A question on 35mm SLR users.

[GRHazelton]

What did rich lawyers use?

What did nerdy engineers use?

Well, my Father earned his PhD from U Michigan in chemical engineering. He used an AsahiFlex IIa with a 35mm, the 50mm f3.5 and the 83mm f1.9. With extension tubes and bellows he took some excellent wild flower closeups. Since through the lens metering was still in the future a pocket slide rule and an exposure meter were essential in determining the basic exposure and calculating the compensation for the tubes or bellows. He used Kodachrome or Ektachrome, since the negative color media and prints of the time were inferior. I have his kit; I should send it to Eric and get that old warrior running again.

 

[Jim Jones]

In the middle 60s Sears published a photographic equipment catalog in addition to the huge general catalog. I used it then while overseas.

The PX in Japan in 1952-1953 had a variety of quality Japanese cameras: Canon, Nikon, Nicca, Leotax, Minolta, etc. After a LTM Minolta rangefinder camera proved unreliable, I tried a Nicca and then a Leica iiif. At least the five element Tessar derivative lens on the Minolta was as sharp as Kodachrome 25 film. I don't remember any Japanese SLRs at that time, although mirror boxes for rangefinder cameras were available. A single junior enlisted man had enough money for his choice of these cameras if the many other distractions available in Japan didn't lure him away from photography. The Leica iiif with a 50mm Elmar cost $150, a little over a month's pay.

The quality of Japanese cameras and other products varied widely. Conservative engineering and meticulous manufacturing gave Leica an advantage over its Japanese competitors, but at a price. Traditional Japanese craftsmen demanded and got some fine hand tools. Too many American tool distributers shopped for price, not quality, and got what they deserved.

 

[wiltw]

what were the non-professional camera users like? Were they wealthy or were the SLRs affordable for the common man?

The typical midrange SLR in the mid-1960s had an MSRP of $269 with 50mm f/1.8 lens. In the mid-1970s, pricing to the end user had relaxed from the rigid pricing of the 1960s, and you could buy an OM-1 with f/1.8 lens for $225 from NYC mail order ads, or with 50mm f/1.2 lens for $350.

In 1975, the median household income in the US was $227 per week ($11800 annual). Corroborating my recollection, one fellow writes, "I found a 1976 ad from 47th St. Photo in NYC and an OM-1MD body, 50mm f1.8 lens, 135mm f2.8 lens, 1A filter, and lens shade cost $319.50." and another guy states that in 1975 he paid $295 for a black OM-1 with 50mm f/1.4 lens.

So an SLR was 1.2 weeks of 1975 wages. In 1975 a gallon of gas was $0.57, or a week's wages purchased 398 gallons of gas, so an SLR was 472 gallons of gas.
In 2015, a week's wages was $1087 ($56515 annual) and gasoline was $2.40 per gallon; so an SLR today would be $1300 if scaling wages, and $1133 if scaling gasoline equivalence.

The advertising for the Canon AE-1 on TV and in popular press made it the springboard of the 'everyman camera', even with a NYC $270 price with 50mm f/1.8 lens.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What did nerdy engineers use?

In the 1960's and 1970's, Alpas.

 

[MattKing]

What did rich lawyers use?

What did nerdy engineers use?

I don't know whether there would be any consensus about what camera the lawyers would have used, but I'm confident that they would have vigorously defended their use!
And as for nerdy engineers - are there any non-nerdy engineers?

 

[removed-user-1]

In the late 60s and throughout the 70s, what were the non-professional camera users like? Were they wealthy or were the SLRs affordable for the common man? What subjects did they shoot? Was it predominantly amateurs or was it families documenting holidays and events?.

Both my parents were interested in photography, and I grew up in the 70s with a very skewed perspective. I thought everybody had a home darkroom and several nice cameras.

Mom was an art student and had an Argus C3 35mm rangefinder and a Yashica 635 medium-format TLR, as well as several snapshot and instant cameras; she studied photography in the 60s. She never saw the need for a 35mm SLR.

Dad was in the USAF, or attached as a civilian consultant, for much of the 60s. Like many servicemen, he came back from Japan with a Nikon and a bag full of lenses and filters. He worked in electronics for forty years, and many of his colleagues had the same general experience. We weren't wealthy but were comfortable enough, I guess.

As I grew up, I was surprised to learn that most of my friends' families just had a Polaroid or some variety of Kodak. Certainly nobody else I knew had a darkroom, although a local pharmacist I knew had a Chinon 35mm SLR, as well as an Omega B66 color enlarger that he'd never even unboxed. Eventually he gave that enlarger to me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Interesting thread, especially the mention of MDs and dentists. I remember in the mid 1960s shopping at Richmond Camera in Richmond, Virginia (still in business!) the premier shop in the city. A well-dressed man came in with a Hasselblad and asked the counter man to unload the camera, keep the film for processing, and load a fresh roll in. The counter people (all men as I recall) were well-informed and very accommodating. After the customer left I chatted with the counter man, bought something, and expressed surprise that the owner of a serious camera didn't know how to operate it. He said that a lot of "rich doctors" would buy Hassies, etc, since they could afford "the best" whether or not they "deserved" such. His words! I struggled along with a cheap and cheerful Japanese 35mm rangefinder with the ubiquitous f 2 50mm in a leaf shutter. Or did I have my Komaflex S by then....

A few years ago I was at Glacier Point in Yosemite with my Hasselblad and I was approached by this young man with a Hasselblad SWC. He was renting it and said that he had not fully understood how to change a roll of film. I opened the back of my Explorer and we sat on the tail gate and I demonstrated how to remove the roll of film and load in the next one.

 

[Cholentpot]

Folks I know all used Kodak machines until the 80's. Almost across the board whatever was used was fixed lens. I inherited a QLIII among others. A few guys I know who claimed to be hobbyists gave me their Pentax ME Supers. Another 'Artist' parted with her Nikkormat that her parents picked up for her in Japan in the early 70's. Most people I know did not shoot 35mm until the late 70's early 80's.

 

[Alan Gales]

And as for nerdy engineers - are there any non-nerdy engineers?

My cousin is a Structural Engineer. When he was in school at Rolla everyone would take a break from their studies to watch Star Trek together.

My daughter is now at Rolla studying engineering. She also likes Star Trek along with film cameras but she might have caught both from me.

 

[Sirius Glass]

And as for nerdy engineers - are there any non-nerdy engineers?

That would be no.

 

[Dali]

In the late 60s and throughout the 70s, what were the non-professional camera users like? Were they wealthy or were the SLRs affordable for the common man? What subjects did they shoot? Was it predominantly amateurs or was it families documenting holidays and events?

I have been scouring the internet for this kind of information and someone on reddit informed me of this place. I hope you can help.

Thanks in advance.

Reading Pierre Bourdieu's essay would give you some hints.

 

[flavio81]

And as for nerdy engineers - are there any non-nerdy engineers?

No.

A non-nerdy engineer isn't a proper engineer. Beware!

 

[Dan Fromm]

In the 1960's and 1970's, Alpas.

I had no idea that so few engineers took up photography.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...In 1975, the median household income in the US was $227 per week ($11800 annual). ...

That's much higher than I thought. I knew other families had more than we did, but I didn't realize just how much. When I was going to UCLA (I graduated in 1975), our only income was from my father - whose pay stubs varied between $35-$45 per week (it doesn't matter what the minimum wage is if customers don't come in).

Yet, that was sufficient to put me through UCLA back then -- I didn't work and was too stupid to know what a scholarship was. I believe the cost per quarter was under $400.

True, I had to sell my books to afford books for the next quarter. Also, we didn't have a car, TV, phone, and many other things.

 

[GRHazelton]

That's much higher than I thought. I knew other families had more than we did, but I didn't realize just how much. When I was going to UCLA (I graduated in 1975), our only income was from my father - whose pay stubs varied between $35-$45 per week (it doesn't matter what the minimum wage is if customers don't come in).

Yet, that was sufficient to put me through UCLA back then -- I didn't work and was too stupid to know what a scholarship was. I believe the cost per quarter was under $400.

True, I had to sell my books to afford books for the next quarter. Also, we didn't have a car, TV, phone, and many other things.

When I did graduate work in 1970 for my MLS at Rutgers in New Brunswick the cost was $256.00 per semester, tuition and fees. And this was for non-residents as well as residents. Wowzer! IIRC the cost at Columbia was around $2000.

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, my Father earned his PhD from U Michigan in chemical engineering. He used an AsahiFlex IIa with a 35mm, the 50mm f3.5 and the 83mm f1.9. With extension tubes and bellows he took some excellent wild flower closeups. Since through the lens metering was still in the future a pocket slide rule and an exposure meter were essential in determining the basic exposure and calculating the compensation for the tubes or bellows. He used Kodachrome or Ektachrome, since the negative color media and prints of the time were inferior. I have his kit; I should send it to Eric and get that old warrior running again.

My dad had engineering background too. Microwave engineering; MIT... a very smart, sweet but completely nerdy guy with Scottish and New England inclinations toward extreme thriftiness. He used Argus C3, Polaroid auto 250 and later a Canon AE-1.

Me... I walk in his shoes but with much less impressive credentials. I walk so much in his shoes that I still use the first decent camera I bought in 1982.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Reading of rich doctors reminded me of my father's cousin who was interested in photography and took most of the advertising photos for his business which was raisin and selling large animals to zoos. He owned several Hasselblad bodies and what must have been every lens that the company made. We were talking about photography one day as he had recently bought a 4X5 rangefinder for the larger negative size. He then revealed that his favorite camera was an old Leica. I remember reading the serial number and it was very, very low. For those who live in New York state the business is the Catskill Game Farm and it is open to the public.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What did nerdy engineers use?

In the 1960's and 1970's, Alpas.

I had no idea that so few engineers took up photography.

Engineers aspired to Alpas but settled for Leicas, Rolleis, and Nikon Fs.

What is the difference between mechanical engineers and civil engineers?

Mechanical engineers design fire control systems, munitions and bombs.






Civil engineers design targets.

 

[fstop]

The typical midrange SLR in the mid-1960s had an MSRP of $269 with 50mm f/1.8 lens. In the mid-1970s, pricing to the end user had relaxed from the rigid pricing of the 1960s, and you could buy an OM-1 with f/1.8 lens for $225 from NYC mail order ads, or with 50mm f/1.2 lens for $350.

In 1975, the median household income in the US was $227 per week ($11800 annual). Corroborating my recollection, one fellow writes, "I found a 1976 ad from 47th St. Photo in NYC and an OM-1MD body, 50mm f1.8 lens, 135mm f2.8 lens, 1A filter, and lens shade cost $319.50." and another guy states that in 1975 he paid $295 for a black OM-1 with 50mm f/1.4 lens.

So an SLR was 1.2 weeks of 1975 wages. In 1975 a gallon of gas was $0.57, or a week's wages purchased 398 gallons of gas, so an SLR was 472 gallons of gas.
In 2015, a week's wages was $1087 ($56515 annual) and gasoline was $2.40 per gallon; so an SLR today would be $1300 if scaling wages, and $1133 if scaling gasoline equivalence.

The advertising for the Canon AE-1 on TV and in popular press made it the springboard of the 'everyman camera', even with a NYC $270 price with 50mm f/1.8 lens.

That's a good way of figuring it, I always look at min wage, gal of gas, pack of smokes, entry level cars.
Average mid range DSLR is about 1200 so your figures are right on.
even on my meager salary in the late 70s I was saving for a Blad. just took several paychecks to do it.
my XK served me well while saving for more equipment ,serious photographers would do what it took to get the equipment they needed.
the average Joe that was buying SLRs at the time were looking at midrange to make a step up from instamatics.many of my friends had the money to buy more expensive equipment still went for midrange because they didn't feel the need for the top shelf stuff.

For those who live in New York state the business is the Catskill Game Farm and it is open to the public.

that place stunk the last time is was there in the 60s, I mean smelled bad in August hahaha

 

[MattKing]

I have a friend who is a very accomplished engineer. He is very well respected, hired to consult throughout the world, actually has a PHd in one of the disciplines.
A long time ago he wasn't a bad photographer either - I don't know that he is still involved. In most things, he is quite balanced and worldly.
I just try to make sure he doesn't start talking shop - his area of expertise is sewage!
I'll always remember when he and his wife were new parents. He was absolutely fascinated by the absorption properties of disposable diapers. To satisfy his curiosity, he actually took some apart and did tests!

 

[BrianShaw]

My kind of guy... but I hope his tests used simulation rather than

 

[ac12]

Interesting thread, especially the mention of MDs and dentists. I remember in the mid 1960s shopping at Richmond Camera in Richmond, Virginia (still in business!) the premier shop in the city. A well-dressed man came in with a Hasselblad and asked the counter man to unload the camera, keep the film for processing, and load a fresh roll in. The counter people (all men as I recall) were well-informed and very accommodating. After the customer left I chatted with the counter man, bought something, and expressed surprise that the owner of a serious camera didn't know how to operate it. He said that a lot of "rich doctors" would buy Hassies, etc, since they could afford "the best" whether or not they "deserved" such. His words! I struggled along with a cheap and cheerful Japanese 35mm rangefinder with the ubiquitous f 2 50mm in a leaf shutter. Or did I have my Komaflex S by then....

In college I worked for a camera shop in Waikiki.
I saw the same, MANY tourists coming in with their Nikon or other SLR and asking us to remove the film and reload the camera for them. I did not have the experience of having to reload a MF camera, just 35mm. I rather wondered how they exposed their shots, probably just adjust the aperture, and hope that no one moves the shutter speed dial.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The main difference between amateur and professional cameras seems to be not lens resolution, ... but durability. The few professionals I have spoken to have said that they want a workhorse camera, one that will not suddenly fail on an assignment. This was born out by the popularity in Nikons although their ergonomics left a bit to be desired. For example the odd and rather awkward placement of the shutter release button on the F series cameras. Then too there was the lack of an integral light meter, but certainly ruggedly built.

 

[Alan Gales]

The main difference between amateur and professional cameras seems to be not lens resolution, ... but durability. The few professionals I have spoken to have said that they want a workhorse camera, one that will not suddenly fail on an assignment. This was born out by the popularity in Nikons although their ergonomics left a bit to be desired. For example the odd and rather awkward placement of the shutter release button on the F series cameras. Then too there was the lack of an integral light meter, but certainly ruggedly built.

I agree.

I bought my Contax 139 back in the early 80's. It was the worlds first Quartz timed camera. It had a built in light meter, Aperture Priority, TTL flash, electronic cable release, etcetera. I'd be at weddings and watch the photographers with their medium format cameras. I noticed that they didn't have those fancy features that my camera had but their pictures turned out great.

 

[Paul Howell]

In my case it was the Nikon system, I started in College with a Spotmatic, still have it, after 50 + years it still works flawlessly, then I moved to Konica for a few years great lens, well built. When in the Air Force I used Nikon I saw the advantages of a system camera. When I started to free lance and then got on with the wires I needed a camera with a motor drive, fast glass, and up gradable, of course the F needed to be factory modified for the motor drive, I bought my used with the drive. In terms of systems both Canon and Topcon had nice systems as well. Quality of build, I can only speak to Nikon F, F2, and 3, you get what you pay for. Leica SL and Alpa had the lens and great build, but lacked the system of Nikon, Canon or Topcon, later Minolta and Pentax.