All plastic gear won't be crap forever, it will evolve.

Plastic has one use outside of cost-cutting: Weight-savings. This is
where and why (if it happens) that plastic will find its way into pro
digital gear, not to save money as is the case on entry-level DSLRs.

I'm waiting for the next evolution. I dislike plastic-bodied cameras
because I know they are built that way to save money. All top cameras
are metal. Even Fuji finally wised up and realized that if they wanted
to sell their bodies for $1700, they needed to switch to metal, hence,
the new Fuji S5 with the Nikon D200 body. Nikon's new D80 body or the
old D100 are as close to an "evolved" use of plastic as we've seen.

However, this is not to say that some kind of plastic construction
can't be used in a new series of pro lenses from Canon and Nikon. But
it won't be the cruddy plastic now used in the cheap kit lenses like
Canon's 18-55. or the body of the Rebel XTi. An example an "evolved"
use of plastic comes from Pentax. They make a zoom lens eyepiece for
their high-end spotting scopes that is housed in plastic body.
However, it (at $700) is not a low-end or cost-cutting product. Its
plastic is different, it is a matrix material and it was used solely to
save weight because of the physical size of the glass elements in it.
This is the kind of plastic implementation that will finally make it's
way to pro gear, at some point I think.

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Plastic has one use outside of cost-cutting: Weight-savings. This is
where and why (if it happens) that plastic will find its way into pro
digital gear, not to save money as is the case on entry-level DSLRs.


Perhaps the manufacturers no longer want their products thought of in terms
of longevity.

Today, it is "Get a new camera every 3 years."

Metal bodies might send the wrong message.

Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
jeremy wrote:

Today, it is "Get a new camera every 3 years."

Where the hell are you? The average expected shelf life for a pro dSLR
body
is 18-months.


Wow, you're really going off the deep edge now.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons

"G.T." wrote in message
...
Rita Ä Berkowitz wrote:
jeremy wrote:

Today, it is "Get a new camera every 3 years."

Where the hell are you? The average expected shelf life for a pro dSLR
body
is 18-months.


Wow, you're really going off the deep edge now.



Kinda' like cell phones, eh?

Replaced at the end of each contract term, and ending up on electronics
dumps in China?

Right alongside last year's DSLRS?

Yesterday's brightly shining stars, and tomorrow's has-beens.

If the prices keep dropping, someday they'll be disposable cameras--use em
for a month and then chuck em.

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Plastic has one use outside of cost-cutting: Weight-savings. This is
where and why (if it happens) that plastic will find its way into pro
digital gear, not to save money as is the case on entry-level DSLRs.

Plastic is evolving and better types are coming. It will be interesting to
see how they will be applied in consumer products.

However, product longevity seems to be way down the list of design
priorities these days and I'm afraid that plastics will more often be used
to cut costs, than for any other reason. Most buyers are price sensitive.
Pros are willing to spend more for ruggedness and reliability ... would they
abandon metal for plastic? I think so, if it was clear that the plastics
were applied for reasons other than economic ones.

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
. ..

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Plastic has one use outside of cost-cutting: Weight-savings. This is
where and why (if it happens) that plastic will find its way into pro
digital gear, not to save money as is the case on entry-level DSLRs.

Plastic is evolving and better types are coming. It will be interesting
to see how they will be applied in consumer products.

However, product longevity seems to be way down the list of design
priorities these days and I'm afraid that plastics will more often be used
to cut costs, than for any other reason. Most buyers are price sensitive.
Pros are willing to spend more for ruggedness and reliability ... would
they abandon metal for plastic? I think so, if it was clear that the
plastics were applied for reasons other than economic ones.


Lots of us older photographers have negative associations when it comes to
plastic lenses. They feel cheap, and I for one have no confidence in such a
lens being able to withstand severe conditions. I don't think that war
correspondents carry them.

Lots of us older photographers have negative associations when it comes to
plastic lenses. They feel cheap, and I for one have no confidence in such
a lens being able to withstand severe conditions. I don't think that war
correspondents carry them.

The "feel" can be psychological. I agree that plastic has a bad "feel" and
is often associated with cheapness. However, many folks continue to follow
new technology and would be willing to try a plastic lens if it was tested
and recommended by respected authorities (I would). Also, I'd be willing to
buy a plastic this or that on those occasions where price was very
important. Not everything that I own has to outlast me.

Some folks still demand tube amplifiers. Early transistor hi-fi amplifiers
were not so great. Technology evolves.

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
. ..

Lots of us older photographers have negative associations when it comes
to
plastic lenses. They feel cheap, and I for one have no confidence in
such a lens being able to withstand severe conditions. I don't think
that war correspondents carry them.

The "feel" can be psychological. I agree that plastic has a bad "feel"
and is often associated with cheapness. However, many folks continue to
follow new technology and would be willing to try a plastic lens if it was
tested and recommended by respected authorities (I would). Also, I'd be
willing to buy a plastic this or that on those occasions where price was
very important. Not everything that I own has to outlast me.

Some folks still demand tube amplifiers. Early transistor hi-fi
amplifiers were not so great. Technology evolves.


I agree, the feel is purely psychological. I started out in 35mm
photography in 1973, with Spotmatic IIa and I've acquired 18 SMC Takumar
lenses--all beautifully crafted, all with smooth-as-silk focusing, and all
with some degree of heft to them. There is a tactile sense of gratification
when using that equipment, and whenever I pick up a Canon Rebel at the
store, I just shake my head and wonder how anybody can take such stuff
seriously. Yet I've seen some excellent photos from such cameras, so I know
that the problem (if one can call it that) is in my own mind.

I'm taking a serious look at the Nikon D40, (with one of those dreaded ZOOM
LENSES) and will probably take the plunge. I am reluctant only because of
this crazy sense that I will be "abandoning" my good Pentax stuff, even
though I have no intention of dumping any of it.

I've always been an early adopter of technology. I just don't get that
warm, fuzzy feeling from plastic.

I agree, the feel is purely psychological. I started out in 35mm
photography in 1973, with Spotmatic IIa and I've acquired 18 SMC Takumar
lenses--all beautifully crafted, all with smooth-as-silk focusing, and all
with some degree of heft to them. There is a tactile sense of
gratification when using that equipment, and whenever I pick up a Canon
Rebel at the store, I just shake my head and wonder how anybody can take
such stuff seriously. Yet I've seen some excellent photos from such
cameras, so I know that the problem (if one can call it that) is in my own
mind.

Yes, Rebels are consumer grade cameras that can take high-quality shots.
They will not hold up as well as professional gear, but the price is good.
I think the "prosumer" label is appropriate for cameras of this type.

I'm taking a serious look at the Nikon D40, (with one of those dreaded
ZOOM LENSES) and will probably take the plunge. I am reluctant only
because of this crazy sense that I will be "abandoning" my good Pentax
stuff, even though I have no intention of dumping any of it.

Nikons are darned good. I'm not one to taut brands. If I were starting
over, I could easily become a Nikonian. Now, I'm invested in Canon lenses
and other accessories.

I've always been an early adopter of technology. I just don't get that
warm, fuzzy feeling from plastic.

Most don't. Plastic gets a bad rap because it often has been misused by
designers and manufacturers. At the same time, it is awesome in certain
applications; e.g. thermoplastic insulation for wires. Will there come a
time when it will beat stainless steel, magesium and so on for camera and
lens bodies? I think so ... I really do. It will be called a composite
material (or somesuch) by the marketing department.

In article , Charles
Schuler wrote:

Some folks still demand tube amplifiers. Early transistor hi-fi amplifiers
were not so great. Technology evolves.

*Real* guitar players play through tubes.