Originally Posted by alien
In 35mm SLR, you can sometimes still find a new Nikon FM3A, which works fine without batteries. I have an FM and FE that are still in use, with only minor cleaning service. Both were purchased used quite a while ago, yet despite the serial numbers indicating both approaching three decades, they still function perfectly fine.
Of course, Leica, as others have mentioned, though their rangefinder cameras would be a better fit for your search than their SLR cameras. There is also Voigtländer and Zeiss Ikon, though too early to tell if these will last decades.
There is a camera line that has a lifetime guarantee:
The 12TC is the smallest of the range, and not much larger than some 35 mm SLRs. Considering the lifetime of such a product, I suppose some might find the pricing reasonable. I would definitely like to have one, though perhaps the 12SWA model.
Much of it is down to the idiotic bureaucrats who decide what is good for us and the environment. They`ve banned the use of lead solder on circuit boards, hence the demise of the Hasselblad X-Pan and some other camera manufacturers products have also had to be discontinued.
Originally Posted by DirkDynamo
The same grey-suited idiots who banned Cadmium in photographic papers like the old Kentmere Art Classic, Kentona and Kodak Ektalure.
Anyone notice that there are more LF camera manufacturers than there are 35mm SLR manufacturers?
Last edited by gr82bart; 05-08-2006 at 01:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Seems to me that what is happening is that the periodic quest by serious non-professional photographers that used to lead to periodic new 35mm purchases is getting diverted to digital cameras. Where the Nikkormat user of the early 80s would have been upgrading to the FG, FE, or FMs, the same type of user today looks at going from an N80 to maybe a D50. So Nikon's decision to only keep the professional film SLR (F6) makes sense in that context, given that they can keep marketing the FM-10 to catch the student market, or at least that portion that just won't buy used. It is the serious amateurs looking to stay current with technology who have switched to buying digital, because they have film cameras that are modern and fully functional. Digital cameras are feeding on the urge for novelty.
In the point and shoot market, I think film is seen by the general public as obsolete. After at least 20 years of advertising in this direction (e.g. digital sound), it is not surprising that 'digital' is seen by some as a synonym for 'modern' and even 'good'. Thus we get complete nonsense like 'digital' tripods (ten legs? 30?) and 'digital' filters (try to explain the latter in terms of quantum theory, somebody?). I have had many people argue with me over the last few years that I really needed a digicam. None of these people could tell an f/stop from a shutter speed. I remember one fellow who decided he needed to learn photography, went out and bought an F100 and two zooms as his first real camera. After getting all sorts of terrible results (mixed lighting issues and misplaced autofocus issues), he decided that film was the problem and bought a D70. Needless to say, the pics have not improved. No amount of technology fixes the loose nut behind the viewfinder problem.
While I agree with the theory of what you say, I guess my complaint is really that, all-to-often, the pundits actually create the trends, rather than just analysing them. For example, when a stock's value drops in a major way because the company "didn't meet Wall Street expectations", one has to wonder if it's really the company's fault or really bad "expectating".
Originally Posted by esanford
Unless the expectations start to be more realistic, I fear that all of the capital markets are doomed to suffer the effects of the globalization bubble bursting. And then, won't we all be in a fix? Greed, in the long term, only works in small doses.
[COLOR=SlateGray]"You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." -Mark Twain[/COLOR]
Rio Rancho, NM
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
is there a replacement for lead solder? what makes regular tin solder unusable?
Name me a good reason why Cadmium should be in photo papers.
Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott.
The regular electronic solder contained 60% of tin, about 40% of lead and small amounts of other metals. The lead is to be eliminated. Silver is now used. It requires different soldering technique, because the melting point is higher.
I am not sure it is really a good idea to replace lead with silver. Silver is scarcer, more expensive, and I wonder why it had to be used in the first place because disposal of electronic devices is prohibited now in many countries, so the lead could have been recycled.
What is it with beginner photographers and zoom lenses? There is an advert on the back of Black & White Photography magazine (May 2006) for a 'Digital MEGAZOOM' with a 18-200mm range. Sometimes I think people would be better off with a FM3a or OM2n complete with 50/1.8 lens.
Originally Posted by DBP
Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw
It is the 'more is better' effect. Happens everywhere. People fall for it in all aspects of life. And I can not say that I am any better - I fall into the same trap....