is there a replacement for lead solder? what makes regular tin solder unusable?
why are the camera companies leaving?
-
A
- Thread starter DirkDynamo
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Leica 14510 leather case for R-E, R4, R5, R6.
- Started by Chrismat
-
For Sale FS: A Pair of NORMAN Flash Tube Covers
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Free FREE for shipping cost: HUGE Lot of Vintage Photo Literature!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Zeiss hologon camera set 15mm f8 lens center filter grip cable & case
- Started by Redcurtain
-
For Sale Prewar zeiss biogon 3.5cm f2.8 - coated glass - marked M168 with original caps
- Started by Redcurtain
Forum statistics
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.
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.
DBP said:
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.
I think there is a "perfect storm" affect going on here. It's not one thing that's making it tough on camera manufacturers, especially medium format manufacturers, it's the combination of a market switching to digital, an enormous amount of used high quality gear being available at very reasonable prices, and Ebay becoming an easy way, minus the huge mark up of a middle man camera store, to buy or sell this abundant used gear.
Tom Kershaw said:
What's worse, many beginner cameras, like the FM10, come with a standard (and mediocre) zoom. Why they don't sell it with a 50/2 is a mystery.
Other than that, maybe it is a size thing?
What I want is a zoom that gets smaller and lighter as the focal length gets shorter. A 14-400 f/2.8 that would do that would be perfect. 
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2002
- Messages
- 551
Petzi said:
Didin't I read recently that the majority of mined silver still goes into producing photographic materials? Next time we badly expose a piece of film, lets not forget the huge number of underpaid workers in unsafe conditions who let us practice our hobby....
Tom Kershaw said:
I often ask the same question. Many of the photographers I know have fallen into the "super zoom" trap only to find, after learning to see, something lacking. There is one fellow I know who, after buying the latest and greatest Nikon digital SLR (the D2x I believe,) is now outfitting it with a bunch of manual focus AI lenses. To top if off, he's lately taken to producing monochrome images with the thing. Go figure. Take something simple, then complicate it in order to arrive back at something simple.
Sir you are correct. The golden age (in my lifetime anyway) of hobby photography (equipment sales) - which eventually settled down as the technology matured. Folks discovered that there wasn't a cure all for the innability to compose, to understand lighting, or find something interesting to photograph. Mom and pop just wanted pictures of Susy's birthday party - that's still all they want. Digital technology emerged and promised a new generation that you don't need to know doodley about ..composition or lighting...and...there you are. Mom and pop don't care if they use film or digital, though sadly Suzy might - when she's my age and doens't have a UNIVAC that understands PASCAL coding language and can't open her files. I recently took an old 110 negative from 40 years ago (yes we save negs in my house) and made a perfectly decent print.jovo said:
Digital cameras are now considered "electronics" by most retailers, the CCDs are primarily made by Sony (Nikon D200); so there's no reason why the electronics manufacturers can't just buy the glass as they're already making the other pieces themsevles. That puts Nikon (et al) in the position of being a marketing company (FM10 is now made by Cosina) more than a "camera" company. Of course we all know Konica/Minolta is...an imaging company and doesn't do cameras at all now. Who bought their camera line..oh, Sony.
Dirk,
Tin solder alone is subject to the growth of "tin whiskers", which are monocrystalline metallic strands perpendicular to the surface. When they touch a neighboring component, they cause shorts. Causes are not well understood, but heating/electrochemical cycles coupled with defects in the alloy lattice are suspected.
The problem is that while the amount of lead used in P67s or XPans was low, the number of devices which could contain it is large (old CRTs, for instance). Cadmium is similar, except given the various routes by which cadmium causes problems in biological systems it was actually good that it was phased-out first. I'm sorry to see Ektalure go (Kodak could have taken Kodachrome out to be shot first, IMHO, if it was only a business decision), but the byproducts of manufacturing were too toxic. Maybe someone can get to work on a silver nanoparticle-based paper which will have the right color response when sulfide toned.
Tin solder alone is subject to the growth of "tin whiskers", which are monocrystalline metallic strands perpendicular to the surface. When they touch a neighboring component, they cause shorts. Causes are not well understood, but heating/electrochemical cycles coupled with defects in the alloy lattice are suspected.
The problem is that while the amount of lead used in P67s or XPans was low, the number of devices which could contain it is large (old CRTs, for instance). Cadmium is similar, except given the various routes by which cadmium causes problems in biological systems it was actually good that it was phased-out first. I'm sorry to see Ektalure go (Kodak could have taken Kodachrome out to be shot first, IMHO, if it was only a business decision), but the byproducts of manufacturing were too toxic. Maybe someone can get to work on a silver nanoparticle-based paper which will have the right color response when sulfide toned.
QuillianSW said:
We have negatives that my Grandfather shot in World War One that are still perfectly printable. Some nice shots, too, my father is compiling them into a book. The 16mm movies of my father's childhood (30s-40s) are still usable, And all the slides shot in my childhood (60s-70s) are fine. But I have (non-photographic) digital files from the early 90s that are useless from lack of software, or in some cases because of media differences. Until I bought my latest computer I was using Zip drives. I had to move all those files onto a portable hard drive. And Zip drives were the technology of the future in the late 90s!
I tell people with children to please shoot at least one roll of Kodachrome per year for posterity.
MattKing
Moderator
DBP said:
Or even better, B & W!
MattKing said:
No, B&W is only a poor substitute.
MattKing
Moderator
roteague said:
Robert, I wasn't clear in my meaning.
B & W for archival reasons (and because it's good too), and colour (Kodachrome, Portra 160, Kodak Gold, Velvia, Ektachrome, etc. etc.) because it's wonderful, and because for the next few decades or so, it will last well too.
In short - use film!
Matt
Most of these zoom lenses have chromatic aberrations and barrel distortion. Plus the quality is much less than the 50mm which is a fraction of the price. I think that the real problem is that most of these consumers think that zoom means telephoto.Tom Kershaw said:
However, the dSLR has made the 50mm lens into the perfect portrait lenses. 35mm users have to get an expensive 85mm lens, while digital users are doing the same thing with an $80 lens.
MattKing said:
Ok Matt, I can accept that
Long live film!!!!- Joined
- Jan 23, 2006
- Messages
- 42
- Format
- Large Format
Michael Reichmann on the LL site has linked an interview (http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/05/26/yourmoney/mjapan.php) with three analysts of Japanese equities, in which they address what is going wrong with the Japanese photography companies (the specific company in question is Pentax, but the context is general). Michael in particular referenced the following excerpt:
"Abe: Let me discuss Pentax, of which we hold 21 percent. Pentax is an optical technology company that is known for making single-reflex lenses. Japanese camera makers have their roots in lens making and optical technology. Leveraging its technological strength, Pentax has diversified into endoscopy, an area that Japanese companies monopolize (......)
The mistake that Pentax and other camera manufacturers made was in digital cameras, which as a business are not like cameras but more like home electronics, with short product cycles. It's not an efficient business for camera manufacturers to be in. We have been in talks with the Pentax management and have been suggesting that they exit from digital camera manufacturing. (......)
Musha: One needs to understand that competitive Japanese companies are not built on the "Silicon Valley model." Taiwan and Korean manufacturers in principle follow this model, where you make use of the basic prototype of the business, the technology and the equipment, and you pour in capital and rapidly achieve a certain scale. Your competitors can play catch-up very easily. Japanese semiconductor companies were typical [in how they lost to the competition] and the digital camera business falls in the same category. It's a winner-take-all game where unless you become the winner, you lose all your profits in the process of competition. Japanese firms that have been in those types of businesses have all been destroyed."
I'm not sure I completely agree with this analysis in that digital cameras, unlike many forms of consumer electronics, require a substantial investment in software (RAW converters, etc.), so I am not sure that the Japanese are at a disadvantage versus Korea or Taiwan in this regard (English-language software is not a particular strength with any of these countries). But the overall perspective is interesting.
"Abe: Let me discuss Pentax, of which we hold 21 percent. Pentax is an optical technology company that is known for making single-reflex lenses. Japanese camera makers have their roots in lens making and optical technology. Leveraging its technological strength, Pentax has diversified into endoscopy, an area that Japanese companies monopolize (......)
The mistake that Pentax and other camera manufacturers made was in digital cameras, which as a business are not like cameras but more like home electronics, with short product cycles. It's not an efficient business for camera manufacturers to be in. We have been in talks with the Pentax management and have been suggesting that they exit from digital camera manufacturing. (......)
Musha: One needs to understand that competitive Japanese companies are not built on the "Silicon Valley model." Taiwan and Korean manufacturers in principle follow this model, where you make use of the basic prototype of the business, the technology and the equipment, and you pour in capital and rapidly achieve a certain scale. Your competitors can play catch-up very easily. Japanese semiconductor companies were typical [in how they lost to the competition] and the digital camera business falls in the same category. It's a winner-take-all game where unless you become the winner, you lose all your profits in the process of competition. Japanese firms that have been in those types of businesses have all been destroyed."
I'm not sure I completely agree with this analysis in that digital cameras, unlike many forms of consumer electronics, require a substantial investment in software (RAW converters, etc.), so I am not sure that the Japanese are at a disadvantage versus Korea or Taiwan in this regard (English-language software is not a particular strength with any of these countries). But the overall perspective is interesting.
Eric Leppanen said:
I wouldn't give 10 cents for anything that Reichmann writes or anything on the Luminious Idots website either.
Eric Leppanen said:
Japanese camera manufacturers have entered the security camera business, and I'm sure that's as monopolistic as the "copy machine" business. Pentax is one of them, but I don't know how it's been doing, and I'm not an economist.
Hey Robert,roteague said:
It's actually a link to the Herald Tribune, where they interviewed 3 market analysts on the state of the Japanese economy. It's interesting reading.
Regards, Art.
No. The "software" is the least of the deal and may be outsourced. Think personal computer. With the exception of a few high profile and highly marketed examples such as the Apple--- agressive Zeitgeist design with a user interface following sold using a marketing language not too distant from "designer jeans", fast-food and carbonated beverages---- consumers go after what they've been educated to go after: price, specifications and "performance".Eric Leppanen said:
Think personal computer.. and then think Osborne, KayPro, Tandy, Compaq, Digital Equipment Corp, AST.. Its a game played out like the film "Highlander".. There can only be one. The rewards of being the last man standing, as in today's professional sport, is big pot.
Think cellular phones.. Look at why Siemens sold the unit to BenQ. Look at the fortunes of Nokia.. and the fast shifts of the market..
Think stockmarket and investor belief.. Think Kodak.. Think Google.. Think Yahoo.. Think of all the DOT.COMs like pets.com.. Think Oil. Then think HP...
The Japanese companies that are in a technological position to participate are at a horrible disadvantage in that game. They have a different mentality. While Sony--- which by Japanese standards are tiny nobodies with nothing more than lucky marketing to Americans--- might understand the "right language" and can squeeze into a good pole position but are lacking in the tyres, motor and fuel to go more than a few laps.
Eric Leppanen said:
Now we know where the heads of the Japanese camera companies have been.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |