like $500 or less.

There will come a time when our grandchildren will throw these things into the re-cycle bin.

I bought a clean M3 ds with a 50mm Summarit and leather case for $200 in 1987 or 88.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2012, 09:22
Don't forget a printer if you want prints, software, and the learning curve. I looked into the cost of replacing my not-huge 35mm outfit with a DSLR of comparable quality, lenses, plus all the other neccesary equipment. The cost is comparable to a new car. I have less than $1000 tied up in my Nikon gear.

What about your enlarger, developing tanks, paper, chemistry, enlarger lenses, safe light, timers, thermometers, etc.?

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 09:31
What about your enlarger, developing tanks, paper, chemistry, enlarger lenses, safe light, timers, thermometers, etc.?

I use a D2 Omega for everything up to 4x5. The $1000 includes the 35mm specific darkroom stuff - a lens, negative carrier, some tanks.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2012, 10:51
I use a D2 Omega for everything up to 4x5. The $1000 includes the 35mm specific darkroom stuff - a lens, negative carrier, some tanks.

A reasonable printer is not very expensive, especially if you get it with a DSLR and lens like the promo Canon runs on the 9XXX printers periodically - some deals those printers are basically free. Then you are down to ink and paper. Not much different then chemistry and paper.

Roger Cole
5-Sep-2012, 11:16
On the other hand, 100 feet of Super XX 35mm film was $3.50. I can't find 100 feet of bulk film for $33.50 anywhere I look. I don't know how accurate that inflation calculator is. But it is pretty clear that someone saved up a long time for decent camera. But once they had it, it was pretty reasonable to shoot.


FWIW, you can buy 100-ft bulk rolls of Harman's Kentmere 100 and 400 speed b&w films from Adorama for only 29.95$US.

And Freestyle, who is always more expensive on film than New York stores unless it's their re-branded stuff, has it for $35.99, and their store brand re-branded Foma 100 for $33.99 and 200 and 400 for $36.99.

I haven't shot Kentmere but from reports it's probably as good as name brand films from one generation back, and it's coated by Ilford/Harmon so the QC should be excellent. It's probably better than Supper-XX from those days (in objective terms, not necessarily in taste.) I have shot the Foma though only the 400. It's a fun film that's grainier than modern films but again, probably as fine grained and sharp than any film of that era.

But Supper-XX was from the biggest film maker of the day, not the cheapest film on the market. I think the general point that film was cheaper holds.

It's interesting the comments about guns - I've been a shooter off and on but never a collector and haven't priced much except that I've recently looked at .22 pistols and revolvers a bit, wanting something cheap to shoot and unintimidating to start my wife shooting. But other hobbies - well, it varies. The aviation boards are full of tales of woe about how the middle class is being or has been priced out of flying and how the prices of everything are, even adjusted for inflation, so much more than in previous years. The figures prove it too. That $25,000 you would have paid for a (new) Cessna 172 around 1970 is around $145,000 now, where a new 172 now costs $307k. No one buys those except flight schools who can depreciate them, though, because that money will buy you a much more capable modern airplane though it will be a few years old, or more capability than most private pilots can handle in an older used plane. That $25k new 1970 172, if well maintained and in decent condition with a mid time engine and upgraded to modern but basic radios, will probably sell now for more like $35k. And since they last and last with the right maintenance that's what people buy. But the maintenance costs and aggravation are more, and they are building few to replace those that are worn out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/businessaviation/2012/08/29/did-economics-and-politics-cut-the-heart-out-of-personal-aviation/

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 12:27
A reasonable printer is not very expensive, especially if you get it with a DSLR and lens like the promo Canon runs on the 9XXX printers periodically - some deals those printers are basically free. Then you are down to ink and paper. Not much different then chemistry and paper.

Sooner or later, I will probably get a digital scanner and printer. However it will be a long time, if ever, before I replace any film gear with digital.

Michael Graves
5-Sep-2012, 12:34
What about your enlarger, developing tanks, paper, chemistry, enlarger lenses, safe light, timers, thermometers, etc.?

Can't speak for most of this, but they list a stainless steel developing tank with your choice of a 120/620 or a 35mm reel at $8.95... which translates to $105.15. A spare reel or one of the other size is only $3.95 more (or $46.41).

al olson
5-Sep-2012, 12:57
The list price for a Leica IIIf with the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar in 1953 was $278, almost three month's pay for a junior Navy enlisted man. I bought mine overseas for $149. The MSRP for a Crown Graphic with 135mm Optar was $503 in 1970. . . .

As I recall I bought my first Super Graphic in 1957 with 135 Optar for $350. The strobe (made by Heiland I believe) for $150. The double-sided film holders were around $10.00. I could only afford six. Panatomic-X was $4.95 for a box of 25 (still have the box with the price tag.

Also bought my Retina IIIc in 1955 for $180 (wholesale, I believe) plus another $25 for the nice leather case with chrome trim. Money was saved for its purchase while working in housing construction for $0.65/hour. Looks like it cost me eight weeks of labor to buy the camera.

Bob Salomon
5-Sep-2012, 13:49
Can't speak for most of this, but they list a stainless steel developing tank with your choice of a 120/620 or a 35mm reel at $8.95... which translates to $105.15. A spare reel or one of the other size is only $3.95 more (or $46.41).

But imported stainless steel or Nikkor? Or maybe Hewes from the UK or Kinderman from Germany compared to Asian back then? Made a big difference in price.

E. von Hoegh
5-Sep-2012, 13:51
The list price for a Leica IIIf with the 50mm f/3.5 Elmar in 1953 was $278, almost three month's pay for a junior Navy enlisted man. I bought mine overseas for $149. The MSRP for a Crown Graphic with 135mm Optar was $503 in 1970. No wonder some of them show little abuse. However, there were bargains in those years. My Government model .45 ACP in nearly new condition cost $40 in the late 1950s. After considerable use and with a pitted bore, it brought $700 at a gun show a few years ago.

A 1970 Toyota Corolla cost $1800.

Corran
5-Sep-2012, 17:16
Well back when I started I bought a Nikon D90 for $900!! So there!

;)

Ivan J. Eberle
6-Sep-2012, 07:49
Two national magazine covers in the 70's or 80's could have bought you a Linhof Technikardan or Tech V or a 400mm f/2.8 Canon FD. One major ad could have built out your studio.

Today?