Slideshow, 1957-style
The camera: $26.75 in 1957 = $222.68 in 2014
The projector: $64.50 in 1957 = $536.92 in 2014
Total costs to take pictures and display them for others to admire: $759.60
16GB iPhone, no contract: $649.00
Comments
KodaChrome was the industry standard if you liked RED!
Listen Here
Listen Here
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 03/09/14 at 11:26 AM
So the cost of using the tech of the day has stayed close to the same then.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 03/09/14 at 11:48 AM
Only true, Patty, if you omit all the OTHER things besides taking and displaying pics that the iPhone does.
Not that I even own a smart phone myself!
Not that I even own a smart phone myself!
Posted by Paul on 03/09/14 at 12:48 PM
Back then, you didn't have to be married to it.
Doing a special presentation? Rent camera and projector.
Going on vacation? Rent a camera and buy a projector so you could show your slides whenever you wish.
Only when you were hardcore did you have to shell out the big cash.
Doing a special presentation? Rent camera and projector.
Going on vacation? Rent a camera and buy a projector so you could show your slides whenever you wish.
Only when you were hardcore did you have to shell out the big cash.
Posted by Phideaux on 03/09/14 at 12:49 PM
I don't have one either, but my cheap old flip phone takes pictures too.
Posted by Patty in Ohio, USA on 03/09/14 at 01:15 PM
You don´t have to omit all the OTHER things that a smart phone does to compare the two. Pattys saying that cutting edge technology then and now is comparedable in price and that´s true.
Posted by F.U.D. on 03/09/14 at 03:16 PM
@F.U.D.: Not really. The niche that camera falls into, in today's world, would be e.g. a Nikon D7100 which is going for $1,150.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 03/10/14 at 01:37 AM
I don't think anyone mentioned the cost of film and processing. That wasn't cheap, from what I remember.
Posted by Robb of Warren on 03/10/14 at 01:52 AM
It wasn't but B&W and slides you could do yourself in the basement. The biggest difference is the freedom to shoot with digital.
On a trip last summer I shot over 500 frames of seagulls in one afternoon. Even if I wouldn't have been worried about the money and/or work involved with development and time consuming to view them all on some machine just handling 15+ rolls of film would have been enough to drive me crazy.
On a trip last summer I shot over 500 frames of seagulls in one afternoon. Even if I wouldn't have been worried about the money and/or work involved with development and time consuming to view them all on some machine just handling 15+ rolls of film would have been enough to drive me crazy.
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 03/10/14 at 02:18 AM
Expat47: Really
Posted by F.U.D. on 03/10/14 at 03:42 AM
Really! If the numbers Paul posted are correct then, yes! In today's world if you want a camera that is on the verge of entering the professional sphere then you need to spend over $1,000US! When I bought my D90 a few years ago it cost about that much and the D7100 has taken its place.
I've owned some pretty impressive optics and film cameras and they were a less expensive than the tech is today. Even if/when you start comparing the inflation values you tend to not compare the quality. Back in the 70's the lenses were made of glass and were heavy to lug around but the quality was phenomenal. And, even good as those lenses were/are the little lens on my antique Graflex beat those by a mile!
Today, if you want to match quality from back then you can start thinking in the range of $700 -> $7000 for a single focal length lens. So, really!
Nikkor Lenses
I've owned some pretty impressive optics and film cameras and they were a less expensive than the tech is today. Even if/when you start comparing the inflation values you tend to not compare the quality. Back in the 70's the lenses were made of glass and were heavy to lug around but the quality was phenomenal. And, even good as those lenses were/are the little lens on my antique Graflex beat those by a mile!
Today, if you want to match quality from back then you can start thinking in the range of $700 -> $7000 for a single focal length lens. So, really!
Nikkor Lenses
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 03/10/14 at 03:55 AM
WOW!!!
Posted by F.U.D. on 03/10/14 at 05:25 AM
I have a good Pentax camera that I bought in 1975. With extra lenses, filters etc, it would be getting close to $1,000. It is sitting in a closet unused with no resale value. I would like someone to make a camera that replaces the film roll. The take-up can also be removed for more electronics and battery life. It may be a problem to make one-size-fits-all. If it cost $500, it would turn my junk into a top class camera again and a first class one into stellar.
Posted by BMN on 03/10/14 at 11:26 AM
There was a plan in the works to do just that a batch of years ago but the digital camera costs came down so fast it just wasn't feasible.
Now, had I kept my medium format Mamiyas they DO make digital backs for them today but my Minota languishes alongside some impressive glass!
Now, had I kept my medium format Mamiyas they DO make digital backs for them today but my Minota languishes alongside some impressive glass!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 03/10/14 at 11:30 AM
I used to black and white years ago, but the wife made me get rid of the enlarger. (I don't get to keep toys if I don't use them.) I haven't got around to trying it yet, but I have this book: http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-Photography-Making-Cameras-Calotypes/dp/0240804619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394469005&sr=8-1&keywords=primitive+photography.
It covers just about every aspect of photography and how to do it yourself; making the camera and lenses, making the paper, and printing. It's really interesting and not as difficult as you might think. The biggest cost appears to be the silver nitrate you need to make the paper.
It covers just about every aspect of photography and how to do it yourself; making the camera and lenses, making the paper, and printing. It's really interesting and not as difficult as you might think. The biggest cost appears to be the silver nitrate you need to make the paper.
Posted by Robb of Warren on 03/10/14 at 12:33 PM
My $500 is high. $50 for basic? Add $10 at a pawn shop for the camera. So you would have a camera costing $1,500 or much more. (Not enough profit) My sister has our cheap Brownie camera from 1950 that actually took great pictures.
Posted by BMN on 03/10/14 at 12:36 PM
Although the Retina Reflex was advertised as "for professionals and serious amateurs" it sold for a much lower price than the Leicas and Hasselblads that professionals and serious amateurs were using (which is why the commercials made such a big point of the price). It was a good camera for the price, but not a high-end camera.
The same applies to the projector -- much lower priced than other slide projectors with similar features, but not the same quality.
I still have a rangefinder Retina (not the Reflex). It was made for people who wanted a Leica and couldn't afford one, and it served well in that role. I took a lot of good pictures with that camera.
-Cougar :{)
The same applies to the projector -- much lower priced than other slide projectors with similar features, but not the same quality.
I still have a rangefinder Retina (not the Reflex). It was made for people who wanted a Leica and couldn't afford one, and it served well in that role. I took a lot of good pictures with that camera.
-Cougar :{)
Posted by Cougar Allen on 03/11/14 at 06:31 PM
F mount lenses.... if you don't LOVE our blog you don't belong here!
Posted by Expat47 in Athens, Greece on 06/17/15 at 09:05 AM
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Category: Photography and Photographers | Technology | 1950s