Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-26-2015, 01:38 PM   #31
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,297
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
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
Veteran Member
VisualDarkness's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,441
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
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
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,838
QuoteOriginally posted by LesDMess Quote
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
Pentaxian
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,827
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, 03:48 PM   #35
Site Supporter
boriscleto's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Liverpool, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 12,838
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
Site Supporter
gofour3's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 5,299
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, 06:01 PM   #37
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Essex County, Ontario
Posts: 478
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
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2014
Location: Maryland
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 769
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 :-)

04-26-2015, 10:06 PM - 1 Like   #39
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Photos: Albums
Posts: 63
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
04-27-2015, 01:51 AM - 1 Like   #40
Veteran Member
womble's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,323
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
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
Veteran Member
Cuthbert's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,573
QuoteOriginally posted by VisualDarkness Quote
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
Veteran Member
womble's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Hertfordshire
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,323
QuoteOriginally posted by Cuthbert Quote
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
Pentaxian
arnold's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,295
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
Pentaxian
ChrisPlatt's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Queens NYC
Posts: 4,827
QuoteOriginally posted by boriscleto Quote
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
Site Supporter




Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Essex County, Ontario
Posts: 478
QuoteOriginally posted by arnold Quote
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.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
bodies, cost, design, education, film, film bodies, film-era, government, lenses, people, return, tax, taxes
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Samyang lenses and film bodies Tony Belding Pentax Film SLR Discussion 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



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:21 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top