Discussion in 'Panoramic Cameras and Accessories' started by david b, Mar 22, 2006.
Sorry to post this...
Sad to see this unique camera go - obviously a number of factors at work, ostensibly it's the lead-based solder in the circuit boards, the fact that it's made by Fuji, who have quit film camera manufacture, doesn't help, and the fact that it's sold by Hasselblad, who have had to restructure drastically to survive, doesn't help either!
I wonder what the chances are for an X-Pan to end up in a landfill. My guess is that the odds are about the same as for a wrinkled $1,000 bill.
Since when have Fuji quit film making?? NEws to me? Think this was something in the newspapers which was wrong - again !
As far as I am am aware, Fuji have declared an intention to continue making FILM. I thought they had discontinued all film CAMERAS, it turns out they are still selling some 35 mm point-and-shoot cameras.
Good evening david b,
Nice article from BJP. I wonder if the future tilt and shift will be based on the Fuji 680, or more like the old Arcbody:
The Fuji GX645AF is basically the H series Hasselblad. I do wonder if the TX2 will be discontinued, or remain only sold in Japan. There was also an announcement from Horseman about a new stereo camera that looks quite a bit like the Xpan body with a strange stereo lens.
New legislation that came into effect last Friday would make that illegal. Its now an offense to toss ANY electrical or electronic applicance into the trash. They now must be specifically disposed of as electronic trash given their probably content of lead and other heavy metals. Despite the outlawing of lead soldiers materials such as arsenic, cadmium and mercury are plentiful in computers. Its now "expensive" to toss an old hair dryer into the trash just as an X-Pan, digital camera or cell phone ....
Another strange thing - photo magazines I have been receiving recently, including one yesterday, have included an 8-page issue of "Hasselblad News" featuring no less than 3 articles about, and a total of 4 pictures taken with, guess what - an XPan!
Well if it does go then I'm glad I've got mine!! It is a one of a kind camera anbd I 'd be hard pressed to re-create the feel with anything different!
So what does this mean for digital cameras? Aren't there the same type of boards in them?
I guess it means that digital cameras have the sales volume to amortise engineering costs easily, with the average life cycle of a digital camera, I assume all digital cameras now on the market have been designed with this EU directive in mind, whereas the perceived situation with film cameras is that the re-engineering costs of even a small part of an existing camera (e.g. the circuit board in the metering prism of an otherwise all-manual camera) are uneconomic!
Another victory for the EU bureaucrats! First British pipe organs down the tubes over this regulation and now this camera. I wonder, though, if Hasselblad asked for an exception to the rule and was refused?
It's the sign of a mad world when a firm stops making a brilliant camera (that won't get thrown away) all because of tiny bit of lead but a trainner manufacturer gives away a "free" gift that is almost 100% lead that kills a child!
I'm waiting for them to say we have to get rid of the all dirt. After all where does the lead come from in the first place? How do you think they come up with cadmium? Time to say the Earth is the fault and refuse to use it. Moon here we come!
Ahem. The regulation as such is not bad and really, it has been known for years that it will be coming. It is not in any way as if Hasselblad or Fuji or Pentax or whoever else is using ROHS and required re-engineering as a claimed cause to discontinuation were informed recently that they will have to change. They knew it just as well two years ago as now.
ROHS was passed in 2002 - why were redesign efforts not started back then ?
OK, now Fuji makes the camera, and sells it in Japan. So what happens to U.S. distribution?
Maybe we'll see it in the states as a Fuji branded something or another. Dean
The legislation is BAD and foolish--- its authors one might suggest were eating a bit too much lead paint. While these relatively small amounts of lead are prohibited (to the cost of higher energy needs, more waste etc.), to be replaced by other metal alloys that probably pose no less a long term (in some cases higher) health risk into the ecosystem, the main culprits are allowed to continued to run free: lead in batteries, lead in displays... learning from the spirit of EPA's banning of mercury from little button cells but not lighting tubes.. or from the banning of seal fur in the United States.. smoke and mirrors with a falsified "feel good" impulse..
Separate names with a comma.