Build quality?

This is one of the least objective and least useful descriptors out there,
and is overused, in my humble opinion.

I bring this up because I spent hours yesterday looking for information
about Canon 50 mm lenses. Googling turned up lots of reviews and posts and
blogs that referred to "build quality." None of the references provided any
meaningful information about what build quality actually means.

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

1/ Heft
2/ Finish
3/ Smoothness (the feel one gets when using it)
4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)
5/ Repeatability
6/ Ruggedness
7/ Seals

I know about tolerances, by the way ... but the posts never mention this
issue; although some do mention a "good copy" (another vague and shaky
term).

Just a thought. I think I will ignore "build quality" unless there is
additional information.

Charles Schuler wrote:
This is one of the least objective and least useful descriptors out there,
and is overused, in my humble opinion.

I bring this up because I spent hours yesterday looking for information
about Canon 50 mm lenses. Googling turned up lots of reviews and posts and
blogs that referred to "build quality." None of the references provided any
meaningful information about what build quality actually means.

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

1/ Heft
Size versus weight. Good balance with a lens larger than a tiny
plastic kit lens.

2/ Finish
Not crappy looking (like Sony or Canon's entry cameras)

3/ Smoothness (the feel one gets when using it)
Nikon by a MILE.

4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)
Nikon, Canon in the higher end.

5/ Repeatability ?

6/ Ruggedness
Nikon

7/ Seals
Nikon, Pentax, Canon all similar. I don't think any of them exceed the
first level of equipment sealing. Though of course some P&S cameras
are actually waterproof.

"Charles Schuler" wrote:

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

I developed a quick rule of thumb (with tongue in cheek) during a phase of
collecting cheap Chinese portable multi-band radios:

Squeeze it hard. If anything squeeks or "gives" a bit, it fails.

OTOH if it feels like a solid brick (even though made of plastic), it
passes.

If your sensitive fingertips had ever palpitated a Leica, Rollei, Contax,
Canon or Nikon built 40 or 50 years ago, you wouldn't need to wonder how to
quantify build quality... your fingers would recognize it :^)

--
Anti-Spam address: my last name at his dot com
Charles Gillen -- Reston, Virginia, USA

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
This is one of the least objective and least useful descriptors out there,
and is overused, in my humble opinion.

I bring this up because I spent hours yesterday looking for information
about Canon 50 mm lenses. Googling turned up lots of reviews and posts
and blogs that referred to "build quality." None of the references
provided any meaningful information about what build quality actually
means.

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

1/ Heft
2/ Finish
3/ Smoothness (the feel one gets when using it)
4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)
5/ Repeatability
6/ Ruggedness
7/ Seals

I know about tolerances, by the way ... but the posts never mention this
issue; although some do mention a "good copy" (another vague and shaky
term).

Just a thought. I think I will ignore "build quality" unless there is
additional information.


If you check amazon.com for Canon's normal 50mm lens, you will find several
user reviews that have expressed fear that the cheap build quality would be
unreliable over the long term.

Brian Bower, the British landscape photographer, brought the subject of
build quality up in his book "Lens, Light and Landscape." He indicated that
he preferred Leica rangefinders and Leica SLRs, because their lenses could
stand up to intense use, in difficult environments, and not fail. He noted
that one of his Leica SLR zoom lenses was in daily use and that the zoom
mechanism was still tight after 10 years, unlike lesser-quality lenses that
were prone to not keeping focal length because the internal mechanisms
loosened with hard use.

He noted that he could sell the used Leica gear for premium prices, while
used "no-name" stuff commanded hardly any price at all on the used market.
Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad have been commanding higher prices used than
they cost when they were new, essentially making their use free to the
initial purchaser.

He said that the Leica lenses were more cost effective because there was a
cost associated with failed equipment, and that the high initial cost of
Leica gear was offset by its reliability over the long term. While I would
never pay Leica prices, I can understand how their gear can be
cost-effective tools for professionals that rely upon them to earn their
livings.

So, to respond to your question, I would suggest that build quality might
not be terribly important to the casual amateur user, but might be an
essential factor for anyone for whom the reliability of the gear is
essential. Only you can assess whether you can accept lesser build quality
in exchange for lower up-front costs.

We are slowly becoming acclimated to accepting the notion of disposable gear
(great for the manufacturers) and it may be that one has no use for a 10
year-old lens. So maybe low build quality may be perfectly acceptable for a
piece of equipment with an expected low service life.

"jeremy" wrote in message
news:6HEmh.6946$5q6.269@trndny02...

If you check amazon.com for Canon's normal 50mm lens, you will find
several user reviews that have expressed fear that the cheap build quality
would be unreliable over the long term.

There are a multitude of reviews and if you read enough of them you will
find wildly varying opinions.

Brian Bower, the British landscape photographer, brought the subject of
build quality up in his book "Lens, Light and Landscape." He indicated
that he preferred Leica rangefinders and Leica SLRs, because their lenses
could stand up to intense use, in difficult environments, and not fail.
He noted that one of his Leica SLR zoom lenses was in daily use and that
the zoom mechanism was still tight after 10 years, unlike lesser-quality
lenses that were prone to not keeping focal length because the internal
mechanisms loosened with hard use.

Yes, but that is anecdotal. He likes Leica and I like Canon.

He noted that he could sell the used Leica gear for premium prices, while
used "no-name" stuff commanded hardly any price at all on the used market.
Zeiss lenses for Hasselblad have been commanding higher prices used than
they cost when they were new, essentially making their use free to the
initial purchaser.

The second-hand market value is a different issue. I would buy a Toyota
automobile if resale was the only issue (or a Honda). I buy American cars
because they are almost as good as German and Japanese cars and I can get a
better deal and better service.

He said that the Leica lenses were more cost effective because there was a
cost associated with failed equipment, and that the high initial cost of
Leica gear was offset by its reliability over the long term. While I
would never pay Leica prices, I can understand how their gear can be
cost-effective tools for professionals that rely upon them to earn their
livings.

Pay up front and pay less later ... works only some of the time.

So, to respond to your question, I would suggest that build quality might
not be terribly important to the casual amateur user, but might be an
essential factor for anyone for whom the reliability of the gear is
essential. Only you can assess whether you can accept lesser build
quality in exchange for lower up-front costs.

But, my post was about the vagueness of the term "build quality."

We are slowly becoming acclimated to accepting the notion of disposable
gear (great for the manufacturers) and it may be that one has no use for a
10 year-old lens. So maybe low build quality may be perfectly acceptable
for a piece of equipment with an expected low service life.

Again, what does "build quality" actually mean? Are you suggesting that
cost is the measure? I have difficulty equating cost with quality. It does
not always work out that way. Bose products are a prime example
(overpriced).

Thanks for your reply ... I don't mean to be contentious.

Charles Schuler wrote:

But, my post was about the vagueness of the term "build quality."



I can answer in terms of the Canon 50mm lenses, simply go to a camera
store and handle Canon's 50mm f1.8 lens and it's f1.4 sibling. The f1.8
looks cheap, feels cheap, and is cheap. I don't own it's f1.4 sibling
and haven't handled it, but I understand it to be comparable in quality
to the 85mm f1.8 that I do own. The 85mm is metal, and looks and feels
like a "quality" lens. I'm not just talking about it being metal vs
plastic, the overall build quality just looks and feels better.
That said, I love the little Canon 50mm f1.8, it's inexpensive, sharp
as a tack, and extremely lightweight. And for about $100 I can replace
it easily several times and still come in under the cost of a single
50mm f1.4.
What does this mean to you? Well if you want to look like a pro using
pro equipment, buy the f1.4 lens with the better build quality (bring
lots of money). If you want a great value and don't care if it doesn't
look like your equipment cost you a small fortune, buy the f1.8.
Just my opinion, others' opinions may vary.

4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)

Yet body armour is plastics (Kevlar) and ceramics

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
This is one of the least objective and least useful descriptors out there,
and is overused, in my humble opinion.

I bring this up because I spent hours yesterday looking for information
about Canon 50 mm lenses. Googling turned up lots of reviews and posts
and blogs that referred to "build quality." None of the references
provided any meaningful information about what build quality actually
means.

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

1/ Heft
2/ Finish
3/ Smoothness (the feel one gets when using it)
4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)
5/ Repeatability
6/ Ruggedness
7/ Seals

I know about tolerances, by the way ... but the posts never mention this
issue; although some do mention a "good copy" (another vague and shaky
term).

Just a thought. I think I will ignore "build quality" unless there is
additional information.

IMHO, I think "build quality" has more to do with professional use than
amateur use. Many users take very good care of their cameras, and they will
stay clean and last a long time. Most pros, while they care for their
equipment, really abuse their cameras. Look at all the older Nikon film
cameras that look like they've been dragged behind a car, yet work
perfectly. I used to work for AP, and my boss kept all his equipment in the
trunk of his car, no cases, compartments or restraints.

Again, IMHO, I think a camera is much like a guitar to a guitarist. As soon
as you pick one up you know right away whether it's for you. It just feels
right and plays right.

"Sheldon" wrote in message
news

"Charles Schuler" wrote in message
...
This is one of the least objective and least useful descriptors out
there, and is overused, in my humble opinion.

I bring this up because I spent hours yesterday looking for information
about Canon 50 mm lenses. Googling turned up lots of reviews and posts
and blogs that referred to "build quality." None of the references
provided any meaningful information about what build quality actually
means.

So, I got to thinking about "build quality" in general. What is it?

1/ Heft
2/ Finish
3/ Smoothness (the feel one gets when using it)
4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)
5/ Repeatability
6/ Ruggedness
7/ Seals

I know about tolerances, by the way ... but the posts never mention this
issue; although some do mention a "good copy" (another vague and shaky
term).

Just a thought. I think I will ignore "build quality" unless there is
additional information.

IMHO, I think "build quality" has more to do with professional use than
amateur use. Many users take very good care of their cameras, and they
will stay clean and last a long time. Most pros, while they care for
their equipment, really abuse their cameras. Look at all the older Nikon
film cameras that look like they've been dragged behind a car, yet work
perfectly. I used to work for AP, and my boss kept all his equipment in
the trunk of his car, no cases, compartments or restraints.

Again, IMHO, I think a camera is much like a guitar to a guitarist. As
soon as you pick one up you know right away whether it's for you. It just
feels right and plays right.




I'm admittedly old-fashioned about such matters, but I have a problem paying
big bucks for cheaply-built equipment that will not stand up to normal use.
One misstep and you can crack a lens barrel.

There sill come a point where DSLRs will have little in the way of room for
improvement, and what do we do then? Are we expected to keep on replacing
everything every three years, "ad infinitum?" It is one thing to be on an
upgrade curve while there are significant improvements to be had, but the
improvements in image quality are becoming more marginal as time goes on.
The same thing happened with VCRs--first they had low-fidelity sound, then
they went to near-CD sound quality. They introduced HQ picture quality.
They introduced automatic clock setting. They ended up developing the
product as much as they could, and if it were not for DVD-R development
would have come to a halt, and we'd all be buying VCRs at a price of $59.95
with all the latest features.

We saw a similar situation with film cameras. Once the F6 was introduced,
what more was there that could have been added that would have motivated
photographers to pony up more money to upgrade to a newer model?

So DSLRs are the hot item these days. I remember when computers were hot,
and when Bag phones were replaced by those Motorola analog handsets, and
later when those Motorola phones were replaced by digital models, and later
when digital voice phones were eclipsed by phones with Internet
connectivity, and now to where they even let you watch TV. The improvements
taper off, the price drops, and then the electronics industry resumes the
hunt for the next hot product.

Only one problem with cameras being hot products: there comes a point where
consumers won't care about further improvements, because they will have
already been overwhelmed with what they currently have. Advanced
photography is not a mass-appeal hobby, and it never was one. Among
amateurs there were, broadly speaking, two types of user: the
Instamatic/Brownie/126/Disk Film consumer--who just wanted to snap a few
pictures of the July 4th picnic and Christmas presents every year. Then
there were the more advanced amateurs, that spent some bucks in their quest
to produce better and perhaps more artistic images. Today's consumer is
buying digital cameras (30 million of them last year alone) because in part
of the herd mentality. Everybody else is getting one, just like everybody
else once bought Camcorders and, later, palmcorders. And where are all
those users now? We didn't see a new generation of filmmakers arise out of
all those videocam sales and I predict that we will not see a ton of new
artistic and innovative photographers arise out of these DSLR sales, either.
A lot of those DSLR buyers will still pull their toys off the shelf and USE
them only for July 4th picnics, school events and the Christmas holidays.

Not that there is anything wrong with those folks, but they already have
more functionality than they need with their present digital cameras. I do
not expect them to be lined up at Best Buy every time the camera industry
releases a new and improved model.

Perhaps manufacturers will rely upon product failure to spur consumers to
replace their aging gear? They sure won't be getting their cameras
REPAIRED. And the replacement cost will probably be less than the cost of a
one-time repair of their existing equipment. After all, the camera makers
have to keep those assembly lines in Vietnam moving at full speed, right?

"Not Disclosed" wrote in message
om...


4/ Material (Please; no plastics!)

Yet body armour is plastics (Kevlar) and ceramics

I know ... that was a snide remark since there have been so many
anti-plastic posts here.