Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying
the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon
20D's build quality. Does the plastic outer housing
on the cheaper cameras really matter from a durability
standpoint, or is it merely aesthetics that concerns
people?
-Rich

In article ,
says...
They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying
the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon
20D's build quality. Does the plastic outer housing
on the cheaper cameras really matter from a durability
standpoint, or is it merely aesthetics that concerns
people?
-Rich

There's nothing wrong with polycarbonate. In fact, it's better at
impact resistance than magnesium alloy, on average. In any case, don't
drop your camera.

I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to
feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky
camera. A good, solid, professional feel to a camera gives me extra
confidence and makes me feel like really concentrating on getting the
best possible result - maybe it's some sort of ego thing..? (O:

Because despite all the complaints about poor build quality, do you
really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good
cause?

"Chrlz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to
feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky
camera. A good, solid, professional feel to a camera gives me extra
confidence and makes me feel like really concentrating on getting the
best possible result - maybe it's some sort of ego thing..? (O:

Because despite all the complaints about poor build quality, do you
really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good
cause?

No, mostly it's failures with shutters, buttons, or electronic parts;
usually not caused by a drop or a bump. Moisture is another issue. Some
folks have "fried" their cameras while trying to use them in rain/snow/sleet
conditions.

"Chrlz" wrote in message
oups.com...
I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to
feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky
camera. A good, solid, professional feel to a camera gives me extra
confidence and makes me feel like really concentrating on getting the
best possible result - maybe it's some sort of ego thing..? (O:

Because despite all the complaints about poor build quality, do you
really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good
cause?

I've read a lot of anecdotes about D70's being dropped and tipping over on
tripods with no ill effects. That doesn't mean I'm going to do it on
purpose, but the stories make it sound like the camera is pretty sturdy.
Even the memory card door, which seems a bit flimsy, doesn't seem to have a
history of problems.

"Chrlz" writes:

I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to
feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky
camera. A good, solid, professional feel to a camera gives me extra
confidence and makes me feel like really concentrating on getting the
best possible result - maybe it's some sort of ego thing..? (O:

I think you're right. It's a question of what people got used to. In
the days of hand machining, "built like a Swiss watch" was the term
for the top examples. But in fact plastic will bounce off pavement
that metal will crack on, sometimes. And my Leica M3 did just that.

Because despite all the complaints about poor build quality, do you
really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good
cause?

No.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

I remember chatting to a professional tourism photographer (who used
Velvia on Minolta 35mm (back in the days when the Maxxum was just
appearing), along with a bit of medium format and a big pano camera),
and he said he absolutely loved his Minolta gear. He said he had given
up on Canon because he sweated a lot, and the Canon models he had been
using had an issue with sweat getting into the electronics near/under
the shutter button. After 4 failures in 12 months he had given up and
changed over!

By the way, clearly this is an old anecdote from the vintage days of
film cameras (heheh), and should not be applied to current models!

Chrlz wrote:

I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to
feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky
camera. A good, solid, professional feel to a camera gives me extra
confidence and makes me feel like really concentrating on getting the
best possible result - maybe it's some sort of ego thing..? (O:

I like meaty cameras myself. I just got the Maxxum 7D and it has a nice
solid feel to it. It's a mainly metal frame, but the back shell is poly
carb.

Cheers,
Alan.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

RichA wrote:

They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying
the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon
20D's build quality. Does the plastic outer housing
on the cheaper cameras really matter from a durability
standpoint, or is it merely aesthetics that concerns
people?
-Rich

There was a perception prevalent with 'plastic' cameras years ago,
before the advent of AF, that the expansion coefficient of plastic,
being greater than metal, allowed the lens-film distance to alter with
temperature, thus potentially causing MF focus problems. Whether that
actually happened sufficiently to cause focusing errors is moot.

Colin

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:05:34 -0500, RichA wrote:

They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying
the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon
20D's build quality. Does the plastic outer housing
on the cheaper cameras really matter from a durability
standpoint, or is it merely aesthetics that concerns
people?
-Rich

No, they've got it completely wrong. *THE* one and only most important
feature on a DSLR is it's volume. They need to do Archimedes style
displacement tests and come up with some hard figures. I'd recommend
nobody buy another camera until these figures are published.

Here's what you can do at home. Fill a bath right to the brim and
start chucking the cameras into it. Measure how much water comes out
of the bath and you'll be able to determine the volume of each camera.

Why is this so important?

Well, one day you might drop your $1000 DSLR into the bath, so it's
very damn important, and eclipses other stupid tecchie features such
as flash sync speeds, shutter lag, resolution, sensor technology, fps
etc.

Or to put it another way, just because it's a British magazine,
doesn't prevent articles being written by complete f*cktards.

--
Owamanga!
http://www.pbase.com/owamanga