x-ray
Mentor
Yes I was shooting film when prices were even cheaper than these. When I was in high school in the early and mid 60’s I bought European 120 B&W, probably Agfa, for 26 cents a roll. Anyway look at the prices of the Ektachrome-X $1.65 and the old formula Tri-X .95 cents. The old EX film was beautiful. It ran in either E-3 and later E-4 chemistry. It wasn’t terribly fine grained but the colors were beautiful and rich. The old formulation of TX was quite different from current production. Matter of fact I’m not sure why the current film is called TX because it’s so different. Many of us old timers stopped using TX when the new formulation came out around 2006.
I forgot to look at the expiration date but Kodak ditched 20 exposure rolls and brought out 24 exposure rolls around 1970. Everyone was upset because we had to buy new stainless processing reels. It was my understanding from our Kodak rep that the extra 4 exposures was driven by increased profit. Kodak raised the price of film and the made 4 more prints when processing and printing. Later in the 80’s or 90’s Konica brought out their own film and had 12 exposure rolls.
I forgot to look at the expiration date but Kodak ditched 20 exposure rolls and brought out 24 exposure rolls around 1970. Everyone was upset because we had to buy new stainless processing reels. It was my understanding from our Kodak rep that the extra 4 exposures was driven by increased profit. Kodak raised the price of film and the made 4 more prints when processing and printing. Later in the 80’s or 90’s Konica brought out their own film and had 12 exposure rolls.
Attachments
Huh, never knew there were 20 exposure rolls (since I started in 1990). I do remember the Konica rolls though. I never used anything but 36 exposure rolls in 35mm unless I was desperate. I guess I liked to photograph.
Steinberg2010
Well-known
Yes - the older Nikon SP had a film reminder showing 20/36.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
I remember the 20 roll cartridges from the 70's.
You may notice some older 60/70's SLRs show a red or orange "20" (rather than "24") in the frame counter window indicating "end" of roll
.
My Miranda Sensorex has this (approaching the 20th exposure):
You may notice some older 60/70's SLRs show a red or orange "20" (rather than "24") in the frame counter window indicating "end" of roll
.My Miranda Sensorex has this (approaching the 20th exposure):
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
As one who shot their first roll of 135-36 film in 1966 I gotta say I greatly appreciate that B&H sells a 32GB SanDisk SD card for $13.99.
>10,000 exposures.
These ARE the good old days.
>10,000 exposures.
These ARE the good old days.
markjwyatt
Well-known
Ok. mid-60s, Tri-X = $0.95 = 3 quarters and two dimes, 95% silver. Today, 3 quarters and two dimes in silver content at spot price are worth $12.94. At Freestyle, Tri-X, 36 exposures is $12.99. Ergo, in constant silver (real constitutional money, vs. ever inflating paper currency), Tri-X costs the same today as it did in the mid-60s. How much did the average worker make in the mid 1960s? How about today?
x-ray
Mentor
When I look at the price of film back in the day I have to remember what wages were back then. When I started shooting professionally in college in 1968 I made $5/photo published by the news paper. It added up pretty quickly and I bought my first used Leica M2 and 50 rigid Summicron. The body was $250 and the lens around $150. I think my used 21 SA f3.4 with finder was around $250 and my new 35 Summilux was $333. Seems like my 90 f2.8 Elmarit (not tele) was a little over $100.
x-ray
Mentor
I totally agree. If you look back at camera prices they’ve tracked pretty close to inflation.
I was looking to buy a new sports car early last year. I had bought a new Porsche several years ago and thought I might look at a new one. I was actually shocked that the new entry level 911 is less that what I paid for mine.
When you consider the advancements in cameras new cameras are a real bargain. Then consider the savings in film and processing. My first digital camera was the Nikon D1 then the D1x came out and was the same price, $5000. Now look at what you can buy for a fraction of the price of the D1. You can buy a Z7II and get close to a Z9 or buy a couple of D850’s and a lens.
wlewisiii
Just another hotel clerk
Ah, thank you. I needed some humor to start my day.
I buy bulk, about $3.50/roll for the cheapest B&W from B&H. Not including the cost of cassettes but I already have hundreds of those...
This is about $0.35 in mid-60s money...
This is about $0.35 in mid-60s money...
I have looked at new ones over the past 20 years, fantastic machines, but I'm sticking with my 993. I keeps going up in value...
x-ray
Mentor
The intermediate shaft issue scared me off. It wasn’t so much the issue of the failure as much as the class action lawsuit to get it resolved.
I wound up buying a 2 door Mini Cooper S and really enjoy it. I’m not concerned about going up in value as much as the fun factor.
Yeah I was lucky with my two Boxsters ('99, and '01.) I also had an '05 Cooper S. So much fun! Although not quite as much as the Boxster S when the rear tires got nearly bald... 😆
Canyongazer
Canyongazer
Yup.
new Nikon FTn, body, metered prism 1968 = $350.00, i.e., about $2850 in 2023 dollars.
new Nikon D850 body in 2023 = $2800.00
x-ray
Mentor
The Coopers changed a lot when BMW got involved. They solved a lot of problems and upped the power a lot and improved comfort. Everyone I knew that had one described it like driving a go cart. I’d agree 100%, twin inner cooled twin turbo charged 189 horse go cart ;-)
For me a sports car is about handling not raw speed. That’s for the street rod guys. A sports car is a different experience. Especially the older British cars. My dad had an MGA and I had a B. You carried tools in the boot and a unison. My SU carbs would never stay in sync. They weren’t fast but what a great experience. It’s the same with Porsche. The old 356 wasn’t really fast not even the Super 90. It was the handling, the experience of actually being the master of the car.
I live in the perfect place for a Porsche or Cooper. I’m on the east side of Tennessee and we have the best winding roads and not just a few curves. We have stretches 30 miles long of hairpin curves up and down the mountains. It’s not speed as much as the insane curves and seeing how fast you can take them. There are stretches you can’t get out of second and third gear they’re so tight. East TN, Western NC and Northern GA are a paradise for sports car drivers. Anyway every time I took the Porsche out to see how fast it would go I got a ticket. I got two over 125mph as I was slowing down. Can’t do that anymore. ;-(
Last edited:
AAlfano
Well-known
Yes but I bet that FTn purchased new in 1968 would still be working in 2023. I very much doubt a D850 purchased today will still be working 55 years from now.
We have similar roads here in the Hill Country, probably not quite as curvy, but enough to get into trouble especially with a rear engine!
Maybe an apt comparison is the retail of a Leica M4 with MR-4 meter circa 1968, vs the new Leica M6 of 2023.
x-ray
Mentor
Not sure about that. I’d guess the biggest problem would be finding batteries. Look at the old Canon AE-1. Who would have guessed they’d be popular today but they are and they bring crazy prices. How old is the AE-1 now, 45 years old?
markjwyatt
Well-known
Where do you see the humor? The constitutional part or the ever inflating part?
AAlfano
Well-known
Fair points. I had forgotten that the FTn takes mercury batteries.
My point—and sorry for the thread drift—was that it's not quite fair to compare the cost of a mechanical film camera from the 60s or 70s to a digital camera. Most quality cameras from that period were built to last a lifetime (with periodic service). So while the purchase price might be comparable to a new digital camera when adjusted for inflation, I think the cost over time probably evens out in the long term even if you factor in the cost of film. This would of course depend on how much you shoot. If you're shooting 100,000+ images a year, obviously digital would be the way to go even if you're replacing/upgrading bodies every few years.
My point—and sorry for the thread drift—was that it's not quite fair to compare the cost of a mechanical film camera from the 60s or 70s to a digital camera. Most quality cameras from that period were built to last a lifetime (with periodic service). So while the purchase price might be comparable to a new digital camera when adjusted for inflation, I think the cost over time probably evens out in the long term even if you factor in the cost of film. This would of course depend on how much you shoot. If you're shooting 100,000+ images a year, obviously digital would be the way to go even if you're replacing/upgrading bodies every few years.
neal3k
Well-known
I made $1.00/hour at the Piggly Wiggly supermarket (part-time) and bought Plus-X because it was cheaper than Tri-X.