The horror of plastics

Rich wrote:
Read the first two posts in this thread. Imagine a camera body
compressed from hand pressure? The idea is like figernails on a
blackboard. How can manfacturers allow this? If the plastic is going
to have to be made so thick to withstand compression that is't "too"
thick and results in poor ergonomics, the logical thing to do is
USE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=16569110

A camera repairman once showed me the inside of a side piece of acheap
metal 2 1/4 camera, the interesting thing was metal was a recycled beer
can. Metal can be as with a Hassleblad, machined out of a solid block
of aluminum or a recycled beer can. There are a lot of levels there.
My camera preference is the Leica M, one solid camera and very heavy
compared to today's dSLRs. Twicw the weight of my sister in law's D70
with kit lens. The camera is 40 years old and still works. Then again
there are a lot of plastic Canon AE1s still around.

Tom

John A. Stovall wrote:
On 5 Jan 2006 04:36:06 -0800, "Celcius" wrote:


Rich,

It's strange that such companies as Glock use plastic on hand guns and
you deem it too "soft" for a camera... This material can be made to be
tougher than metal, so I'm told.


As does Steyr in its AUG assault rifle.

So does the $20 radio control car you buy at Toys 'R Us. Strap your
"metal" camera to the "plastic" car, run it into the concrete curb
repeatedly, and see which one breaks first.

John A. Stovall wrote:

On 5 Jan 2006 04:36:06 -0800, "Celcius" wrote:

Rich,

It's strange that such companies as Glock use plastic on hand guns and
you deem it too "soft" for a camera... This material can be made to be
tougher than metal, so I'm told.

As does Steyr in its AUG assault rifle.

As someone who is currently rampaging through GTA:LCS's Staunton
Island, I can't help myself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glock
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steyr_AUG

It probably shouldn't be much of a surprise that firearms are covered
in excellent breadth and detail at wikipedia. But so well written?

"Rich" wrote in message
...
USE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What, you mean like the plate in your head?

Too many compromises. IMO, the minimum acceptable DSLR today seems to
be the 20D. Not $10,000 and you don't need a $5,000 to get results.

"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Read the first two posts in this thread. Imagine a camera body
compressed from hand pressure? The idea is like figernails on a
blackboard. How can manfacturers allow this? If the plastic is going
to have to be made so thick to withstand compression that is't "too"
thick and results in poor ergonomics, the logical thing to do is
USE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=16569110

Would you prefer metal or plastic bumpers on your car? I'll take plastic
any
day - for the same reason I prefer it on my cameras - it's a lot more
impact
resistant, and does a far better job of protecting what's inside it.

... but you knew that already.



That's not true. When plastic bumpers came out, consumer reports
demonstrated that much smaller collisions would entail large costs, further,
they're just plastic over metal, so it's the metal that's protecting you,
not the plastic.

But cameras made of high-quality plastics are fine with me, though most of
my cameras are metal (or wood).

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Read the first two posts in this thread. Imagine a camera body
compressed from hand pressure? The idea is like figernails on a
blackboard. How can manfacturers allow this? If the plastic is going
to have to be made so thick to withstand compression that is't "too"
thick and results in poor ergonomics, the logical thing to do is
USE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=16569110

Would you prefer metal or plastic bumpers on your car? I'll take plastic
any
day - for the same reason I prefer it on my cameras - it's a lot more
impact
resistant, and does a far better job of protecting what's inside it.

... but you knew that already.

This is a good post. While we all remember our older metal-bodied cameras,
newer plastics have superior qualities in many ways. I guess the ultimate
camera would be made of carbon fibre, but there are stories of cameras like
the D70 falling over on tripods all over the place with no harm to them.
And, as for looking good over time, all of my older metal Nikons are covered
with dents. A metal door hing that gets over stressed will probably also
stress the camera body, making for an expensive repair. A plastic door will
probably just snap off, making replacement much easier. I just don't want
to see plastic lens mounts. That's the only thing that scares "me."

It's all a compromise. Titanium is nice, but it's expensive. Same with
carbon fibre. But, today's plastics seem to take a licking and keep on
ticking, as they say.

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Too many compromises. IMO, the minimum acceptable DSLR today seems to
be the 20D. Not $10,000 and you don't need a $5,000 to get results.


Spoken like someone who doesn't own a DSLR. Oh, yeah, that's because you
don't.

Greg

"Matt Clara" wrote in message
m...
"C J Southern" wrote in message
...

"Rich" wrote in message
...
Read the first two posts in this thread. Imagine a camera body
compressed from hand pressure? The idea is like figernails on a
blackboard. How can manfacturers allow this? If the plastic is going
to have to be made so thick to withstand compression that is't "too"
thick and results in poor ergonomics, the logical thing to do is
USE METAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...hread=16569110

Would you prefer metal or plastic bumpers on your car? I'll take plastic
any
day - for the same reason I prefer it on my cameras - it's a lot more
impact
resistant, and does a far better job of protecting what's inside it.

... but you knew that already.



That's not true. When plastic bumpers came out, consumer reports
demonstrated that much smaller collisions would entail large costs,
further,
they're just plastic over metal, so it's the metal that's protecting you,
not the plastic.



Depends on the design and the level of impact. My Jeep Cherokee has steel
for the middle of the bumper, and plastic for the corners. In this case the
plastic is about 5 inches from the body, and on small collisions it's like a
pillow and it just bounces back. In fact, I just saw this in action as
someone clipped my car in the parking lot the other day. If it was metal I
would have incurred obvious damage.

Greg

"Matt Clara" wrote in message news:zPgvf.141375

That's not true. When plastic bumpers came out, consumer reports
demonstrated that much smaller collisions would entail large costs,
further,
they're just plastic over metal, so it's the metal that's protecting you,
not the plastic.

Not sure what kind of car you're driving ... but my experience has been just
the opposite.

But cameras made of high-quality plastics are fine with me, though most of
my cameras are metal (or wood).

I think people need to keep in mind too that when we talk of "plastic"
camera parts, we're not talking the same kind of plastic you'd find in a
tomato sauce squeeze bottle or a kids toy from the nickle and dime store -
we're talking polycarbonates - tough as nails, and do a good job of
protecting the delicate structures inside. Keeping in mind also that
everything from the 350D upwards may have plastic outer parts, but
internally it's still a metal chassis that everything is attached to
(including the polycarbonate outer shell).