Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,676   Posts: 1,481,960   Online: 987
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    David H. Bebbington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    East Kent, United Kingdom
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,364
    Images
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by david b
    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!

    Regards,

    David

  2. #12
    mmcclellan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Ann Arbor, Michigan (USA)
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    463
    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?
    Michael McClellan
    Documentary Photographer
    Ann Arbor, Michigan
    http://www.MichaelMcClellan.com

  3. #13
    SimonXpan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Wrexham, North Wales
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3
    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!

  4. #14
    Aggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    So. Utah
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,925
    Images
    6
    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!
    Non Digital Diva

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    252
    Quote Originally Posted by mmcclellan
    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?
    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 ?

  6. #16
    dphphoto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Knoxville, TN 37931 USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    349
    Images
    27
    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
    dphphoto

  7. #17
    edz
    edz is offline

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Munich, Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by sanderx1
    Ahem. The regulation as such is not bad and really,
    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..
    Edward C. Zimmermann
    BSn R&D // http://www.nonmonotonic.net

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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