If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: It really is a bit much, even with the plastic kit lens. The only cause of this must be the mechanicals, which DSLR's need to function. Even more odd is that the D7000 body (partly metal and although no D300 is better than the D5200 body) is only...$900 now!!! How is the use of plastic detrimental to image quality or functionality? How would the use of a metal frame improve the camera? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Feb 20, 2:19*pm, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It really is a bit much, even with the plastic kit lens. *The only cause of this must be the mechanicals, which DSLR's need to function. Even more odd is that the D7000 body (partly metal and although no D300 is better than the D5200 body) is only...$900 now!!! How is the use of plastic detrimental to image quality or functionality? How would the use of a metal frame improve the camera? Well, differential of expansion between plastic and metal can effect a lot of things, from stressing of mounted components to focus shift with long lenses to body flexture with large lenses. Have you ever seen any evidence of this occuring in any other SLR that's based on a plastic frame? The Canon Rebels come to mind, and I've never heard of anything like this ever happening. Can you point to a single case of a plastic framed camera failing in this manner? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR
On 2/21/2013 6:28 AM, Bowser wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Feb 20, 2:19 pm, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It really is a bit much, even with the plastic kit lens. The only cause of this must be the mechanicals, which DSLR's need to function. Even more odd is that the D7000 body (partly metal and although no D300 is better than the D5200 body) is only...$900 now!!! How is the use of plastic detrimental to image quality or functionality? How would the use of a metal frame improve the camera? Well, differential of expansion between plastic and metal can effect a lot of things, from stressing of mounted components to focus shift with long lenses to body flexture with large lenses. Have you ever seen any evidence of this occuring in any other SLR that's based on a plastic frame? The Canon Rebels come to mind, and I've never heard of anything like this ever happening. Can you point to a single case of a plastic framed camera failing in this manner? That's an interesting question. While /I/ don't know of anyone who has experienced such conditions in either camera bodies or lenses, I don't consider engineers who design cameras to be lacking in knowledge of the materials used in the production of cameras nor would they unaware of the ambient temperatures of geographic areas where cameras are likely to be used. If you think camera engineers/designers are generally competent then doubting their professional abilities may be beyond question. However, they may well be committed to "Design to Cost," as the saying goes. When designing to cost, certain functional decisions must be made and ambient temperature characteristics of the materials used in cameras may be subject to reconsideration when designing to cost. Camera bodies may be all metal, or all plastic, or a combination of both; whatever the cost may be. Metals as well as plastics are physically affected by temperature variations, surely that determination can be agreed upon. How much they are affected, after being subjected to varying temperatures, is more than likely known to camera engineers/designers as they design to cost. I can recall a time (yes, I'm old enough) when Canon first began producing long lenses that were lightly colored (as opposed to the traditional black color) and the reason given by Canon advertising, at the time, was the light color helped in contributing to lens thermal stability. Still ..... if asked if /I/ know of anyone who has experienced camera characteristic thermal instabilities the only truthful answer I can give is no. But ... if asked am /I/ aware that materials used in the design and production of cameras may be affected by ambient temperature conditions then I would have to answer yes; though such specific material/temperature related conditions/variations may be unknown to me. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR
On 2/21/2013 1:44 PM, RichA wrote:
On Feb 21, 2:55 pm, nick c wrote: On 2/21/2013 6:28 AM, Bowser wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Feb 20, 2:19 pm, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It really is a bit much, even with the plastic kit lens. The only cause of this must be the mechanicals, which DSLR's need to function. Even more odd is that the D7000 body (partly metal and although no D300 is better than the D5200 body) is only...$900 now!!! How is the use of plastic detrimental to image quality or functionality? How would the use of a metal frame improve the camera? Well, differential of expansion between plastic and metal can effect a lot of things, from stressing of mounted components to focus shift with long lenses to body flexture with large lenses. Have you ever seen any evidence of this occuring in any other SLR that's based on a plastic frame? The Canon Rebels come to mind, and I've never heard of anything like this ever happening. Can you point to a single case of a plastic framed camera failing in this manner? That's an interesting question. While /I/ don't know of anyone who has experienced such conditions in either camera bodies or lenses, I don't consider engineers who design cameras to be lacking in knowledge of the materials used in the production of cameras nor would they unaware of the ambient temperatures of geographic areas where cameras are likely to be used. If you think camera engineers/designers are generally competent then doubting their professional abilities may be beyond question. However, they may well be committed to "Design to Cost," as the saying goes. When designing to cost, certain functional decisions must be made and ambient temperature characteristics of the materials used in cameras may be subject to reconsideration when designing to cost. Camera bodies may be all metal, or all plastic, or a combination of both; whatever the cost may be. Metals as well as plastics are physically affected by temperature variations, surely that determination can be agreed upon. How much they are affected, after being subjected to varying temperatures, is more than likely known to camera engineers/designers as they design to cost. Metals are less effected than plastic. My guess is the magnesium commonly advertised as being used in camera frames is not pure magnesium. I think there must be a blending with molybdenum in order to make use of it's thermal characteristics. For example, an alloy of that nature would be somewhat similar to copper, having about the same temperature containment capability with about 2% (or more) less in temperature transfer capability. I would also liken the alloy to having about the same fluid molding characteristics as aluminum but with a greater increase in strength. While poly-carbonate's, in general, as used in camera bodies, have wide temperature variations they are subject to chemical attack, such as from solvents or gasoline. When used together they may form a very good union of metal and plastic and evidently be highly suited to the making of camera frames. The magnesium would add strength and durability to the poly-carbonate while poly-carbonate's would add temperature stability to the magnesium. However, as I said, I'm guessing. I can recall a time (yes, I'm old enough) when Canon first began producing long lenses that were lightly colored (as opposed to the traditional black color) and the reason given by Canon advertising, at the time, was the light color helped in contributing to lens thermal stability. White absorbs IR less than black = less heat, less thermal expansion that could cause problems with precision-fit moving components and can effect focus. Heat can also cause optical binding where lenses are stressed by shrinking metal or plastic housings, which can reduce image quality. Which is why you never see plastic large camera lenses or telescopes of any quality. High-end lenses use temperature compensating cells to hold lenses for that reason. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR
On Thu, 21 Feb 2013 13:40:04 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote: On Feb 21, 9:28*am, Bowser wrote: On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:22:44 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: On Feb 20, 2:19*pm, Bowser wrote: On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 03:19:19 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote: It really is a bit much, even with the plastic kit lens. *The only cause of this must be the mechanicals, which DSLR's need to function. Even more odd is that the D7000 body (partly metal and although no D300 is better than the D5200 body) is only...$900 now!!! How is the use of plastic detrimental to image quality or functionality? How would the use of a metal frame improve the camera? Well, differential of expansion between plastic and metal can effect a lot of things, from stressing of mounted components to focus shift with long lenses to body flexture with large lenses. Have you ever seen any evidence of this occuring in any other SLR that's based on a plastic frame? The Canon Rebels come to mind, and I've never heard of anything like this ever happening. Can you point to a single case of a plastic framed camera failing in this manner? I've seen it reported by others. They generally mount the sensor and bayonet to some kind of internal metal cage to avoid it, but it doesn't always work. Can you point to a single report? A link? I'm really curious. I've never heard of it. If something like actually happened the boards and NGs would light up. I have seen a few videos showing how rugged the Rebels actually are, though. One accidently dropped from a plane comes to mind. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR | Rob | Digital SLR Cameras | 6 | February 21st 13 03:10 AM |
Creative language used to sell plastic bodied cameras | David J. Littleboy | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | October 21st 09 10:55 AM |
Creative language used to sell plastic bodied cameras | SkinnerOne | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | October 21st 09 10:52 AM |
Creative language used to sell plastic bodied cameras | Ray Fischer | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | October 18th 09 10:51 PM |
Two MORE problems with plastic-bodied cameras | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 15 | October 14th 07 03:46 PM |