Inflation calculators and the joy of buying gear today

[Huss]

I love my Nikon S2. Such a sweet camera. I recently saw a Nikon ad for it from 1955. The retail price for it with the 50 1.4 lens was $345.

Using this:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com

The adjusted price today is $3350!!!

I bought my S2 w/ 50 1.4 in like perfect condition a couple of years ago for about $350!
If Nikon made a new S2 right now, would I be willing to pay $3350 for it? Gotta say it would be a hard no. So in this hypothetical world, how much would I be willing to pay for a new Nikon rf camera? Hmm.

 

[AgX]

You restricted this to rangefinder cameras. But in general when looking at old pricelists or reports at a photo-dealer magazine, I am amazed how expensive even middle of the road cameras once were, when taking into account the earnings .

 

[summicron1]

$3.5 K will buy you a pretty nice professional-grade camera today, just like then. Technology has advanced, labor costs are different, but if someone wanted to build and sell a camera Identical to the S2 today, with the same lens, it would probably cost just as much as it did in 1953, if not more.

Most of the bells and whistles in modern cameras are due to the electronics and inboard computers, which can probably be made relatively cheaply, but the physical machine still has to meet professional standards of construction and precision and there's no magic formula for those except to spend the money it takes to get them.

 

[ic-racer]

Inflation vs Depreciation. My enlarger came with all the sales receipts.
Total adjusted cost today would be $71,902.35. Yet, after depreciation, my cost was only $1200.

Durst L1840 Chassis: $12,900
CLS2000 Color Head: $9,600
8x10 Box: $990
4x5 Mixing Box: $990
6x9cm Mixing Box: $990
Negateil Negative Holder; $4,075
Rodagon 300mm: $1,200
Vapla Lensboard: $107
Tripla Turret: $235
Hotub Recessed: $295

Total: $31,382 in 1987
Today: $71,902.35, my cost $1200

Interesting fact. This enlarger was designed, put into production and became obsolete all in the time since Ansel Adams death.

 

[wiltw]

I love my Nikon S2. Such a sweet camera. I recently saw a Nikon ad for it from 1955. The retail price for it with the 50 1.4 lens was $345..

The median household income (half of housholds made more, half of households made less) in 1955 was $3400...A Nikon S2 cost about 1/10 of a full yeal income.

• In1953 a Buick was priced at $1300...3.75x the Nikon S2; and entry level car today runs $17000, so an S2 would be $4500.
• Today (in 2019) the median US houshold income was $68.7k...so the same camera scaled to that income leve is $6870!

IOW, $345 was a rather dear price to pay in 1955, compared to paying for essentials on the 1955 income.

 

[Tel]

Here's an anomaly. I bought my first Nikon F around 1975 for about $200. Ten years later, after a stint in London, I sold it for 200 pounds to pay the airfare back to the states. If I wanted to replace it with one in similar condition today, it would cost me between $150-200. Some things sort of held their value.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Hasselblad' Zeiss 30mm Fisheye Lens original cost was something on the order of $8500US which was well above the average family's income.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

We (family) paid for Canon 300 EOS with fine kit lens something like 200 USD in 1998.
Today these cameras are next to free and super quality L zoom from this time is something like 400 USD.
Here is no inflation for true quality film gear, just deflation. As long as no Kardashian like status is attached to the gear.
Leica M is totally kardashian these days. Old Nikon isn't this bad. Even less is Contax. And best bung for the buckis is Canon LTM RF which is almost kardashian inflation factor free.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

When I was in Japan in 1965, I bought a Nikon F Photomic T with 50mm f1.4 lens and leather case for $189.00. I think it was going for around $450 in the states. When I got out of the service in 1967, I bought a Datsun (now Nissan) roadster sports car for around $2800. Of course, I was making $450 a month at the time. I should have bought and saved some gold.

 

[Huss]

You restricted this to rangefinder cameras. But in general when looking at old pricelists or reports at a photo-dealer magazine, I am amazed how expensive even middle of the road cameras once were, when taking into account the earnings .

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.

 

[wiltw]

When I was in Japan in 1965, I bought a Nikon F Photomic T with 50mm f1.4 lens and leather case for $189.00. I think it was going for around $450 in the states. When I got out of the service in 1967, I bought a Datsun (now Nissan) roadster sports car for around $2800. Of course, I was making $450 a month at the time. I should have bought and saved some gold.

I have a friend who now lives in WA state, and he returns to Japan almost every year to take care of matters needing attention there. He went back to Japan for about 3 months a couple years ago, and while he found he could buy a camera body for less money there, he had to try very, very hard to even equal the NYC prices on lenses!
In 1965, everything was still rigidly controlled in the US for pricing, which accounts for why photo magazine ads by retailers typically refrained from listing any prices on brands like Nikon and others...US 'Fair Trade law' pricing, that were repealed in 1975.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There's no joy owning equipment worth "bupkis" today when you spent thousands on it when new years ago. The only benefits are that I don't have to insure it anymore or worry about it getting stolen, lost or damaged.

 

[Paul Howell]

I have a Miranda price list from 1969, a Miranda Sensorex with 50mm 1.14 $299.95 now just under $2100.

 

[benveniste]

The first camera I used, a Brownie Starmite II, retailed for $12 in 1962. That's the equivalent of over $100 today. If you look at ads in photography magazines from the 1950's or early 1960's, you'll see that many dealers offered their own financing. Bank cards pretty well ended that practice.

On the other hand, once you adjust for inflation, it costs just about as much to buy, process and mount a 36-exposure roll of slide film as it did in 1955, and if you want 3x5" prints from Tri-X it's likely more expensive now than in 1955.

 

[GRHazelton]

I am the "custodian" of THREE Pentax LX SLRs. The most recent one is in good user condition, no dents, only little scratches on the base plate around the tripod screw, and minor brassing here and there. When I got it it needed dusting, cleaning the viewfinder, the prism...a little cosmetic work. I paid perhaps $170.00, body only. When last offered new in 2000 it cost, IRRC about $2000.00. Now that price may well have been the titanium edition, or one gold plated, covered with lizard skin with a complementary f1.2 50mm also gold plated and covered with lizard skin, but my point is that this is a highly sophisticated almost entirely mechanical camera which can now be bought for essentially pocket change. Properly cared for it will be usable for years. How may of today's plastic wonders can boast of such value? And yes, I include my beloved Pentax gear....

 

[GRHazelton]

I am the "custodian" of THREE Pentax LX SLRs. The most recent one is in good user condition, no dents, only little scratches on the base plate around the tripod screw, and minor brassing here and there. When I got it it needed dusting, cleaning the viewfinder, the prism...a little cosmetic work. I paid perhaps $170.00. When last offered new in 2000 it cost, IRRC about $2000.00. Now that price may well have been the titanium edition, or one gold plated, covered with lizard skin with a complementary f1.2 50mm also gold plated and covered with lizard skin, but my point is that this is a highly sophisticated almost entirely mechanical camera which can now be bought for essential pocket change. Properly cared for it will be usable for years. How may of today's plastic wonders can boast of such value? And yes, I include my beloved Pentax gear....

 

[Lachlan Young]

If you want to get a better insight into what the actual cost of a camera etc would be to an average person, use the income/ percentage of income calculation - your Nikon would be more like 8k USD by those standards.

 

[guangong]

There's no joy owning equipment worth "bupkis" today when you spent thousands on it when new years ago. The only benefits are that I don't have to insure it anymore or worry about it getting stolen, lost or damaged.

Well, look at it another way. I bought my Leica M4s, Leicaflexes and M5 new. Bought almost new M3 and Rolleiflex 2.8F. In learly 1970s. Great equipment that I know is dependable and how it was cared for. 50-60 years use isn’t bad.
Nikon and Contax rf cameras fun to use, but Leica Ms caused their being discontinued.

 

[halfaman]

Inflation vs Depreciation. My enlarger came with all the sales receipts.
Total adjusted cost today would be $71,902.35. Yet, after depreciation, my cost was only $1200.

Durst L1840 Chassis: $12,900
CLS2000 Color Head: $9,600
8x10 Box: $990
4x5 Mixing Box: $990
6x9cm Mixing Box: $990
Negateil Negative Holder; $4,075
Rodagon 300mm: $1,200
Vapla Lensboard: $107
Tripla Turret: $235
Hotub Recessed: $295

Total: $31,382 in 1987
Today: $71,902.35, my cost $1200

I bought the following for 600 € in 2012 (about $780 on that year average exchange).
- Durst Laborator 1200
- CLS 500 color head
- 4x5'', 6x9 and 35 mm Femobox difussion boxes
- Componon-S 150 mm f/5.6 and 50 mm f/2.8 with respective lens holders
- Femoneg negative carrier with 35 mm, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5'' masks.

All in very good to excellent conditions. In that same year was posible to found listed everything new in some catalogs for a total of around $7000.

 

[4season]

Here's an anomaly. I bought my first Nikon F around 1975 for about $200. Ten years later, after a stint in London, I sold it for 200 pounds to pay the airfare back to the states. If I wanted to replace it with one in similar condition today, it would cost me between $150-200. Some things sort of held their value.

No, buying it today for $150-200 represents a hefty discount versus the same figure in 1985's money.

 

[Huss]

Here's an anomaly. I bought my first Nikon F around 1975 for about $200. Ten years later, after a stint in London, I sold it for 200 pounds to pay the airfare back to the states. If I wanted to replace it with one in similar condition today, it would cost me between $150-200. Some things sort of held their value.

No, if you bought it in 1975 for $200, that is the equivalent of $968 today.

 

[ic-racer]

I bought the following for 600 € in 2012 (about $780 on that year average exchange).
- Durst Laborator 1200
- CLS 500 color head
- 4x5'', 6x9 and 35 mm Femobox difussion boxes
- Componon-S 150 mm f/5.6 and 50 mm f/2.8 with respective lens holders
- Femoneg negative carrier with 35 mm, 6x7, 6x9 and 4x5'' masks.

All in very good to excellent conditions. In that same year was posible to found listed everything new in some catalogs for a total of around $7000.

Very nice. I have two Omega 4x5 enlargers, but some day I'd like to have a CLS500 Durst. They are pretty hard to find near where I live.

 

[wiltw]

No, if you bought it in 1975 for $200, that is the equivalent of $968 today.

Computed on relative affordability...

• Median US household income in 1975 was $13720, and $200 was 0.01458 of annual income.
• Median US household income in 2019 was $68700, and 0.01458 is $1001

...I presume your calculation was based upon an inflationary adjustment index.

 

[Huss]

Computed on relative affordability...

• Median US household income in 1975 was $13720, and $200 was 0.01458 of annual income.
• Median US household income in 2019 was $68700, and 0.01458 is $1001

...I presume your calculation was based upon an inflationary adjustment index.

Any questions that you have to methodology can be answered here:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/frequently-asked-questions-faqs/

 

[AgX]

But Wiltw is right nonetheless: the buying power of a currency does not tell the whole story. More precise would be to establish the working hours someone with a certain profession needed to buy a certain camera.