Popular Photography Sept. 2004: Found my old Popular Photography magazines and found on page 126 of the September 2004 issue, a Nikon D2H 4.1 megapixel without lens selling for...

machia Loc: NJ

Found my old Popular Photography magazines and found on page 126 of the September 2004 issue, a Nikon D2H
4.1 megapixel without lens selling for $3,199.95.
On page 151 a Canon EOS-1D II, body only @ 8.47 megapixels selling for 4,495.95.
An interesting look back.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

machia wrote:

Found my old Popular Photography magazines and found on page 126 of the September 2004 issue, a Nikon D2H
4.1 megapixel without lens selling for $3,199.95.
On page 151 a Canon EOS-1D II, body only @ 8.47 megapixels selling for 4,495.95.
An interesting look back.

We are so blessed to live in 2020 where gear is a fraction of 2004. Paid a lot more for my D50 in 2005 than any of my newer ones.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

machia wrote:

Found my old Popular Photography magazines and found on page 126 of the September 2004 issue, a Nikon D2H
4.1 megapixel without lens selling for $3,199.95.
On page 151 a Canon EOS-1D II, body only @ 8.47 megapixels selling for 4,495.95.
An interesting look back.

Even now I don’t remember what I paid for my first digital Rebel in 2007, but I believe it was less than the $700 I spent on my last film camera {an EOS Elan} in 1995.

machia Loc: NJ

rehess wrote:

Even now I don’t remember what I paid for my first digital Rebel in 2007, but I believe it was less than the $700 I spent on my last film camera {an EOS Elan} in 1995.

The first digital rebel was selling for 999.00.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I think my Nikon F Photomic cast around $300 in 1970. I recall most SLRs costing about $250 in those days.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

jerryc41 wrote:

I think my Nikon F Photomic cast around $300 in 1970. I recall most SLRs costing about $250 in those days.

That was two weeks wages for me back in 1970. Fresh out of college, I started at $8000/year In 1970 with GTE. Buying a Nikon would’ve been a real stretch on my budget.

Stan

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

jerryc41 wrote:

I think my Nikon F Photomic cast around $300 in 1970. I recall most SLRs costing about $250 in those days.

Yes and I don't completely recall but as i remember nikon slrs came out about every 10 years and my copy new F3hp was right around $400 with a 8 page users manual and as a matter of fact its still on my shelf yes I still own it and still works great! To that said i can't say how many digital cameras i've now owned.

rwww80a Loc: Hampton, NH

I remember the original Kodak digital SLR using Nikon lens, priced at $25000. I think it had 2 mp. It was advertised in a govt newsletter, probably about 1994.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

jerryc41 wrote:

I think my Nikon F Photomic cast around $300 in 1970. I recall most SLRs costing about $250 in those days.

I had the option for a high school graduation gift to have either a Nikon F or Mamiya C330. Both were $180 at the base exchange in the Philippines. I opted for the Mamiya. It was the “last camera I would ever need”.....at the time. I’ve lost count of how many I’ve had since then.

BebuLamar

machia wrote:

Found my old Popular Photography magazines and found on page 126 of the September 2004 issue, a Nikon D2H
4.1 megapixel without lens selling for $3,199.95.
On page 151 a Canon EOS-1D II, body only @ 8.47 megapixels selling for 4,495.95.
An interesting look back.

Go back further you may find the Kodak series of DSLR made from Nikon and Canon bodies which cost in ten of thousands and have a few MP.
Take a look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_100#:~:text=There%20were%20many%20models%20of,of%20987%20units%20were%20sold.
it was a mere $20,000

wthomson Loc: Tempe, Arizona

$300 for a Nikkomat FTN, with 35, 50 and 135 primes. Purchased for me in 1966 in Japan.

tvhasben Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee

wthomson wrote:

$300 for a Nikkomat FTN, with 35, 50 and 135 primes. Purchased for me in 1966 in Japan.

I recall getting a new Nikkormat FTN body for $175 in 1972. I already had the 50mm f2 and a Vivitar 84-205 f3.8. That was one tough lens - your could almost drive nails with it and still get good images.

machia Loc: NJ

BebuLamar wrote:

Go back further you may find the Kodak series of DSLR made from Nikon and Canon bodies which cost in ten of thousands and have a few MP.
Take a look at this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_100#:~:text=There%20were%20many%20models%20of,of%20987%20units%20were%20sold.
it was a mere $20,000

So Kodak actually did do something with their technology, not just “sit on it” as the story goes?
Perhaps no matter what Kodak did in the way of digital camera technology, their era ended when film began to become passé?
Film was their bread and butter.
And to my eyes nothing ever took the place of Kodachrome. The rich and warm saturated tones of that film has never been replicated.

rwww80a Loc: Hampton, NH

I bought my Nikkomat Ftn in '69 so I could use my father's lens. He kept wondering where his lens' were when he couldn't find them where he thought he left them.

BebuLamar

machia wrote:

So Kodak actually did do something with their technology, not just “sit on it” as the story goes?
Perhaps no matter what Kodak did in the way of digital camera technology, their era ended when film began to become passé?
Film was their bread and butter.
And to my eyes nothing ever took the place of Kodachrome. The rich and warm saturated tones of that film has never been replicated.

Kodak was actually in the forefront of digital imaging sensor technology. They failed because the wanted their film business and concentrate on sensor but not camera as a whole.