Rangefinder camera prices 1963

R

Roger Hicks

Mentor
Local time
8:51 PM
Joined
Apr 15, 2005
Messages
23,920
Nowadays, people tend to regard old Zorkiis, Kievs and Feds as much of a muchness, but when they were new, the differences were much more marked. This piece reproduces (and comments on) a few pages from the Wallace Heaton Blue Book of 1963-64, including the often overlooked Werra, and compares them all with Canon (with the 50/0.95) and Leica.

I find it hard to believe that this is more than 50 years ago.

Cheers,

R.
 
Progress?

Progress?

Wallace Heaton refers to their cameras and lenses as (optical) instruments.
Today we can go online and purchase musical instruments from B&H Photo.

Chris
 
I know the name is long gone, but I was thinking of Wallace Heaton while reading the thread, "Support your local camera store".
 
radi(c)al_cam said:
Thank you, dear Roger :)

May I add:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_in_the_United_Kingdom


Re WERRA: Wasn't the fastest shutter speed 1/750?
Click to expand...
Dear Alexander,

You are of course quite right. There's even a picture of it in my Shutterbug piece. I had conflated it with Kodak's 1/800 second leaf shutter. Both were improbably fast; both (as far as I recall) used rotating instead of reciprocating blades; and neither was usually all that close to the marked speed, at least after a few years. I suspect the 1/800 was just to outgun the Filthy Commies with their 1/750.

I've changed it in the article.

Cheers,

R.
 
I find the price comparison of the M3/2 and the Canon 7 very interesting. Then, they were almost equal. Today, you can pick up a Canon in excellent condition little more than a hundred bucks. The Leicas will be at least 5 times as much. Due to this, I do not (yet) have a Leica, but I do have a very nice Canon 7. Excellent camera! Their current prices do not reflect their quality.
 
If it helps, I paid $249, which was full price, for my new 1961 M2. I bought it in Las Vegas, where I lived at the time, and there was no sales tax! I saved for several months, bought the body; then saved some more and bought my 35/2.8 Summaron. A few months later, I bought my 90 Elmarit ($174). I still have them!
 
Thanks for that Roger. I always find it interesting to get an idea of what sort of sacrifices aspiring purchasers of some of the cameras I've acquired for a few dollars might have had to make, back in the day, to own them.

Wallace Heaton's Royal Warrants are an interesting historical footnote. The Queen's use of a Leica is well documented but perhaps not as well remembered, today, is that Prince Philip was, if anything more keenly interested in photography. In 1962 he authored a book Seabirds in Southern Waters (aka Birds From Britannia), which featured images made by him at sea using a Minox and a Hasselblad. I don't have the book myself, yet, (though I have a reasonable copy of it on its way to me, for 8 quid posted) but I have seen a reference to a 250mm f/4 lens being used by him. The equivalent 250mm for the then-current 500C, the 250mm Sonnar, has a f/5.6 maximum aperture, not f/4, so I suspect he might have used a 1600F or 1000F, purchased from Wallace Heaton, perhaps? The technical challenges involved in imaging birds, at sea, focusing manually, within the limitations of available films and their speed ratings during the period would have been substantial I suspect. More details about the book from this discussion at the recently "improved" photonet site.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Peter Jennings said:
I find the price comparison of the M3/2 and the Canon 7 very interesting. Then, they were almost equal. Today, you can pick up a Canon in excellent condition little more than a hundred bucks. The Leicas will be at least 5 times as much. Due to this, I do not (yet) have a Leica, but I do have a very nice Canon 7. Excellent camera! Their current prices do not reflect their quality.
Click to expand...
Dear Peter,

On the other hand, the Ms are probably more easily reparable. But I take your point.

Cheers,

R.
 
Sarcophilus Harrisii said:
Thanks for that Roger. I always find it interesting to get an idea of what sort of sacrifices aspiring purchasers of some of the cameras I've acquired for a few dollars might have had to make, back in the day, to own them.

Wallace Heaton's Royal Warrants are an interesting historical footnote. The Queen's use of a Leica is well documented but perhaps not as well remembered, today, is that Prince Philip was, if anything more keenly interested in photography. In 1962 he authored a book Seabirds in Southern Waters (aka Birds From Britannia), which featured images made by him at sea using a Minox and a Hasselblad. I don't have the book myself, yet, (though I have a reasonable copy of it on its way to me, for 8 quid posted) but I have seen a reference to a 250mm f/4 lens being used by him. The equivalent 250mm for the then-current 500C, the 250mm Sonnar, has a f/5.6 maximum aperture, not f/4, so I suspect he might have used a 1600F or 1000F, purchased from Wallace Heaton, perhaps? The technical challenges involved in imaging birds, at sea, focusing manually, within the limitations of available films and their speed ratings during the period would have been substantial I suspect. More details about the book from this discussion at the recently "improved" photonet site.
Cheers,
Brett
Click to expand...

Dear Brett,

Alas, there were no Alpas in the catalogue. I looked!

From 1964-1966 my father was the Electrical Officer on the Royal Yacht. He never worked out why, as he was a steam engineer by training. We put it down to clean living.

Anyway, at that time, Phil the Greek was coming aboard one day and a wave splashed up and filled his Hasselblad with seawater. He passed it to my father (as an engineer who'd come up from the lower deck, and actually understood practical engineering) to see if he knew anyone who could fix it. My father said that when he put it to his ear he could hear the fizzing noise as the various alloys reacted in the electrolyte provided by Neptune. It was not reparable... I don't know which model it was but I think it was a 500C.

Cheers,

R.
 
The Werras also came with western shutters (Synchro Compur). Ecellent, simple design. The various settings would not be visible until the sunshade was taken off. A closed Minox 35mm comes close. in the clutterl-free league.

p.
 
Just dug out my #30 Leica catalog from 1966.

Leica M3 body $288

with 50 2.0 is 438

with dual range $477

with 1.4 $486

with 50 2.8 $357

Original Leica flex $384

with 50 2.0 549

35 2.8 $298
90 2.8 $228
135 $264

It appears there was a big difference in pound and dollar then. So at least we can see pricing in US dollars
 
Ronald M said:
Just dug out my #30 Leica catalog from 1966.

Leica M3 body $288

with 50 2.0 is 438

with dual range $477

with 1.4 $486

with 50 2.8 $357

Original Leica flex $384

with 50 2.0 549

35 2.8 $298
90 2.8 $228
135 $264

It appears there was a big difference in pound and dollar then. So at least we can see pricing in US dollars
Click to expand...
Dear Ronald,

Taxes. UK taxes were high, but at least were honestly quoted as part of the price. US taxes were higher, but dishonestly ignored.

Also differences in exchange rates. The pound is now worth less than 1/3 of its 1940s value against the dollar, and about half its 1960s value.

Cheers,

R.
 
Amusingly inflammatory but also misleading. There is and was no nationwide sales tax in the US, there are some state sales taxes but most sales taxes are municipal, which means tens of thousands of different taxing jurisdictions, each with different rates. So a manufacturer's catalog, unless it were to rival a phone book in and size scintillating legibility, couldn't possibly quote an accurate post-tax price. And it was, I think, unheard of to collect taxes on mail order purchases at the time so even a retail shop's catalog couldn't have done so.

And I'd like to think at last once someone returning a Fed to Wallace Heaton's because of defects was told "We test to ensure that it conforms with the manufacturer's standard of perfection. This is a Fed, mate."

Roger Hicks said:
Dear Ronald,

Taxes. UK taxes were high, but at least were honestly quoted as part of the price. US taxes were higher, but dishonestly ignored.

Also differences in exchange rates. The pound is now worth less than 1/3 of its 1940s value against the dollar, and about half its 1960s value.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
 
JHutchins said:
Amusingly inflammatory but also misleading. There is and was no nationwide sales tax in the US, there are some state sales taxes but most sales taxes are municipal, which means tens of thousands of different taxing jurisdictions, each with different rates. So a manufacturer's catalog, unless it were to rival a phone book in and size scintillating legibility, couldn't possibly quote an accurate post-tax price. And it was, I think, unheard of to collect taxes on mail order purchases at the time so even a retail shop's catalog couldn't have done so.

And I'd like to think at last once someone returning a Fed to Wallace Heaton's because of defects was told "We test to ensure that it conforms with the manufacturer's standard of perfection. This is a Fed, mate."
Click to expand...
I've seen a number of references to camera prices including "Federal Tax" in issues of Eg Modern Photography from the 1950s. Were there any excise or duties applicable to camera equipment? I'm not very familiar with US taxation regimes, but there were other types of imposts apart from sales tax in various countries after WWII.
Cheers,
Brett
 
Great find, Roger. Thanks for sharing.

!964 found me still at the Chicago Sun-Times. I turned down military surplus M2 for $150, in favor of a Nikon F with a pair of

lenses for the same sum. We were on our way to Florida (ended up accepting the offer from the Miami Herald) and the 200 mm

lens was the deal maker. Still have the F and the Ansanuma lens, while I've gone through four Leicas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top