Someone tested Canon's kit lens

RichA wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:51:04 GMT, SMS
wrote:


wrote:

I think this is bang on... i remember from a 'branding' presentation by
Deloitte & Touche at my company, about the Heinz Ketchup phenomenon.

Ketchup in plastic -- cheaper to manufacture, shatter resistant,
lightweight, greater volume possible. Win-win-win for everyone,
including cost savings passed onto the consumer. Within 2 years of
going 'plastic only' Heinz sales dropped around 50%... the perception
of quality hurt Heinz, so they reintroduced the bottle. In the end,
Heinz hurt themselves since they now market plastic bottles (for the
intelligent cost savings/conveinece folks) AND glass (for restaurants,
uneducated consumers) although they've since regained their market
share. I suspect this example is a bit dated now (plastic is more
accepted) but it was very relevant in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

People bash the 350D for its size ('it feels like a toy!') and tis
polycarbonate body, even though both have more advantages than
disadvantages.

They bash it being fully aware of the advantages of polycarbonate, and
the advantages of its size. Don't confuse reality with the posts by
people that simply like to bash Canon.


People should ask themselves a question. If the Rebel were offered as
it is in both plastic and aluminum, for the same price, which one
would you pick?
-Rich


The black one. G

RichA wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:51:04 GMT, SMS
wrote:


wrote:

I think this is bang on... i remember from a 'branding' presentation by
Deloitte & Touche at my company, about the Heinz Ketchup phenomenon.

Ketchup in plastic -- cheaper to manufacture, shatter resistant,
lightweight, greater volume possible. Win-win-win for everyone,
including cost savings passed onto the consumer. Within 2 years of
going 'plastic only' Heinz sales dropped around 50%... the perception
of quality hurt Heinz, so they reintroduced the bottle. In the end,
Heinz hurt themselves since they now market plastic bottles (for the
intelligent cost savings/conveinece folks) AND glass (for restaurants,
uneducated consumers) although they've since regained their market
share. I suspect this example is a bit dated now (plastic is more
accepted) but it was very relevant in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

People bash the 350D for its size ('it feels like a toy!') and tis
polycarbonate body, even though both have more advantages than
disadvantages.

They bash it being fully aware of the advantages of polycarbonate, and
the advantages of its size. Don't confuse reality with the posts by
people that simply like to bash Canon.


People should ask themselves a question. If the Rebel were offered as
it is in both plastic and aluminum, for the same price, which one
would you pick?
-Rich

I just thought of questions I'd like to ask that would be similar to
your question.

Which would be preferred in a camera body, plastic lens mounts or SS
steel lens mounts? Why?

If SS steel lens mounts are preferred, would it be acceptble assembly
practice to join a SS steel camera body lens mount to a plastic body. ? Why?

I just thought of questions I'd like to ask that would be similar to
your question.

Which would be preferred in a camera body, plastic lens mounts or SS
steel lens mounts? Why?

If SS steel lens mounts are preferred, would it be acceptble assembly
practice to join a SS steel camera body lens mount to a plastic body. ? Why?

Stainless steel - because of it's wear and fit characteristics. This is
a different requirement to the rest of the body where the
characteristics of polycarbonate gives satisfactory performance.

The answer to your second question is obviously 'yes', since many
fabricated items, not only cameras, do this, by moulding, bonding,
screwing, rivetting, swaging, or other methods of joining dissimilar
materials.

The answers to both of these questions are so fundamentally obvious that
I wonder you have to ask them. Are you genuinely uncertain, or are you
attempting to troll here?

Colin D.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:36:09 -0700, nick c wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 18:51:04 GMT, SMS
wrote:


wrote:

I think this is bang on... i remember from a 'branding' presentation by
Deloitte & Touche at my company, about the Heinz Ketchup phenomenon.

Ketchup in plastic -- cheaper to manufacture, shatter resistant,
lightweight, greater volume possible. Win-win-win for everyone,
including cost savings passed onto the consumer. Within 2 years of
going 'plastic only' Heinz sales dropped around 50%... the perception
of quality hurt Heinz, so they reintroduced the bottle. In the end,
Heinz hurt themselves since they now market plastic bottles (for the
intelligent cost savings/conveinece folks) AND glass (for restaurants,
uneducated consumers) although they've since regained their market
share. I suspect this example is a bit dated now (plastic is more
accepted) but it was very relevant in the late 1980s/early 1990s.

People bash the 350D for its size ('it feels like a toy!') and tis
polycarbonate body, even though both have more advantages than
disadvantages.

They bash it being fully aware of the advantages of polycarbonate, and
the advantages of its size. Don't confuse reality with the posts by
people that simply like to bash Canon.


People should ask themselves a question. If the Rebel were offered as
it is in both plastic and aluminum, for the same price, which one
would you pick?
-Rich


The black one. G

I'm beginning to wonder about that too. They look better, but on
a hot day a black bodied camera heats up more than a silver one.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

Colin D wrote:
I just thought of questions I'd like to ask that would be similar to
your question.

Which would be preferred in a camera body, plastic lens mounts or SS
steel lens mounts? Why?

If SS steel lens mounts are preferred, would it be acceptble assembly
practice to join a SS steel camera body lens mount to a plastic body. ? Why?


Stainless steel - because of it's wear and fit characteristics. This is
a different requirement to the rest of the body where the
characteristics of polycarbonate gives satisfactory performance.

I'm not addressing polycarbonate camera bodies. I'm addressing camera
mounts and I'm asking these questions to learn if those that champion
polycarbonate camera bodies would also champion plastic camera lens
mounts, and why.

As to your concern for lens mount wear and fit, there are plastics that
have fairly decent wear and fit characteristics, polytetrafluorethlene
for example. It's machineable and is often used as bearing bushing
material, even in high speed rotational designs so, your 'wear' or 'fit'
concern would seem to be invalid.


The answer to your second question is obviously 'yes', since many
fabricated items, not only cameras, do this, by moulding, bonding,
screwing, rivetting, swaging, or other methods of joining dissimilar
materials.

Not so fast there Colin. Bonding internal parts might well handicap or
otherwise restrict maintainability. Some Plastics that can be injection
molded may bring with them thermal stability concerns, riveting plastics
would be not be advisable in thin plastic cross-sectional material as
plastics appear to do poorly where 'hoop stress' is applied, and I truly
doubt 'swaging' would be readily approved because of plastic 'cold flow'
(and or cracking) of some plastics. Mylar would be an exception to 'cold
flow' but Mylar can't take compressive loads because it will crack under
compression and it seems to shred when exposed to untraviolet light for
long periods of time. Screwing directly into plastic with expectations
that over a given time the screw would stay put is not a good idea.
Cheap lenses that have plastic mounts screwed onto a lens body are not
expected to be often used (after camera newness wears off) and such
lenses are not expected to be removed and replaced very often as a pro
or serious camera buff would do. In fact, cheap plastic lenses may well
see higher repair costs than would be encountered buying new cheap
plastic lenses. As for screws, soon after tightening a screw into a
plastic material, the torque load applied might very well become
reduced. Besides, screws specially made for plastics often have holding
characteristics that when removing the screw, the threaded joint is
degraded so that screwing again into that joint would not prove to be
reliable. A lot of consideration must be given to 'plastics' before one
can readily say plastics are better than metals. In many applications
they may well be but in many they may well not be suitable.

I don't have answers to so many questions that cross my mind.


The answers to both of these questions are so fundamentally obvious that
I wonder you have to ask them. Are you genuinely uncertain, or are you
attempting to troll here?

Colin D.

Not troll Colin. Contrary to an opinion of my learning intentions, the
answers to the questions are not fundamentally obvious. I sure don't
know the camera design business or repair business but I'm not ready to
have it look like I know more about the camera design or camera repair
business or that I'm a good judge of camera materials being used in high
end cameras. The camera associated industry does not funnel field
encounted problems through me, so I'm not in a loop to see what parts of
camera designs need to be changed or upgraded.

I have two digital cameras that have metal bodies. I didn't buy them
because they had metal bodies, I bought them because that have
capabilities and reliability aspects that interest me. I trust camera
designers to make best judgment calls as to how to design-to-cost and
manufacturing experts to know how best to assemble cameras with
maintenance in mind. As a user, my concerns center on camera systems
capability and long term reliability. When all involved 'do their thing'
I expect to get what I pay for and expect cameras to perform in manners
and ways that suit me over a period of time that I intend to use them.

However, thank you Colin for your much appreaciated thoughts on the subject.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 22:41:55 -0700, nick c wrote:

Colin D wrote:
I just thought of questions I'd like to ask that would be similar to
your question.

Which would be preferred in a camera body, plastic lens mounts or SS
steel lens mounts? Why?

If SS steel lens mounts are preferred, would it be acceptble assembly
practice to join a SS steel camera body lens mount to a plastic body. ? Why?


Stainless steel - because of it's wear and fit characteristics. This is
a different requirement to the rest of the body where the
characteristics of polycarbonate gives satisfactory performance.

I'm not addressing polycarbonate camera bodies. I'm addressing camera
mounts and I'm asking these questions to learn if those that champion
polycarbonate camera bodies would also champion plastic camera lens
mounts, and why.

That would be a mistake, IMO. Despite what some have said about the
durability of plastics, the idea of a little tange on lens mount being
made of plastic is a big mistake because inevitably, without great
care, it will break. Nikon's latest small (18-55mm) kit lens is all
plastic, the body and the lens mount, but I don't know if any small
protruding parts or "functional" parts (lock elements, etc) are
plastic as well.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"