On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:00:46 -0400, Robert Coe wrote:

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Mar 12, 2:28*pm, Bowser wrote:
: On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:04:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
: wrote:
:
: What else could it be?
:
: Anynumber of 1,000 things inside a very complex device. To assume it's
: the frame material is ridiculous.
:
: Still paranoid, eh?
:
: We don't really know, do we? If it's residual debris from unclean
: assembly, then Nikon looks bad. If it's an ongoing shedding of dust
: and pieces due to wear of ill-fitting mechanism parts, Nikon looks
: bad. If it's some kind of lubricant that being flung around because
: of over-lubricating or poor design, Nikon looks bad.
: So tell us what you think it is?

I think it's Canon looking less bad.


Well, we all know Canons are better, don't we?

;-)