How much did film bodies and film-era lenses originally cost?

stevebrot · 04-26-2015, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by LesDMess

I have the original receipt for my new Minolta X700+Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens and it was for $265. This Pop Photo Adorama ad from August 1982 shows this for $294.
Ad shows others of interest: Nikon F3 $464, Canon New F-1 $449 and Pentax LX $429.
Interesting that the Pentax MX motor drive was more expensive than the LX - $299 vs $249. Wonder if it was a typo?

August 1982 Pop Photo Adorama ad

This is very cool and the prices are as I remember them. Note that despite the current characterization of Ricoh as a cheap camera, the XR7 was more expensive than the similarly-spec'ed Pentax ME Super. Quality and features were uniformly high and prices were very competitive considering that there was a recession going on.

Steve

VisualDarkness · 04-26-2015, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Granted, the productivity increase created by technology is astounding, but if you perform cost-accounting analysis on your computer hardware, software and the time you spend post processing you aren't nearly as far ahead.

I yearn for the days when I could pay someone else to do all that work.

You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film.

**boriscleto** · 04-26-2015, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by LesDMess

I have the original receipt for my new Minolta X700+Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens and it was for $265. This Pop Photo Adorama ad from August 1982 shows this for $294.
Ad shows others of interest: Nikon F3 $464, Canon New F-1 $449 and Pentax LX $429.
Interesting that the Pentax MX motor drive was more expensive than the LX - $299 vs $249. Wonder if it was a typo?

August 1982 Pop Photo Adorama ad

In March 1990 the LX was $624.95. The Canon F1(N) was 669.95. The Nikon F3 was Call.

The K1000 was $117.95. The A 50/2 was $43.95 and the A 50/1.2 was 243.95.

In November 1992 the LX was $699.95. The F-1(N) was $899.95. And the F3 was still Call.

The K1000 had dropped to $114.95. The 50s were still the same price.

**ChrisPlatt** · 04-26-2015, 03:15 PM

IIRC in the late 1970's/early 1980's the Pentax K1000 and Yashica Mat 124G were
often listed in those ads at under $100 but in reality couldn't be bought for that.

Chris

**boriscleto** · 04-26-2015, 03:48 PM

The cheapest body I remember was the Cambron TTL. It was a Zenit TTL sold by Cambridge Camera complete with the Helios 44M for $99.

Another interesting camera sold by Cambridge was the Lindenblatt KL-2. $249.95 body only, $399.95 with a 50/1.7 Auto Pancolar. This was a K-mount camera built by Tōkyō Kōgaku. The Topcon AM-1 and only sold as the Cimko LS-1 and Lindenblatt. At the same time they were selling the SF1N for $378.95 with the A50/2. Whether you would actually receive the SF1N is another matter...

**gofour3** · 04-26-2015, 04:41 PM - **1 Like**

Here are a couple Pentax Price lists:

The first is from October 1975, just after the K Series launch and is in Canadian Dollars.

The second is from January, 1978 as in US Dollars.

Phil.

**From1980** · 04-26-2015, 06:01 PM

The price lists are wonderful Phil, but we have to remember that actual selling prices were usually below suggested list and often much below. In the post from LesDMess above the question of MX vs LX motor drives prices came up. In my area, the drive for MX really was always more than LX and we always wondered why too.

Murfy · 04-26-2015, 06:23 PM

My father got a k1000 as a gift from his employees for his birthday. It was in the mid 80s and probably around $200 or under with the lens. It seems an odd gift because he wasn't really into photography, but I ended up using it, so it turned out well :-)

**Davep** · 04-26-2015, 10:06 PM - **1 Like**

I bought my SP500 with 55 F2 Super Takumar lens at Black's Camera in Toronto in 1972 for approx $175 iirc. I was considering a Ricoh with faster shutter speed and other goodies, but I wanted a Pentax. I still have that camera and lens.

womble · 04-27-2015, 01:51 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film.

Why has an interesting thread about old prices got hi-jacked by the old, tired, and frankly pointless digital v. film debate? If we all just got on with doing what we enjoy and stop fussing about what any one else is doing the world would be a better place.

K.

Cuthbert · 04-27-2015, 02:43 AM

Originally posted by VisualDarkness

You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film.

Cheap digital is for cheap and lazy photographers.

Why do you spend money in digital cameras? Just use your smartphones.

womble · 04-27-2015, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by Cuthbert

Cheap digital is for cheap and lazy photographers.

Why do you spend money in digital cameras? Just use your smartphones.

Please don't throw fuel on the fire, it is an utterly pointless argument. K.

**arnold** · 04-27-2015, 04:12 AM - **1 Like**

Old film cameras are part of the fun of photography. That's what it's supposed to be about isn't it, fun?

**ChrisPlatt** · 04-27-2015, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by boriscleto

The cheapest body I remember was the Cambron TTL. It was a Zenit TTL sold by Cambridge Camera complete with the Helios 44M for $99.

Another interesting camera sold by Cambridge was the Lindenblatt KL-2. $249.95 body only, $399.95 with a 50/1.7 Auto Pancolar.
This was a K-mount camera built by Tōkyō Kōgaku. The Topcon AM-1 and only sold as the Cimko LS-1 and Lindenblatt.
At the same time they were selling the SF1N for $378.95 with the A50/2. Whether you would actually receive the SF1N is another matter...

Cambridge Camera was notorious for deceptive pricing and bait-and-switch.
47th Street Photo and some other NYC dealers weren't much better.

My mom would drive me from our home in Queens to Nassau Camera in Franklin Square Long Island.
It was run by an older couple who offered honest service at near NYC prices.

Chris

**From1980** · 04-27-2015, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by arnold

Old film cameras are part of the fun of photography. That's what it's supposed to be about isn't it, fun?

Exactly! You nailed it. With film, some wanted the inexpensive and fast work from a dept store or equivalent just like some will opt for a compressed low res jpeg out of the camera. They may just want to see it as soon as possible and I don`t think it is lazy or necessarily wrong at all. People are entitled to whatever suits their purposes. Others always did their own darkroom work and were willing to agonize over getting the perfect print for hours just as many these days some will tweak a raw image over and over to capture their vision. I hope both types do their own style for pure enjoyment of photography AND HAVE FUN.

04-26-2015, 03:48 PM	#35
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	The cheapest body I remember was the Cambron TTL. It was a Zenit TTL sold by Cambridge Camera complete with the Helios 44M for $99. Another interesting camera sold by Cambridge was the Lindenblatt KL-2. $249.95 body only, $399.95 with a 50/1.7 Auto Pancolar. This was a K-mount camera built by Tōkyō Kōgaku. The Topcon AM-1 and only sold as the Cimko LS-1 and Lindenblatt. At the same time they were selling the SF1N for $378.95 with the A50/2. Whether you would actually receive the SF1N is another matter... Last edited by boriscleto; 04-26-2015 at 03:58 PM.

04-26-2015, 04:41 PM - 1 Like	#36
gofour3 Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 8,092	Here are a couple Pentax Price lists: The first is from October 1975, just after the K Series launch and is in Canadian Dollars. The second is from January, 1978 as in US Dollars. Phil. Attached Images

04-26-2015, 10:06 PM - 1 Like	#39
Davep Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Ontario, Canada Photos: Albums Posts: 222	I bought my SP500 with 55 F2 Super Takumar lens at Black's Camera in Toronto in 1972 for approx $175 iirc. I was considering a Ricoh with faster shutter speed and other goodies, but I wanted a Pentax. I still have that camera and lens. Last edited by Davep; 04-26-2015 at 10:08 PM. Reason: added year

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Samyang lenses and film bodies	Tony Belding	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	16	03-02-2015 07:48 PM
Pentax K-50 and compatibility with film era lenses	vasilis_k1000	Pentax K-30 & K-50	2	10-06-2014 01:34 AM
Film Era vs. Digital Era lenses for K-x	steveknj	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	23	08-19-2011 05:36 PM

04-26-2015, 01:38 PM	#31
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by LesDMess I have the original receipt for my new Minolta X700+Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens and it was for $265. This Pop Photo Adorama ad from August 1982 shows this for $294. Ad shows others of interest: Nikon F3 $464, Canon New F-1 $449 and Pentax LX $429. Interesting that the Pentax MX motor drive was more expensive than the LX - $299 vs $249. Wonder if it was a typo? August 1982 Pop Photo Adorama ad This is very cool and the prices are as I remember them. Note that despite the current characterization of Ricoh as a cheap camera, the XR7 was more expensive than the similarly-spec'ed Pentax ME Super. Quality and features were uniformly high and prices were very competitive considering that there was a recession going on. Steve

04-26-2015, 02:19 PM	#32
VisualDarkness Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Uppsala, Sweden Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,439	Originally posted by monochrome Granted, the productivity increase created by technology is astounding, but if you perform cost-accounting analysis on your computer hardware, software and the time you spend post processing you aren't nearly as far ahead. I yearn for the days when I could pay someone else to do all that work. You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film.

04-26-2015, 02:50 PM	#33
boriscleto Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: North Syracuse, NY Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,475	Originally posted by LesDMess I have the original receipt for my new Minolta X700+Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens and it was for $265. This Pop Photo Adorama ad from August 1982 shows this for $294. Ad shows others of interest: Nikon F3 $464, Canon New F-1 $449 and Pentax LX $429. Interesting that the Pentax MX motor drive was more expensive than the LX - $299 vs $249. Wonder if it was a typo? August 1982 Pop Photo Adorama ad In March 1990 the LX was $624.95. The Canon F1(N) was 669.95. The Nikon F3 was Call. The K1000 was $117.95. The A 50/2 was $43.95 and the A 50/1.2 was 243.95. In November 1992 the LX was $699.95. The F-1(N) was $899.95. And the F3 was still Call. The K1000 had dropped to $114.95. The 50s were still the same price.

04-26-2015, 03:15 PM	#34
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,696	IIRC in the late 1970's/early 1980's the Pentax K1000 and Yashica Mat 124G were often listed in those ads at under $100 but in reality couldn't be bought for that. Chris

04-26-2015, 06:01 PM	#37
From1980 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Essex, Ontario Posts: 682	The price lists are wonderful Phil, but we have to remember that actual selling prices were usually below suggested list and often much below. In the post from LesDMess above the question of MX vs LX motor drives prices came up. In my area, the drive for MX really was always more than LX and we always wondered why too.

04-26-2015, 06:23 PM	#38
Murfy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2014 Photos: Gallery Posts: 803	My father got a k1000 as a gift from his employees for his birthday. It was in the mid 80s and probably around $200 or under with the lens. It seems an odd gift because he wasn't really into photography, but I ended up using it, so it turned out well :-)

04-27-2015, 01:51 AM - 1 Like	#40
womble Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hertfordshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,324	Originally posted by VisualDarkness You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film. Why has an interesting thread about old prices got hi-jacked by the old, tired, and frankly pointless digital v. film debate? If we all just got on with doing what we enjoy and stop fussing about what any one else is doing the world would be a better place. K.

04-27-2015, 02:43 AM	#41
Cuthbert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,740	Originally posted by VisualDarkness You can still do it, it's called choosing jpeg SOOC or outsourcing for more custom processing. Still way cheaper and controllable than film. Cheap digital is for cheap and lazy photographers. Why do you spend money in digital cameras? Just use your smartphones.

04-27-2015, 03:49 AM	#42
womble Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: Hertfordshire Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,324	Originally posted by Cuthbert Cheap digital is for cheap and lazy photographers. Why do you spend money in digital cameras? Just use your smartphones. Please don't throw fuel on the fire, it is an utterly pointless argument. K.

04-27-2015, 04:12 AM - 1 Like	#43
arnold Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2012 Location: Queensland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,295	Old film cameras are part of the fun of photography. That's what it's supposed to be about isn't it, fun?

04-27-2015, 04:24 AM	#44
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,696	Originally posted by boriscleto The cheapest body I remember was the Cambron TTL. It was a Zenit TTL sold by Cambridge Camera complete with the Helios 44M for $99. Another interesting camera sold by Cambridge was the Lindenblatt KL-2. $249.95 body only, $399.95 with a 50/1.7 Auto Pancolar. This was a K-mount camera built by Tōkyō Kōgaku. The Topcon AM-1 and only sold as the Cimko LS-1 and Lindenblatt. At the same time they were selling the SF1N for $378.95 with the A50/2. Whether you would actually receive the SF1N is another matter... Cambridge Camera was notorious for deceptive pricing and bait-and-switch. 47th Street Photo and some other NYC dealers weren't much better. My mom would drive me from our home in Queens to Nassau Camera in Franklin Square Long Island. It was run by an older couple who offered honest service at near NYC prices. Chris

04-27-2015, 03:36 PM	#45
From1980 Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2012 Location: Essex, Ontario Posts: 682	Originally posted by arnold Old film cameras are part of the fun of photography. That's what it's supposed to be about isn't it, fun? Exactly! You nailed it. With film, some wanted the inexpensive and fast work from a dept store or equivalent just like some will opt for a compressed low res jpeg out of the camera. They may just want to see it as soon as possible and I don`t think it is lazy or necessarily wrong at all. People are entitled to whatever suits their purposes. Others always did their own darkroom work and were willing to agonize over getting the perfect print for hours just as many these days some will tweak a raw image over and over to capture their vision. I hope both types do their own style for pure enjoyment of photography AND HAVE FUN.