Creative language used to sell plastic bodied cameras

"RichA" wrote in message
...
"Heavy duty plastic." What does that mean?

It means a resilient material that can withstand bumps and bounces and
protect the internal parts of the camera, unlike the flimsy metal of the
OM-1 or FM2 or Leica M or Rolleiflex or even Hasselblad (3 of which I've
owned and used) that will deform and block (or break) the internal workings
of the camera.

The three strongest cameras I've ever owned have been the 300D, 5D, and 5D2.

The funny thing is, metal is subject to _plastic deformation_ (look it up),
whereas the plastics in camera bodies are still in the _elastic deformation
region_ (look it up) at the stress and strain (two other words you need to
look up) levels that will cause plastic deformation in most metal bodies of
the classic cameras of the pre-AF age.

Here's a hint for you, guy: modern camera designers know a lot about
materials science and materials design.

--
David J. Littleboy
(Who TA'ed "3.091" (the MIT introduction to Materials Science course) in
1980.)
(Truth in advertising: I then dropped out of MIT grad school and did an MA
in Japanese Literature at Yale.)
Tokyo, Japan

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:56:06 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:
:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ...
: "Heavy duty plastic." What does that mean?
:
: It means a resilient material that can withstand bumps and bounces and
: protect the internal parts of the camera, unlike the flimsy metal of the
: OM-1 or FM2 or Leica M or Rolleiflex or even Hasselblad (3 of which I've
: owned and used) that will deform and block (or break) the internal workings
: of the camera.
:
: The three strongest cameras I've ever owned have been the 300D, 5D, and 5D2.
:
: The funny thing is, metal is subject to _plastic deformation_ (look it up),
: whereas the plastics in camera bodies are still in the _elastic deformation
: region_ (look it up) ...

For those too lazy to look those terms up, what David means is that when a
falling camera is stopped by a concrete sidewalk, the kinetic energy aquired
by the camera on its way down has to go somewhere. A metal body will usually
absorb the energy by permanently bending or crumpling; a plastic body is more
likely to be able to get rid of it through non-destructive vibration.

The Law of Conservation of Energy cannot be repealed, even for clueless
trolls.

Bob

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:23:07 -0700 (PDT), RichA wrote:
: On Oct 17, 1:56*pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
: "RichA" wrote in message
:
: ...
: "Heavy duty plastic." What does that mean?
:
: It means a resilient material that can withstand bumps and bounces and
: protect the internal parts of the camera, unlike the flimsy metal of the
: OM-1 or FM2 or Leica M or Rolleiflex or even Hasselblad (3 of which I've
: owned and used) that will deform and block (or break) the internal workings
: of the camera.
:
: The three strongest cameras I've ever owned have been the 300D, 5D, and 5D2.
:
: The funny thing is, metal is subject to _plastic deformation_ (look it up),
: whereas the plastics in camera bodies are still in the _elastic deformation
: region_ (look it up) at the stress and strain (two other words you need to
: look up) levels that will cause plastic deformation in most metal bodies of
: the classic cameras of the pre-AF age.
:
: Here's a hint for you, guy: modern camera designers know a lot about
: materials science and materials design.
:
: You can gussy this up in any language you want but plastic cameras are
: inferior in strength compared to metal bodied cameras. Plastic used
: in camera bodies cracks and breaks and falls apart. Parts wear much
: faster. Internal small parts break, leaving the camera useless.
: Metal bodies, unless subjected to unusual amounts of force do not.
: When was the last time you saw engraved printing on metal wear out
: like the silk-screen paint crap on plastic bodies??

You can paint metal, and you can engrave plastic. What's left of your point?

Bob

RichA wrote:
"David J. Littleboy" wrote:

Here's a hint for you, guy: modern camera designers know a lot about
materials science and materials design.

You can gussy this up in any language you want but plastic cameras are
inferior in strength compared to metal bodied cameras.

You can deny all you want, but you're an idiot and hypocrite who doesn't
know **** about materials science.

Plastic used
in camera bodies cracks and breaks and falls apart.

So does metal.

Parts wear much
faster.

Parts that don't wear out don't wear out any faster if they're made
from plastic.

Internal small parts break, leaving the camera useless.

Unless they don't.

Metal bodies, unless subjected to unusual amounts of force do not.

Plastic bodies, "unless subjected to unusual amounts of force", do not
break.

When was the last time you saw engraved printing on metal wear out
like the silk-screen paint crap on plastic bodies??

So you're saying that engraving is more permanent that silk-screening?

Why don't you just put a disclaimer at the end of your posts warning
people that you're a bigoted idiot? When you bitch about the high
price of cameras and then bitch that cameras are not all made out of
titanium then you just show yourself to be an ignorant ass.


--
Ray Fischer

On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:23:07 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 17, 1:56*pm, "David J. Littleboy" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

...
"Heavy duty plastic." What does that mean?

It means a resilient material that can withstand bumps and bounces and
protect the internal parts of the camera, unlike the flimsy metal of the
OM-1 or FM2 or Leica M or Rolleiflex or even Hasselblad (3 of which I've
owned and used) that will deform and block (or break) the internal workings
of the camera.

The three strongest cameras I've ever owned have been the 300D, 5D, and 5D2.

The funny thing is, metal is subject to _plastic deformation_ (look it up),
whereas the plastics in camera bodies are still in the _elastic deformation
region_ (look it up) at the stress and strain (two other words you need to
look up) levels that will cause plastic deformation in most metal bodies of
the classic cameras of the pre-AF age.

Here's a hint for you, guy: modern camera designers know a lot about
materials science and materials design.

You can gussy this up in any language you want but plastic cameras are
inferior in strength compared to metal bodied cameras. Plastic used
in camera bodies cracks and breaks and falls apart. Parts wear much
faster. Internal small parts break, leaving the camera useless.
Metal bodies, unless subjected to unusual amounts of force do not.
When was the last time you saw engraved printing on metal wear out
like the silk-screen paint crap on plastic bodies??

Fine. Make it federal law that nothing can be made of plastic again.

Then see what the costs of cameras skyrockets to!

Moron!