Were Cameras More Affordable in the Early 60s? (Plus free outtake at the end)

Comparing prices quoted in the Wallace Heaton Photographic Blue Book 1962-1963 against the equivalent modern cameras. The Bank of England Inflation Calculator was used to find the equivalent today prices.

[@jimgraves4197]

Ziggy hath spoken! 🤣 As for camera prices, there's been a noticeable reduction in prices of late (spring 2024) and some cameras beyond my reach in the last couple of years are now coming back to a reasonable price again.

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Hi Jim. I have been watching a few jewels and oddities on ebay - let's hope they are reasonable! Cheers, Keith

[@andrewwilkin1923]

Hi Keith, just done the same thing with the Blue book from 1970-72. Surprisingly the price of Ilford B&W film is about the same in today's prices except for Pan F (probably more silver). Cameras in today's prices based on the original 1970 price: - Olympus Trip, £455 Canonet QL17 £919 Rollei 35 £1524 Leica M4 (Summicron 50mm f2) £3936 Pentax Spotmatic (50mm f1.8) £1784 Canon FT (50mm f1.8) £1837 Nikon Photomic FTN (50mm f1.8) £3554 Yashica-Mat 124 £989 Mamiya C330 Professional (80mm f2.8) £2566 Hasselblad 500C (80 mm f2.8 Planar) £4711. Biggest surprise was the Leica SL (Summicron-R 50mm f2) £5908 I need to get out more....

[@theoldunsshot1005]

I've still got to digest the 71/72 book I got at the same time, but it's an eye opener (especially Leica and Hasselblad) Cheers, Keith

[@rossmansell5877]

In 68 I bought a Zenith 80 for £150 with two mags,, Later bought a wide angle AND a telephoto (champagne bottle size nearly!) fot another £150 at a clearance and they were brand new. The camera itself I see is worth £400 odd secondhand on the Bay..Shutter really a CLUNK! when it fires....Takes a Hassel Polaroid back and Hassel mags (with a slight mod to them)

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Hi Ross. No-one would accuse Zenit of being refined cameras. I have a Zenit TTL which I have a love-hate relationship with. Cheers, Keith

[@terryroth2855]

Good info, Keith. I am very much enjoying my 1960's cameras. Paying a couple of thousand dollars for a new full frame cameras is not very exciting for me. Smartphone, I haven't found the need to purchase one yet. Do have a cellphone and have been known to call people with it. But good luck calling me. I only turn it on when I need it.😂

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Thanks Terry. I think we have a similar view of life. Cheers, Keith

[@danienelphoto]

Good info!

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Thanks. It was fun looking through the Blue Book. Cheers, Keith

[@AndrewWaltonPhotography]

Interesting comparison Keith. Sadly compact digital cameras are pretty much done but I notice Argos still stock budget Chinese Agfas for £49.99 and superior Canon IXUS 285 compacts for an eye watering (but still cheaper than a smartphone) £289.99 - way above the Kodak's equivalent £23. I guess if you wanted to compare with a film camera the nearest Kodak would be the Kodak M35 - they retail for £24.99.

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Thansk Andrew. It's impossible to accurately compare cameras so I tried to match target market. Cheers, Keith

[@davidkennerly]

Well, a Brownie could be had for just a few dollars. Everyone had one, including my family, but it had absolutely no controls on it of any kind. No aperture, no shutter speed, no focus control. You got what you paid for which was very little but a camera that worked, sort of, most of the time. I'm sure that it was the world's most popular camera. Everyone had one. A Diana was a camera that offered all of the controls that the Brownie utterly lacked. I never had one, but it was a hit with young photography students on an extremely low budget. Many photography classes stipulated the Diana as a means to gain experience with the fundamental controls of more expensive cameras. It didn't cost much more than a Brownie. I didn't need one because I was lucky enough to have, as my first real camera, an all-mechanical Pentax 35mm SLR with a built-in light meter in 1968. I don't remember the model but it would have been a very basic but incredibly sturdy and well-made and reliable model. Actually, it belonged to my much-older brother who was a professional photographer, at the time, but I could use it whenever I wanted. It was so exciting for me and included three or four lenses offering a choice from wide angle to telephoto. This was the camera I learned on and, starting at ten years old, I became a damned good photographer, if I do say so myself. The Pentax remains, despite many much more expensive and capable cameras acquired over the years, the most important camera of my life.

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Thanks David. That's a great story. My first "proper" camera was a Halina Paulette and I learned a lot (mainly how to fail), followed by a Zenit EM which encouraged me to experiment. The Olympus OM10 came next and it was so much better than what had gone before. It's all good now. Cheers, Keith

[@davidkennerly]

@@theoldunsshot1005 I had never had occasion to use either of those cameras, probably because they were less common here in the States. There were some Zenits about and some other Russian gear but there were many more Japanese and German cameras and lenses at that time. Having that older brother did come in handy as I got to borrow his Hasselblad starting at around thirteen or so. I got a Rolleiflex of my own sometime later.

[@theoldunsshot1005]

@@davidkennerly The Halina was made in Hong Kong and was very poor build quality so they were cheap. In the 60s and 70s, the Russian industry set up a distributer in London, called Technical and Optical Equipment Ltd. (TOE) and were very successful, earning valuable foreign currency for the USSR. The cameras were robust (heavy) and the glass was very good and a lot of young photographers started with it. The period from 1955 to 1985 I see as the "Golden Age" with so much variety for every price range. Cheers, Keith

[@d.r.martin6301]

I impress people with my tale of buying a Leica M3 in 1969 for $250. But in 2024 dollars that's about $2100. Granted, it included a 35mm Summicron. But it wasn't necessarily the huge bargain it sounds like.

[@theoldunsshot1005]

No-one can deny the quality of Leica cameras and lenses, but my skills don't merit that sort of outlay. I'll just have to keep searching ebay for a miss-spelled one. Cheers, Keith

[@iainmc9859]

The truth is that most 'ordinary' families in Britain couldn't justify the outlay on an SLR right up to the '80's and beyond and were still using point and shoots. The 'democratising' of photography really only happened here with digital, it made film cameras suddenly available (and affordable). Mobiles, smartphones particularly, made second hand DSLRs flood the market. I'd guess AI will make a lot of smartphones redundant, in terms of photography, in the next five years. Although I shoot film for the 'real' experience and prefer a good film shot to a good digital if I had to go into a 'real' darkroom to get the results I'd probably shoot less film. Do I want a darkroom at home, yes; Is it feasible, probably not. I guess we all live within our feasible means .... otherwise things get problematic !

[@theoldunsshot1005]

Thanks Iain. After an inherited Box Brownie, my mother bought an Instamatic, which gave great service for about 20 years. I found it recently in a drawer and it still appeared to be working although the film is now unobtainable. We don't have the room for a darkroom for prints, so I home develop and then scan. I do occasionally print with my inkjet but I know the prints won't last like a proper photographic one. Cheers, Keith