A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital SLR Cameras
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Nikon's new D5200; $900 for a plastic-bodied DSLR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 20th 13, 08:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default 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  
Old February 21st 13, 03:28 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default 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  
Old February 21st 13, 08:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nick c[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default 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  
Old February 22nd 13, 02:54 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
nick c[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default 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  
Old February 22nd 13, 11:13 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
Bowser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 265
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 04:10 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.