Minolta SRT 101 (Advert from 1970)

[Glen Diamond]

 

[colin wells]

I just bought one off ebay for a MD50 1.4 lens i have for £15 working

 

[Helios 1984]

Here's a list of adjusted prices that I found elsewhere, it's in 2010 dollar but it's close enough.

Sauce: basepath.com

$5540: Kodak Ektra - 1941 (with 50mm f1.9 lens)
$4298: Zeiss Ikon Contax S - 1949 (with f2 lens)
$4053: Leica IIIc - 1946 (with f2 lens)
$3800: Leicaflex - 1964 (with f2 lens)
$3623: Leica M3 - 1954 (with f2 lens)
$3397: Zeiss Ikon Contax IIa - 1950 (with f2 lens)
$3315: Zeiss Ikon Contarex - 1958 (with f2 lens)
$2971: Canon EF - 1973 (with 50mm f1.4 lens; price estimated)
$2927: Nikon S - 1950 (with f1.4 lens)
$2896: Canon F-1 - 1971 (with 50mm f1.4 lens)
$2877: Ihagee Exakta Varex VX - 1951 (with f2 lens)
$2629: Topcon RE Super - 1963 (with f1.8 lens)
$2469: Nikon F - 1959 (with f2 lens)
$2404: Kodak Medalist II - 1946
$2384: Asahi Pentax ME-F - 1981 (with 35mm-70mm f2.8 zoom)
$2353: Ihagee Kiné Exakta - 1936 (with f3.5 Tessar lens)
$2320: Zeiss Ikon Super Ikonta B - 1937 (with 80mm f2.8 lens)
$2299: Olympus OM-2 - 1975 (with f1.8 lens)
$2248: Canon Canonflex - 1959 (with f1.8 lens)
$2164: Rolleiflex 3.5 Automat MX - 1951 (with f3.5 Schneider Xenar lens)
$2073: Asahi Pentax Spotmatic - 1964 (with f1.4 lens)
$2019: Konica Auto-Reflex - 1965 (with f1.4 lens)
$1952: Canon Pellix QL - 1966 (with f1.8 lens)
$1920: Minolta SR-7 - 1962 (with f1.4 lens)
$1869: Nikon Nikkormat FT - 1965 (with f2 lens)
$1812: Kodak Retina II - 1949
$1761: Kodak Retina Reflex S - 1959
$1668: Kodak Retina Reflex - 1957
$1639: Konica FP - 1963 (with f1.4 lens)
$1608: Canon FT QL - 1966 (with f1.8 lens)
$1564: Nikon Nikkorex Zoom 35 - 1963
$1513: Asahi Pentax Original - 1957 (with f2.2 lens)
$1486: Canon AE-1 - 1976 (with f1.8 lens)
$1480: Asahi Pentax ME - 1976 (with f1.7 lens)
$1440: Nikon Nikkorex F - 1962 (with f2 lens)
$1402: Kodak Reflex II - 1948
$1370: Zeiss Ikon Contaflex - 1953 (with f2.8 lens)
$1346: Olympus FTL - 1971 (with f1.8 lens)
$1304: Olympus OM-1 - 1972 (with f1.8 lens)
$1283: Minox B - 1958
$1249: Minolta SR-1 - 1961 (with f2 lens)
$1247: Kodak Instamatic Reflex - 1968 (with f2.8 lens)
$1227: Miranda DR - 1962 (with f1.9 lens)
$1200: Praktica LLC - 1969 (with f1.8 lens)
$1191: Rollei 35 - 1966 (with f3.5 lens)
$1108: Topcon Auto 100 - 1964 (with f2 lens)
$1053; Canon AL-1 - 1982 (with 50mm f1.8 lens)
$1052: Olympus Pen F - 1963 (with f1.8 lens)
$1029: Minolta Maxxum 7000 - 1985 (with f1.7 lens)
$1019: Canon FTb - 1971 (with 50mm f1.8 lens)
$978: Clarus MS-35 - 1946
$918: Bolsey Model C - 1950
$902: Kodak Retina - 1937
$871: Canon Canonet - 1961 (with f1.9 lens)
$855: Nikon Nikkorex 35-2 - 1962 (with f2.5 lens)
$836: Polaroid SX-70 Sonar One Step - 1978
$834: Argus C-4 - 1951
$833: Asahi Pentax Auto 110 - 1978 (with 24mm f2.8 lens)
$818: Ihagee Exa - 1951 (with f2.9 lens)
$812: Polaroid Model 95 - 1948
$806: Canon T70 - 1984 (with 35-105mm f3.5 lens)
$772: Asahi Asahiflex IIb/Tower 23 - 1954 (with f3.5 lens)
$771: Perfex Fifty Five - 1940 (with 50mm f2.8 lens)
$766: Canon 110ED - 1975 (with f2 lens)
$748: Kodak 35 RF - 1940
$731: Nikon EM - 1979 (with f1.8 lens)
$721: Canon AF35M - 1979 (with 38mm f2.8 lens)
$704: Olympus OM-10 - 1979 (with f1.8 lens)
$701: Minox 35 - 1974 (with f2.8 lens)
$650: Minolta Hi-Matic - 1962 (with f2.8 lens; price is for Ansco version)
$641: Konica Auto S - 1963 (with f1.9 lens)
$619: Konica C35 AF - 1977 (with f2.8 lens)
$601: Olympus XA - 1979
$599: Bell & Howell Electric Eye 127 - 1959
$567: Kodak Flash Bantam - 1947
$567: Taron Marquis - 1962 (with f1.8 lens)
$563: Canon Dial 35 - 1963
$562: Olympus 35RC - 1970
$509: Kodak Bantam RF - 1953
$545: Konica (I) - 1948 (with f3.5 lens)
$467: Argus C3 - 1939 (with f3.5 lens)
$458: Bolsey Model B - 1947
$442: Voigtlander Vito B - 1954
$392: Univex Mercury - 1938
$384: Olympus XA2 - 1980
$363: Ansco No. 4 Model C - 1905
$320: Agfa Silette/Ansco Memar - 1953
$314: Kodak Pony 135 - 1950
$259: Kodak Brownie Starmatic - 1959
$222: Kodak Tourist - 1948 (with 88mm f12.5 lens)
$217: Olympus Pen - 1959 (with f3.5 lens)
$199: Kodak Duaflex IV - 1955
$196: Argus A - 1936
$184: Kodak Colorburst 200 - 1978
$169: Kodak Duaflex - 1947
$146: Kodak Pocket Instamatic 20 - 1972
$128: Ansco Anscoflex - 1954
$114: Kodak Instamatic 100 - 1963
$93: Kodak Vest Pocket Model B - 1925
$43: Kodak Bullet Camera - 1936
$35: Kodak Brownie No. 2 (Model F) - 1924
$16 - $78: most Kodak Brownies and Hawkeyes

 

[Glen Diamond]

I just bought one off ebay for a MD50 1.4 lens i have for £15 working

It's amazing how much cash amateurs were being asked for considering how basic these cameras were. Looking at the real worth in todays money!!! And now they can be picked up for practically nothing at all. Also, the 2nd advert has the camera attached to a microscope (without any 90 degree angle finder) so I assume that the microscope would have to be on a very low bench otherwise how would the lab assistant operate the camera????

 

[Glen Diamond]

not sure what happened to the 2nd upload picture so here it is again! Shows same camera on a microscope - I guess the bench must have been very low otherwise how would they operate the camera!! no 90 degree angle finder...

 

[baachitraka]

Olympus Pen costs more now.... :-(

 

[BMbikerider]

It's amazing how much cash amateurs were being asked for considering how basic these cameras were. Looking at the real worth in todays money!!! And now they can be picked up for practically nothing at all. Also, the 2nd advert has the camera attached to a microscope (without any 90 degree angle finder) so I assume that the microscope would have to be on a very low bench otherwise how would the lab assistant operate the camera????

With extreme difficulty I would guess.

 

[Chan Tran]

It's amazing how much cash amateurs were being asked for considering how basic these cameras were. Looking at the real worth in todays money!!! And now they can be picked up for practically nothing at all. Also, the 2nd advert has the camera attached to a microscope (without any 90 degree angle finder) so I assume that the microscope would have to be on a very low bench otherwise how would the lab assistant operate the camera????

And that was the reason why much fewer people had cameras back then.

 

[fstop]

Those so called adjusted prices are out whack, with manufacturing advances since those cameras were made they would be cheaper to produce today than back then.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had the SR-7, the SRT-101, SRT-201, and several others and then the X-700. Great cameras.

 

[Pioneer]

From what I can tell my Brownie No 2 is holding its value pretty well.

 

[Les Sarile]

Those so called adjusted prices are out whack, with manufacturing advances since those cameras were made they would be cheaper to produce today than back then.

They can be redesigned to be cheaper today but not exactly how they were made then. The cost of labor would be very expensive today.

For instance, we still use analog meters at work today and they are very costly - if you can find the correct spec version, compared to digital readouts. And for us replacing an analog meter with a digital one is not o straight forward for a host of technical reasons.

Nikon experienced this with the FM3A, "However, in the period of transition from manual focus to auto focus and digital control, the engineers competent to fabricate component parts for manual cameras were getting on toward the age of retirement. An engineer from the subcontractor engaged in the production of leather grain for FM3A was also getting close to retirement age. There is a story that he had ideas about retiring from the company, but he was reportedly prevented from leaving the company."
See -> http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-fm3a/index.htm#id10

 

[Les Sarile]

not sure what happened to the 2nd upload picture so here it is again! Shows same camera on a microscope - I guess the bench must have been very low otherwise how would they operate the camera!! no 90 degree angle finder...

That microscope can tilt quite a bit back.

 

[MattKing]

It's amazing how much cash amateurs were being asked for considering how basic these cameras were

These cameras weren't basic - for their time.
Basic was a Kodak Instamatic 104 (or its like), which sold for a lot less than $260.00.
The SRT 101 offered open-aperture metering, a big, bright viewfinder, an instant return mirror, a fast top shutter speed and a back that you didn't have to take off to load the film. It was a lot more advanced that the expensive, niche products that had been available only a few years earlier.

 

[fstop]

They can be redesigned to be cheaper today but not exactly how they were made then. The cost of labor would be very expensive today.

For instance, we still use analog meters at work today and they are very costly - if you can find the correct spec version, compared to digital readouts. And for us replacing an analog meter with a digital one is not o straight forward for a host of technical reasons.

Nikon experienced this with the FM3A, "However, in the period of transition from manual focus to auto focus and digital control, the engineers competent to fabricate component parts for manual cameras were getting on toward the age of retirement. An engineer from the subcontractor engaged in the production of leather grain for FM3A was also getting close to retirement age. There is a story that he had ideas about retiring from the company, but he was reportedly prevented from leaving the company."
See -> http://imaging.nikon.com/history/chronicle/history-fm3a/index.htm#id10

cost of labor? if in todays world they were gearing up to produce cameras in numbers robots would do much of the labor, better assembly line techniques etc would come into play
I think the above statement is more of Nikons rhetoric of maintaining the "Nikon mystique" they worked hard to create than fact.To say we can't build today what we used to build is BS.

 

[Les Sarile]

cost of labor? if in todays world they were gearing up to produce cameras in numbers robots would do much of the labor, better assembly line techniques etc would come into play

For this product it would not be possible to automate unless it is considerably redesigned which would no longer be the model that it was.

 

[Les Sarile]

These cameras weren't basic - for their time.

I agree and in fact it was as full featured as it could be as can be seen in this timeline perspective -> http://minolta.eazypix.de/slrtable/

 

[wiltw]

'basic'...like the Topcon RE Super, which was the world's first TTL metering camera, which could TTL meter regardless of viewfinder type...waist level or pentaprism or whatever?!

 

[fstop]

For this product it would not be possible to automate unless it is considerably redesigned which would no longer be the model that it was.

Nope, anything can automated, even if only some sub assemblies were automated you would be ahead of the curve and labor is a commodity, you move the plant to a cheap labor market and train assemblers to do one task very well.The problem is the market, you won't sell a 100,000 mechanical Nikon F cameras annually for the above mentioned price of 2469 or even 2000 because film is not so popular anymore.

 

[mgb74]

Those so called adjusted prices are out whack, with manufacturing advances since those cameras were made they would be cheaper to produce today than back then.

But I think the point is that, adjusted for inflation, this is what people did pay for those cameras. And provides a sense of how they valued them.

 

[ciniframe]

Ah the mind and the heart. This is the way most play pretty's are sold to the public. That is, stuff beyond shelter, clothing and food. I know I've certainly fallen victim more than once to 'eye candy'. Older now, I've learned to always wait 24 hours before a discretionary income purchase, 99% of the time, the madness passes. It is still as true today as was 27 centuries ago; "The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it." (Jer 17:9)
In 1970 the SRT with a f1.7 lens was about $200 locally and I wanted one, badly. I was making about $75 a week and it was just out of the question. So finally I settled for a used Miranda. Actually, I still miss that old Miranda.....sometimes.

 

[CMoore]

Nope, anything can automated, even if only some sub assemblies were automated you would be ahead of the curve and labor is a commodity, you move the plant to a cheap labor market and train assemblers to do one task very well.The problem is the market, you won't sell a 100,000 mechanical Nikon F cameras annually for the above mentioned price of 2469 or even 2000 because film is not so popular anymore.

I understand what you are saying. I am NOT a manufacture, but it makes sense.
Anybody want to guess.?
Assuming it was equally as well made, in a Chinese/Asian factory.......What would it cost the consumer, to buy a Nikon F2 Photomic today.?

 

[Pioneer]

Ah the mind and the heart. This is the way most play pretty's are sold to the public. That is, stuff beyond shelter, clothing and food. I know I've certainly fallen victim more than once to 'eye candy'. Older now, I've learned to always wait 24 hours before a discretionary income purchase, 99% of the time, the madness passes. It is still as true today as was 27 centuries ago; "The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it." (Jer 17:9)
In 1970 the SRT with a f1.7 lens was about $200 locally and I wanted one, badly. I was making about $75 a week and it was just out of the question. So finally I settled for a used Miranda. Actually, I still miss that old Miranda.....sometimes.

I wanted my SRT101 badly enough that I was willing to put it on layaway and make payments for 6 months. I was working as a waiter and every cent of my tips went to that camera. I went without all kinds of things to pay for that camera. I actually remember the day I finally paid it off and picked it up much better than I do the day I paid off my house.

 

[dmr]

Hmmmm ... from another thread on the worst camera ever, I mentioned the Cub, which sold in 1940 for $0.15 and correcting for inflation, that would be $2.60 in today's dollars.

 

[Glen Diamond]

These cameras weren't basic - for their time.
Basic was a Kodak Instamatic 104 (or its like), which sold for a lot less than $260.00.
The SRT 101 offered open-aperture metering, a big, bright viewfinder, an instant return mirror, a fast top shutter speed and a back that you didn't have to take off to load the film. It was a lot more advanced that the expensive, niche products that had been available only a few years earlier.

I agree with your points - Looks like the SRT 101 was a pretty big deal back in those days. I suppose what I meant is that in todays terms the technology is relatively cheap for us to enjoy all of the above attributes in modern SLR cameras. My heart goes out for those of you who toiled and scraped together the readies to own one of these.

• open-aperture metering................... we take that for granted nowadays but I can see how that would be a technological "wow factor" back then.
• Big, Bright viewfinder....................... agree, a lot of older SLR cameras had small and dark viewfinders
• instant return mirror........................ I remember having a Zeiss Contaflex IV. The mirror was up unless I wound the film advance!!!
• ease of film loading......................... again, I can agree with that (with the Zeiss I needed to undo and drop the back to load the film)