Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,228   Posts: 1,532,716   Online: 767
      
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Italia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,680
    But it costs money to build a factory/machine to automate production to. For low volume production it might be cheaper to hand make something.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisiana, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,325
    ...And I can appreciate the quality of hand-worked precision-made equipment (I own Leicas myself). But I also appreciate Canon and Nikon (as well as Glock and Walther) machine-built plastic parts.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Zentena View Post
    But it costs money to build a factory/machine to automate production to. For low volume production it might be cheaper to hand make something.
    Dear Nick,

    Eminently true. Except that hand-lapping can't be mechanized, though Leica is doing research into how to mechanize it. (So is Zeiss, probably, but I forgot to ask them).

    Hand building also makes it a LOT easier to do 100% quality control, at every stage, instead of batch testing, and this is a significantly bigger factor in the price of top-flight equipment than the labour involved in building it.

    Also, the market for the best possible, at any price, has always been small. In one sense, a robot-built Ford is a better car than a hand-built Bristol or Ferrari, where a lot of the bits are selectively assembled or 'eased to fit' (not the engines, so much as the bodies). But which would you rather have?

    Cheers,

    Roger

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    258
    I might be slow to understand the article, but can someone here explain how the writers of the article connect the sales of non-digital SLR lenses to a recurrance of film in Japan? As far as I know, Nikon and Canon's non-digital SLR lenses can be used for their digital counterparts.

    I'm all for a film comeback, but somehow the article doesn't make much sense in how the two things are connected.

  5. #25
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,067
    film_guy,

    See my post in this thread. We are still on the same page.

    Steve
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Shooter
    Sub 35mm
    Posts
    1,322
    I just love these articles. S much for the film is dying group.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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