Camera prices then and Now

<p>Just read an article on Henry Scherer's site <a href="http://zeisscamera.com/about.shtml">Link</a> about prices for Contax cameras when they were new vs. todays prices. He says my IIA was sold for a price equivalent to $5000 of today's dollars. Of course to Leica owners that sounds almost reasonable ;-) It does tend to reinforce the idea that Leica's prices in general aren't exactly unprecedented, though I'd say that maybe the M9 should be going for $5000 rather than $8000. Anyway he has an interesting site with some interesting articles on Zeiss cameras.</p>

<p>I found his site when I bought two Contax IIA cameras, one black dial and on color dial. I actually dropped one of them on the pavement at a distance of 5 feet. I think it was the black dial. The color dial came pre-broken when I bought it. My usual very good camera repair person could repair them and did, but it was not really as smooth and right at it should have been. Those Contax cameras are bears to build correctly. I eventually sent them both over a period of years to Henry. It took forever, but they both came back working pretty much as they did when new (or as close as a 50 year old camera can, which is very for Henry). </p>

<p>Still interesting to remember just how expensive these cameras (and Leica's) were when new. I suspect the same people buying IIAs in the 50s would today be buying an M9 or possibly an S2.</p>

<p>If you correct for differences in the value of the money, early photography was very expensive.<br>

Years ago I compared prices from the 1890s to the 1960s on a number of items, and it was surprising how Sears or Ward's prices for the 'cheapest' and the most expensive item in a class remained fairly constant (in corrected dollars) for items where there was little technological change.</p>

<p>In items where technology (and especially mass production techniques) change, there is a different kind of development from the cheapest being more "primitive" and the most expensive often changing in more profound ways (e.g., a huge view camera to a finely engineered roll film camera).</p>

<p>I've used this before, but I think it bears repeating here,<br>

If airplane design had advanced as rapidly as computer technology, today you'd be able to buy an Airbus for $4000.<br>

And the Airbus would be the size of a suitcase.</p>

<p>We have a very mature camera industry today. I got a camera basically free in my iPhone 4s which would stun a 1950s camera maker with its quality. And who knows what they would think of the M9 (at least they'd recognize it as a camera). </p>

<p>On the other hand, when compared to the peak of the film days, say the M7 or the Nikon F5, cameras have gotten a LOT more expensive in the digital age. And since they carry their "film" within them, they have obsolescence problems that a Leica M2 never had. The equivalent of those old cameras today would be a Nikon DSLR that you could send to Nikon and have a new sensor put in every couple of years. That would be nice.</p>

<p>Yes, this really hits home. In 1969, Leica's catalog listed my M4 body for $309 and my (former) 35mm/2.8 Summaron for $132 for a total of $441; I purchased mine thru the Leica military rep. who offered Leica's wares aboard my ship in the Mediteranean, discounted to around $225. The month I bought it, my wife had to rely on her salary to provide grocery money. Using inflation adjusted numbers, Leica's selling price in today's dollars would have been around $2750.</p>

Ha! I bought a $30 open boxed camera and a $8 card this weekend...What's the 1969 cost? Plus film + development:)

<p>A while back, I came across a web site called WishbookWeb.com. It has pdf versions of many entire Sears and Wards catalogue's going back to about 1933. It is worth a look. The 1945 Sears catalogue has a "complete speed graphic outfit for the serious photographer" for $359.94. It is interesting how in later years like the 60s they have next to nothing in photo equipment. I guess it was much later that you would see all the store brand slr equipment.</p>

<p>To put things in perspective, here are some prices from Central Camera Company's 1960 catalog. Century Camera was a large photographic store in Chicago.</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Contax IIa w/f/2.0 Sonnar - $248</li>

<li>Contax IIa w/f/1.5 Sonnar - $268</li>

<li>Contax IIIa - add $20</li>

<li>Separately, the f/2.0 and f/1.5 Sonnars were $119 and $139, respectively</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Leica M3 - $270 body only, $399 w/f/2.0 Summicron, $468 w/f/1.4 Summilux</li>

<li>Leica IIIG - $163 body only, $292.50 w/f/2.0 Summicron</li>

</ul>

 

<ul>

<li>Exakta VXIIA - $230 body only w/metered pentaprism finder, $429.50 w/f/2.0 Biotar</li>

<li>Canon VI - $209.50 body only w/Canometer, $319.50 w/f/1.8 Canon, $419.50 w/f/1.2 Canon</li>

<li>Canonflex - $170 body only, $299.95 w/f/1.8 Super-Canomatic</li>

<li>Nikon SP - $245 body only, $329.50 w/f/2.0 Nikkor, $375 w/f/1.4 Nikkor, $544.50 w/f/1.1 Nikkor</li>

<li>Nikon F - $329.50 w/standard eyelevel finder & f/2.0 Nikkor</li>

<li>Kodak Retina IIIC (big C) - $175 w/f/2.0 Xenon</li>

<li>Argus C3 - $55.95 w/case & flash</li>

</ul>

<p>A straight conversion into "today's dollars" makes for interesting, but sometimes misleading, results. The list price of the 1960 Studebaker Lark 6 was $2,085 according to a Road & Track road test, or roughly five Leica M3s with Summicron lenses. What current model car and Leica should we use for our comparison?</p>

<p>Adjusting for inflation is really hard. They are based on a basket of goods. But is the true value to the consumer (utility function) of that basket of good really constant over the years? If it isn't, then you aren't really measuring inflation properly.<br /> Some of those goods used to be something you bought that lasted for 30 years. (Say a Maytag washing machine.) Now the basket includes a washing machine that you will be lucky to have last 8 years.<br /> On the other hand, someone from 1950 would be stunned and amazed by a car as modest as a 2012 Subaru. Cars are really a lot better in many ways. But, can you keep the same one for 20 years? <br /> Similarly, a 2012 flat-screen TV blows away a 1950 DuMont. But can you repair it economically when the CCFD behind the LCD dies? <br /> At one level, the US Government (Commerce Department?) tries to be honorable about choosing the basket each year, and substituting like for like. (There were no computers in the 1950 basket.) On the other hand, since many US government expenses are automatically adjusted for inflation, there's always a temptation to fudge down the quality of the basket.<br>

Of course, if you want to get dizzy, see how many ounces of gold would have bought those cameras in 1960, and see what that comes out to at today's price of $1000 an ounce. (Remember an ounce of gold was $35 then, and was less than $20 before the Great Depression.)</p>

 

<p>In 1972-1974 I worked in a K-Mart camera dept. (they were pretty respectable then). Our highest-priced SLR camera was a Miranda Sensorex EE with a f/1.4 prime lens, at $340. Our Minolta SRT-101 was around $250 with a 52mm Rokkor-X f/1.7 prime lens. Our only medium format camera, a Yashica MAT 124 sold at $104.00. A dept. mgr. pulled in about $120/week take-home salary. </p>

<p>In 1953 my Leica iiif with 50mm f/3.5 Elmar cost $150 in Japan. My pay was a little over $100 with a great benefits program as a junior U. S. Navy enlisted man. They were selling for $278 in the USA then. Japanese cameras and lenses were considerably cheaper. The PX was selling Argus C3 for maybe $30 or $40, and Weston light meters for maybe $30. The year before I had bought a used Mercury II for $20. Those had sold for over $60 new a few years earlier. As I recall, 35mm Kodachrome slides were about $.07 each. Photography could be expensive then!<br>

As for Sears catalogs showing little photo equipment in the 1960s, that was listed in a rather extensive seperate photo catalog.</p>

My first camera, early 1940's was a Univex (size 00 film) 19 cents at Rexall phatmacies.

<p>In 1948 my father bought a Leica IIIC, 50MM Summitar lens, leather case, and Imarec finder for about $440.00. That would be about $4500 today.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, someone from 1950 would be stunned and amazed by a car as modest as a 2012 Subaru. Cars are really a lot better in many ways. But, can you keep the same one for 20 years? </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Good point, John, as technology advances, even that based on the very ancient internal combustion engine concept. Our 1999 Suba is as smooth running as our (not so modest) 2010, and it cost more initially, in relative terms. There is little problem in keeping a Subaru 20 years if you treat it right, as is the case for some 1950/1960 cameras, but certainly not for all. Many don't know how to treat cars and cameras to keep them in shape, but then the human body is also not exempt from lack of exercise and care.</p>

<p>It depends on which inflation factor you use. RPI or incomes. The Leica III pre-war was three times the average weekly wage. </p>

<p>Measuing inflation is a hard thing to do for cameras. I have written about this problem for my local camera collecting club. I use the web site measuringworth.com as it provides a calculator USD and GBP over many years and uses much more than just CPI inflation. It is very useful.<br>

If you want to compare the value of a $468 Leica M3 w/50 'Lux in 1960 to 2010 there are all sorts of choices for inflation: CPI, Income, Relative Share of GDP, Cost of Money, etc. If you look at CPI the value is $3,450 after 50 years. If you look at income the value ranges from $3,970 (using the unskilled wage) or $4,870 (using production worker compensation). If you look at how the GDP of the US has grown you would need to have $12,900 in 2010 to have the same share of the US GDP as $468 in 1960. But if you want GDP per capita it is $7530. Cost-of-money is another consideration, that is, what would an investment in safe bonds have yielded over 50 years. Which I wish the website provided but does not. Each measure has its advantages. I argue that for the price of good production worker compensation is a good measure. As well, in the collectors market cost-of-money calculations are useful.</p>

<p>Well it really does not matter to me as I have a $400.00 rule. The way it works is if the camera cost more then that I do not buy it. I made that rule up when I bought a Nikon D200 brand new and soon realized that digital is as boring as watching paint dry. After that I have bought a few camera's and they stay within my price point. My F100 was $395.00 and recently I bought the Nikon FM10 and it was almost free. I prefer it to the F100 because it's basic and very light. Properly exposed film looks the same from a fancy auto everything camera and a simple manual camera. I think my future will be with the lowly FM10. It works great and it is completely inexpensive. Just toss it in the bicycle bag and hit the road and you are good to go. Anyway you can buy a FM10 in LN- condition for a hundred dollars. Not sure what a similar camera would cost in 1960. Since I have a D200 there would be no reason to buy another digital camera. It can sit in the closet just as good as a newer fancier model with more buttons. </p>

<p>My take on the price thing is different! Leica was expensive, always.<br>

Today cameras in the main are cheaper than they have ever been, considering the features and quality. This specially applies to the basic point and shoot digitals and includes phone cameras. The flagship cameras are more about prestige than need! The Nikon D4 and Canon 1d whatever have features truly only needed for sports photographers working for "Sports Illustrated".<br>

Leica M9 and all the newer Leicas, including film models are NOT built like those in the 50' or 60's. Looking at photos of inside Solms by those very partial, paid for testers,of new models, one cannot see a full factory! In fact Leicas are assembled in Portugal(Google confirmed that) FROM parts and units made elsewhere..I think the RF viewfinder unit comes from another source..Leica should show the actual manufacture if i and many others are wrong. Original Leica were made by craftsmen and assembled mostly from parts made in Wetzlar. I said most.. The self timer came from Rugen, manufacturer of "Cuckoo clocks".<br>

Was it better made? Not really.. i received an M3, new in box, without a working rangefinder, parts missing..In the box a guarantee with 3 signatures of the people who checked it! Wow! Assembly finished in South Africa, at a Leica workshop. Today there is only Solms, New Jersey so that the user loses out in easy access to a good service facility. Nikon has followed with similar, no longer making parts and service to 3rd party.A matter of total obsolescence.<br>

So while we can buy for $500 a DSLR way ahead of an M9, neither will be functioning like my M3-1967, my M2-1958.<br>

Comparing prices does not really work. The actual products are different, though they look similar.<br>

I was not given another M3..I still have it. That says more about my perseverance than the cameras great build. </p>

<p>Post war rates were established immediately with cigarettes being real money equivalents as early as May 1945 in Berlin. 1 cigarette was the equivalent of 120 marks, or 4oz of bread on the Black Market.</p>

<p>In 1945 Berlin, you could get a roll of film for 8 cigarettes. You could buy a Leica for 1 pig.</p>

<p>By 1946-1947, things were improving in Berlin but it was still <em>extremely</em> austere. Depending on what Zone you were in, your daily calories ranged from 875-1375 per day. Infant mortality was 90%. During this time you could get a Leica for 1 goose.</p>

<p>These Black Market prices may seem extremely low to some, but a goose or a pig is a fortune when you are starving.</p>

<p>Its hard to compare.<br>

In Australia in 1977 an Olympus OM1n with a 50mm f1.8 was $200. Its about the same today. Same with manual FE2's and FM2n's. Zero actual depreciation, ignoring inflation.<br>

When I was an apprentice in 1969 the price of a new Porsche 911S was $22k and a Ferrari 330GTC was $32k. Sounds cheap but I was earning $8 pw back then and I could fill the tank on the car for $3. Petrol was cheaper than water. That couldn't last.</p>