PING: RichA - Plastic Camera DESIGNED to be dropped.

RichA wrote:

But pound for pound, metal is FAR superior.

Ah, but there you're wrong. For a metal body to be as light as a plastic
one it would have to be extremely thin and, as a consequence, far more
easily damaged both by impact and crushing.

Have a nice day :-)

--
Regards


Bristolian

"Bristolian" wrote in message ...
RichA wrote:

But pound for pound, metal is FAR superior.

Ah, but there you're wrong. For a metal body to be as light as a plastic one it would have to be extremely thin and, as a
consequence, far more easily damaged both by impact and crushing.
--
Regards
Bristolian

I used to buy/sell cameras and one example of the above is
that when I ordered replacement bottoms for metal-clad
cameras (like the FM or F3) that were mint otherwise but
for a dent or two in the bottoms, they often arrived slightly
bent. It was easy to reshape them using only my fingers. The
same could not be said for the plastic bottoms of cameras
like the N8008. They would not permanently deform unless
pushed hard enough to break (which would be hard enough
to bend any metal bottom in half).

I must admit that when I saw the first plastic-clad Nikon
bodies, I turned my nose up at them - but I now proudly
own several examples (FG, N2000, FA, N8008, F100),
and these have proved to be very durable.

--DR

On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 15:13:08 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Oct 25, 4:48*pm, "David Ruether" wrote:
"Bristolian" wrote in ...
RichA wrote:
But pound for pound, metal is FAR superior.
Ah, but there you're wrong. For a metal body to be as light as a plastic one it would have to be extremely thin and, as a
consequence, far more easily damaged both by impact and crushing.
--
Regards
*Bristolian

I used to buy/sell cameras and one example of the above is
that when I ordered replacement bottoms for metal-clad
cameras (like the FM or F3) that were mint otherwise but
for a dent or two in the bottoms, they often arrived slightly
bent. It was easy to reshape them using only my fingers. The
same could not be said for the plastic bottoms of cameras
like the N8008. They would not permanently deform unless
pushed hard enough to break (which would be hard enough
to bend any metal bottom in half).

I must admit that when I saw the first plastic-clad Nikon
bodies, I turned my nose up at them - but I now proudly
own several examples (FG, N2000, FA, N8008, F100),
and these have proved to be very durable.

--DR

Big deal. You can buy those old overweight (ever seen what a 4004
weighs??!) pieces of junk for $20/ea while FM's and FE's command FAR
higher prices. I wonder why? Oh yeah...BECAUSE THEY ARE METAL!!!

A few months ago I got 'far higher prices' when I sold my old Nikon FM
and then my plastic Nikon 801s (8008 in the US).



Eric Stevens

RichA wrote:
On Oct 25, 2:48 pm, Bristolian wrote:
RichA wrote:
But pound for pound, metal is FAR superior.
Ah, but there you're wrong. For a metal body to be as light as a plastic
one it would have to be extremely thin and, as a consequence, far more
easily damaged both by impact and crushing.

Have a nice day :-)

--
Regards

Bristolian

Heavy? Check out the new Pentax K7. Magnesium. If it's too heavy
for you, maybe a walker is in order?

Perhaps you missed the point of your own comment. You said "pound for
pound" which means for an equal weight of plastic and metal. I was
simply trying to show you that given an equal weight of plastic a body
would be far thicker and stronger than the same design made from metal.

Please try to keep up with the conversation - which you started BTW :-)


--
Regards


Bristolian

RichA wrote:
brass hardware.

Man, that's some heavy stuff.