Inflation calculators and the joy of buying gear today

According to estimates released by the Bureau of the Census, Department of Commerce, the average (median) income of families in 1965 was $6,900. A Beseler Topcon Super D with 58mm f/1.4 lens was priced at $420...6.1% of the median annual income, or 3.2 weeks pay
Applying that same percentage to 2019 median household income ($68700), the Super D would cost $4182

Technological improvements in productivity mean that capital intensive things get cheaper than labor intensive things over time. Here's a good short article by James Surowiecki on the subject of "Baumol's cost disease" as it is known by economists: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2003/07/07/what-ails-us . In 1960 or so, a household might have had one amateur level camera, and a high end camera like a Nikon S2 was a rarity. Today, a middle class household is filled with electronic gadgets, but can be hard pressed to pay for labor intensive services (like say child care, or professional photography).

I summarize this as "stuff gets cheaper than people." An example of this type of relative change in costs is that a midlevel camera is much more capable and cheaper in 2020 than in 1960, but it's still (relatively) expensive to hire a photographer to photograph a wedding or party, because that's labor-intensive.

reddesert said:

I summarize this as "stuff gets cheaper than people." An example of this type of relative change in costs is that a midlevel camera is much more capable and cheaper in 2020 than in 1960, but it's still (relatively) expensive to hire a photographer to photograph a wedding or party, because that's labor-intensive.

Click to expand...

Testing that theory,

• getting a wedding photographer for 10 hours in 1965 would have been $34 for his time at the wedding and reception (not considering film and processing and proofs and final print cost, nor added work done later).
• getting a wedding photographer for 10 hours in 2019 would have been $337 for his time at the wedding and reception (not considering added work done later).

...assuming median income for each year, divided by 2040 work hours per year (two weeks off)

wiltw said:

Testing that theory,

• getting a wedding photographer for 10 hours in 1965 would have been $34 for his time at the wedding and reception (not considering film and processing and proofs and final print cost, nor added work done later).
• getting a wedding photographer for 10 hours in 2019 would have been $337 for his time at the wedding and reception (not considering added work done later).

...assuming median income for each year, divided by 2040 work hours per year (two weeks off)

Click to expand...

Useful numbers. For comparison, retail price for a Nikkormat FT with 50/2 in 1965 was $269, from the helpful price sheet at https://www.peterrussellphotography.com/nbr/Nikon_Price_List_(US)_September_1965.pdf
while today a midrange Nikon DSLR + kit lens is about $700-1200 for a NIkon D5600 + lens at B&H depending on the lens and extras (I know, it's digital, but not easy to find a comparable film SLR at new retail today). Meaning that the roughly comparable camera is 3x more in non-constant dollars, but the cost of labor is 10x more. Both not-adjusted for inflation.

Huss said:

I think that one reason is that cameras back then were sold almost as inheritable items. People kept them forever and expected them to last forever. There was no constant upgrade cycle, so the purchase was seen as a photographic investment.
It's why many would engrave their cameras with identifying information, they never thought they's sell them. I see so many used/old cameras with the original owner's name/DL #, SS# on them!

W/re to SLRs, stuff like Nikkormats could be now bought for under $40. Yet they sold for about $800 back in the day. I bought a Nikon F3 in 1989 for $1000. That would be $2100 today. And yet I bought a perfect/like new one for $250 recently.

Click to expand...

In the year 2000 I paid $1845 for my Leica M6 TTL. Using the linked inflation calculator, that would equate to $2,789.87 today. Generally speaking, I tend to take very good care of my possessions (not just cameras). In addition, my M6 sat largely unused for many years until I began using it once again 3 years ago. Given the condition that it is in, and that I kept al of the original packaging (I'm not a collector but did so out of habit as I do the same thing with my hifi gear for example) it would now sell for more than the adjusted value.

I am used to my possessions losing value over time, but when it comes to my M6 or my acoustic guitars or my car, all are currently appreciating in value. In the case of the camera and the car, the appreciation has been enough that it makes me somewhat uncomfortable to use these items and that drives me crazy. As such, I've contemplated selling at times in the past, yet I still get a lot of enjoyment of using them and so they stay. There is definitely something to be said for old stuff that is of high quality that just works and is of little value. Case in point, I've begun writing letters once again and bought an old typewriter for this purpose. It still looks like new and cost very little money, but is actually an amazing machine that brings me a lot of joy. I imagine that it will continue to do so for as long as I own and use it, something that can't be said for so many things today in the age of planned obsolescence.