Bell and Howell Auto 35

Let's not forget that Agfa-Ansco (together, and separately) made and sold a lot of large-format view cameras.

Agfa (Germany) never made any field- or view-camera.

Another aspect, I forget to mention in my reply further above is, that in the 50s people were less effluent in Europe than in the USA. And many were, had to be, pleased with "just" an Isola.
If you look at prices of cameras compared to wages (jn West-Gernany typically only 1 income per family) you will be astound.

Film manufacturers made a lot of low end consumer cameras to sell film. It was a good business model. I'd say that Fuji still does this (Instax).

When film was dominant, at yard sales in the US one mostly saw an infinite number of plastic/bakelite Kodaks, the occasional antique folder, and some old movie cameras (including Bell & Howell, to keep this on topic). Not too many "good" cameras since people understood they were still worth a bit of real money. This isn't to disparage bakelite Kodaks, my first two cameras were hand-me-down bakelite Kodaks, but from that sampling you'd never know Kodak made high-end cameras once upon a time. If you surf the Goodwill auction web site, you can see that the bottomless capacities of the basements of America are still disgorging Kodak instant cameras!

The Bell & Howell name also got on a lot of early Canonets, only in the US of course.

AgX said:

Another aspect, I forget to mention in my reply further above is, that in the 50s people were less effluent in Europe than in the USA. And many were, had to be, pleased with "just" an Isola.
If you look at prices of cameras compared to wages (jn West-Gernany typically only 1 income per family) you will be astound.

Click to expand...

The average (median) income of men was $3,400 in 1955; most women in 1955 were housewives so typically only 1 income per family, yet the median household income in 1955 was just under $5000.

Stated in 2000 adjusted dollars, the median household income has been pretty FLAT on average (slight dip then slight rise) between 1965 and 1990 at about $37k to $39k for all those years!

But then this does not the tell how long that 1-income person must work for the acquisition af a camera, and how long the european counterparts must to do for an equivilant camera.
Moreover this does not yet tell, if there is any effluent income to spent on a camera at all and if not war losses have to be reestablished first, or modern appliances as a refrigerator are top on the list and will block effluent income for a while.

Another reason for al the inexpensive cameras is that the average user wanted an easy to use camera to take pictures with without having to know anything about photography.

But Agfa (and later others) offered also expensive program auto-exposure cameras. ("You press the button, We do the rest", though then with a rather advanced camera.)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/Agfa_Optima.jpg/800px-Agfa_Optima.jpg

AgX said:

But then this does not the tell how long that 1-income person must work for the acquisition af a camera, and how long the european counterparts must to do for an equivilant camera.
Moreover this does not yet tell, if there is any effluent income to spent on a camera at all and if not war losses have to be reestablished first, or modern appliances as a refrigerator are top on the list and will block effluent income for a while.

Click to expand...

Indeed, what you point out is true.

There are basic differences in how countries tax the same amount of income...a Swede once told me, "In Sweden the tax computation is very similar to yours in the US... first we pay 50% and THEN on top of that we pay a similar incremental amount in tax like yours."

Also there are fundamental difference in the taxation of goods consumed...which accounts for why gasoline is relatively more expensive in Europe compared to US...the taxation imposed before gas goes into your tank. And things like the Value Added Tax at each step of the chain from manufacturer to you.

Adding to the complexity is that in the US, if you took home $100.00, some of that money went to pay for health insurance coverage (government only covers you here if you are 'poor'), wheras Germany has its socialized medicine funded by taxes taken out before it gets to your pocket, and private health policies are optional for Germans (at least I know it was that way 35 years ago).

This all makes it very hard to compare directly, which is why I made no attempt to compare discretionary incomes, after taxes and paying for housing, etc.
I merely pointed out the mean income in US in 1955 was modest, hoping to get comparative income values for Germany.

BTW for comparative costs, in 1955 in US a gallon of milk was $0.88, and a loaf of bread was $0.18, and a gallon of gasolne was $0.29. In Germany...?

wiltw said:

And things like the Value Added Tax at each step of the chain from manufacturer to you.

Click to expand...

Well this is true, it is important to understand that with Value Added Taxes implemented in the way that Canada does it with our GST, a business only remits the net tax on their sales. If the business pays $5.00 in GST to acquire all the components in what they sell and the services that they need to buy (like rent) and charges a price that attracts GST paid by the end user, the business only remits the difference of $8.00 - $5.00 = $3.00 to the government.