Canon shutters

In article ,
says...
Yer a mindless twit?

And you are one of Canon's three monkeys.

Please, we have far more than three monkeys.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Brian Baird wrote:
In article jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06, says...


I probably was just unlikely.


Unlucky, yes.


What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.


The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.

People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress
requirements of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option
and certainly more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of
metal.

Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
plastics would.


I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
more often with digital camera than film.

In article et,
says...
Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
plastics would.

I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
more often with digital camera than film.

I wouldn't hazard any guesses as to whether the part 'needs' to be metal
or plastic until I've seen the specifications required of the part.

As for the buck... well, making something out of plastic can cost
pennies, perform equally as well and be part of a much faster production
cycle.

Given that the digital Rebel line does not seem to be plagued by shutter
failures, I'd say the engineers did their jobs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:46:04 GMT, Brian Baird wrote:

In article jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06, says...

I probably was just unlikely.

Unlucky, yes.

What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.

The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.

People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress
requirements of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option
and certainly more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of
metal.

Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
plastics would.

The Rebel isn't a fighter jet. You won't find many of those plastics
in the consumer realm.
-Rich

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:33:03 +0000, David A. wrote:

It is my humble opinion.

In defense, I took 9000 pictures in 14 months, thats roughly 150 a week. I
shoot dance recitals, basketball games, weddings, hiking trips, family
stuff and pictures for my work, construction projects. I shoot less than
what a (active) professional photographer shoots I think, but far more
than the casual everyday camera shooter.

In anycase, I don't think this warrants dragging the devil into this?
Everyone talks, some argue, that I should get 30k to 50k. by these
standards, 9k is not good. I suppose if I shot at a slower rate, and it
took me 3 or 4 years to reach 9,000, I would be lulled into thinking
everything was normal and pay the $200 maintenance fee without notice.

I probably was just unlikely.

I wrote about this issue a few years ago after my very expensive D30
needed a shutter replacement after (yep) 14 months of use. I can't recall
how many exposures I had made with it, but I suspect that when I bought
it, it wasn't exactly out-the-box.

That wasn't the only problem with it. It suffered from many other faults
too, but suffice to say Canon agreed to replace it with a new D60 after I
threatened legal action.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces

In message VVqKe.3163$0d.1380@trnddc06, David A
writes

I just blew through my camera in one year. Had I known that the rebel wasn't
made to take massive pictures like this, I could have slowed down. I didn't
have to take so many redundant pictures. 9000 pictures is not a lot of
pictures IMHO.

9,000? You're lucky - mine decided to jam after just 2,500 shots and
three-and-a-half months. Since it had already been back once for
warranty repairs, I estimated that Canon had actually had possession of
my EOS-300D slightly longer than I had, since I bought it!

--
Graeme Carrott
Assistant Editor, Air North (NE Branch of Air Britain)
www.airnorth.demon.co.uk

"l e o" wrote in message
nk.net...
Brian Baird wrote:
In article jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06, says...


I probably was just unlikely.

Unlucky, yes.


What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic
autofocus actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a
metal one, and if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider
this. In hindsight I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.


The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.

People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress requirements
of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option and certainly
more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of metal.

Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
plastics would.


I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
more often with digital camera than film.

I agree with you.

I worked in the investment casting industry for 13 years, and have been
around plastic injection too. The bottom line cost for the plastic piece vs
a metal piece isn't based (primarily) on the cost of the plastic or the
metal material used. Its the design, tooling, automated production
equipment, packaging, shipping and assembly, etc. Yes, metal material costs
more than plastic material, but we are talking pennies at best in material
cost difference.

David A.

To follow up on the last comment I just made,

both plastic and metal carry the same (significant) costs to design, tool,
fabricate, assemble, etc. Its not the cost of materials that drive the
bottom line cost, at least significantly.

If plastic can be designed to work - great, you save those few pennies in
material costs, if not, you look at warrantee repair costs and bad PR. Then
you start looking at cost/benefit curves, because all things fail
ultimately, where do you draw the line? - leave that up to Canon and the
marketplace.

I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you sooner
then you think. We will certainly see.

David A

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:14:20 GMT, "David A" wrote:

To follow up on the last comment I just made,

both plastic and metal carry the same (significant) costs to design, tool,
fabricate, assemble, etc. Its not the cost of materials that drive the
bottom line cost, at least significantly.


Not true. Metal fabrication costs are far greater. Most plastic
relies on a mold, which does cost alot to manufacture. But once it
is finished, it's cost drops everytime they make a part with it.
Metal must be machined, at least for cameras. This is AFTER the mold
is made to do the basic casting. Some plastic is machined but for the
most part, it is simply cast. In addition, there are high casting
costs owing to the melting point of metal versus plastic.
-Rich

In article ,
says...
The Rebel isn't a fighter jet. You won't find many of those plastics
in the consumer realm.

The hell you won't.

Seriously, your knowledge of plastics is... how we say... "limited at
best."
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird