Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,205   Posts: 1,531,761   Online: 945
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 50
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    861
    Quote Originally Posted by alien
    I personally want a back-to-the-roots mechanical fully manual camera, small, VERY robust, with an expected lifespan of decades (I am happy to have it serviced every two years to keep it mint), and with a built-in average and spot meter.


    Nothing fancy, really.....

    Maybe thats where the future for film lies - in the back to the basics stuff. All the sci-fi can go into the d*g*t*l thingies...

    Hello 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:

    http://www.alpa.ch/en/products/cameras/cameras12tc.html

    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.

    Ciao!

    Gordon

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Plymouth. UK.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,400
    Images
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by DirkDynamo
    so why are some of the big names of film camera production going under?

    at first glance digital seems to be a large culprit, but digital's main market seems to be nothing more than point and shoot cameras. DSLR's are only recently becoming viable resources for working photographers, both due to prices becoming more reasonable and picture quality improving. But why are some companies calling it quits?
    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.
    The same grey-suited idiots who banned Cadmium in photographic papers like the old Kentmere Art Classic, Kentona and Kodak Ektalure.

  3. #23
    gr82bart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Culver City, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,224
    Images
    37
    Anyone notice that there are more LF camera manufacturers than there are 35mm SLR manufacturers?

    Regards, Art.
    Last edited by gr82bart; 05-08-2006 at 01:42 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Visit my website at www.ArtLiem.com
    or my online portfolios at APUG and ModelMayhem

  4. #24
    DBP
    DBP is offline

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,882
    Images
    34
    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.

  5. #25
    rbarker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Rio Rancho, NM
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,222
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by esanford
    Everything that you say is absolutely the truth... However, I am not sure the word "fault" is an appropriate description. When a company decides to go public and gain all of the investment benefits of being a public company, it subjects itself to the "pundits" on Wall street. On Wall Street, every public company (not just those involved in photography) must show a growth curve that will attract investors. Most investors could care less how a company makes money so long as it's "making money". The Wall Street pundits analyze the public buying trends and "encourages" companies to take advantage of those trends. If public companies fail to do this, the "pundits" advise investors to withhold investments.
    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".

    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]

    Ralph Barker
    Rio Rancho, NM

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    baton rouge, louisiana
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    40
    Images
    3
    is there a replacement for lead solder? what makes regular tin solder unusable?

  7. #27
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith Tapscott.
    The same grey-suited idiots who banned Cadmium in photographic papers like the old Kentmere Art Classic, Kentona and Kodak Ektalure.
    Name me a good reason why Cadmium should be in photo papers.

  8. #28
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    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.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    South Norfolk, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,872
    Images
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by DBP
    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.
    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.

  10. #30
    alien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    England
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    226
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw
    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.


    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....

    Ansgar

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin