Professional Web Applications Themes

Ratings on build quality from Brit mag - Photography

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...

  1. #1

    Default 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
    RichA Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <com>, com
    says... 

    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.
    Brian Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    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 Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag


    "Chrlz" <com> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 

    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.


    Charles Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag


    "Chrlz" <com> wrote in message
    news:googlegroups.com... 

    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.


    Sheldon Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    "Chrlz" <com> writes:
     

    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.
     

    No.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:net>, <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/>
    David Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    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 Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    Chrlz wrote:
     

    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.
    Alan Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag



    RichA wrote: 

    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
    Colin Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

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

    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
    Owamanga Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

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

    The term "plastic" is a rather vague and imprecise designation that
    refers a wide gamut of materials with vastly varying characteristics.

    As Brain points out, the "plastic" used for Canon bodies, is not mere
    "plastic", but polycarbonate (Lexan)!! There's a big difference between
    polycarbonate, and the stuff they used to manufacture Kodak Brownies
    from! And when Brian sez that polycarbonate is more impact-resistant
    than magnesium, that's a bit of an understatement. Polycarbonate is the
    laminate used in the production of bullet-proof glass! As the king of
    "plastics" It's pretty much indestructible!

    Anyone at all familiar with the properties and characteristics of
    polycarbonate, I would suspect that they would consider it a bonus
    benefit over cheap magnesium, rather than a deficit.
    birch999@hotmail.com Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <127.0.0.1>,
    Colin D <127.0.0.1> wrote: 

    [ ... ]
     [/ref]

    [ ... ]
     

    Hmm ... It would seem to me that the path to the focusing screen
    is of the same material, and would expand at the same rate as the path
    to the film or sensor, so for a SLR, this would seem to be a
    non-problem.

    However -- for a rangefinder design, it *might* make some
    difference -- though I think that the operating temperature range of the
    camera -- and the *human* operating it -- would not allow much
    differential expansion.

    I think that in most cases, it would be within the depth of
    field, or the errors of the rangefinder mechanism, so you would never
    see it.

    Obviously, some plastics, stored (if not operated) at too high a
    temperature, would distort, thus introducing a *permanent* error.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.
    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <netrover.com>,
    <com> wrote: 
    >
    >The term "plastic" is a rather vague and imprecise designation that
    >refers a wide gamut of materials with vastly varying characteristics.
    >
    >As Brain points out, the "plastic" used for Canon bodies, is not mere
    >"plastic", but polycarbonate (Lexan)!! There's a big difference between
    >polycarbonate, and the stuff they used to manufacture Kodak Brownies
    >from! And when Brian sez that polycarbonate is more impact-resistant
    >than magnesium, that's a bit of an understatement. Polycarbonate is the
    >laminate used in the production of bullet-proof glass! As the king of
    >"plastics" It's pretty much indestructible!
    >
    >Anyone at all familiar with the properties and characteristics of
    >polycarbonate, I would suspect that they would consider it a bonus
    >benefit over cheap magnesium, rather than a deficit.[/ref]

    I would consider Delrin (Acetal) to also be an excellent
    material for camera bodies -- especially since it is not transparent in
    its natural state, and can be obtained in a nice solid black (which
    machines quite well, and is *very* impact resistant, too. It actually
    machines more freely than Lexan does, in my experience.

    Enjoy,
    DoN.

    --
    Email: <com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
    (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
    --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
    DoN. Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <d0t1i7$4li$d-and-d.com>, com
    says... 

    Might be good for small batches, but Lexan and other forms of Polycarb
    injection and vacuum mold so easily and are much cheaper.
    Brian Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    birch points out:
     [/ref]

    "plastic", but polycarbonate (Lexan)!! There's a big difference between

    polycarbonate, and the stuff they used to manufacture Kodak Brownies
    from! And when Brian sez that polycarbonate is more impact-resistant
    than magnesium, that's a bit of an understatement. Polycarbonate is the

    laminate used in the production of bullet-proof glass! As the king of
    "plastics" It's pretty much indestructible! <<

    But not totally. Some years ago, I was making zero clearance inserts
    for a table saw. I was using Lexan. ZC inserts are made by shaping to
    the table insert, then placing the unslotted ZC insert into the throat,
    clamping it in place, and running the saw blade to be used up through
    it. My mistake was to make one of this material for a 24 tooth rip
    blade with what is called an FTG, or flat top grind. Second mistake was
    raising the blade too fast.

    Close to scared the out of me when that stuff shattered, sending
    shards of plastic all over the shop!

    But it was the only time I've know of that Lexan failed, and the
    combination was a bit peculiar. I've also laid a motorcycle down on the
    road, wearing a Lexan helmet that took a pretty good crunch and slide,
    with no harmful effect (my first wife might argue about this). The
    Lexan was scraped, but you're not supposed to re-use a helmet after a
    crash anyway.

    Charlie Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <googlegroups.com>,
    com says... [/ref]
    >
    > "plastic", but polycarbonate (Lexan)!! There's a big difference between
    >
    > polycarbonate, and the stuff they used to manufacture Kodak Brownies
    > from! And when Brian sez that polycarbonate is more impact-resistant
    > than magnesium, that's a bit of an understatement. Polycarbonate is the
    >
    > laminate used in the production of bullet-proof glass! As the king of
    > "plastics" It's pretty much indestructible! <<
    >
    > But not totally. Some years ago, I was making zero clearance inserts
    > for a table saw. I was using Lexan. ZC inserts are made by shaping to
    > the table insert, then placing the unslotted ZC insert into the throat,
    > clamping it in place, and running the saw blade to be used up through
    > it. My mistake was to make one of this material for a 24 tooth rip
    > blade with what is called an FTG, or flat top grind. Second mistake was
    > raising the blade too fast.
    >
    > Close to scared the out of me when that stuff shattered, sending
    > shards of plastic all over the shop!
    >
    > But it was the only time I've know of that Lexan failed, and the
    > combination was a bit peculiar. I've also laid a motorcycle down on the
    > road, wearing a Lexan helmet that took a pretty good crunch and slide,
    > with no harmful effect (my first wife might argue about this). The
    > Lexan was scraped, but you're not supposed to re-use a helmet after a
    > crash anyway.
    >
    >[/ref]

    As long as the TYPE of plastic used in camera production is proper to the job
    (polycarbonate), any mention of it in a technical disscuion about the camera
    is superfluous, except in passing.

    I have yet to see any photos anywhere, that had any indication in the picture
    that told me what the camera was built from. I just cant tell from any of the
    Photos Ive taken, which ones are from the Magnesium Sony, and which ones are
    from the plastic Fuji???? The only way to tell, once the print is on the
    paper, is to ASK, and that would be cheating.

    When I go out shopping for a camera, the very LAST thing I would consider in
    the buying decision would be the material used to "cover the works".

    Buying, or not buying a camera because of its "plastic" body would be a
    pretty "stupid" way to shop.

    I have spent the last 5 months trying to decide which camera to buy for the
    up-coming horseshow season...

    I was all excited about the E-Volt because of the self cleaning feature, but
    its performance didn't cut it when shooting "low light" (I didnt like the
    pictures at high ISO).

    I allready tried the Digital Rebel and had problems with the one I used.

    I tried a D70 the other day and it seems to be just the right combination of
    size weight and performance that I am looking for.

    My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the
    kind of superfine, tal-like dust Im going to have to deal with, and see if
    the dust gets inside the D70 as easily as it got into the DRebel.

    If the D70 passes the "dust test" should I "take a pass" because it is made
    mostly of PLASTIC????

    I dont think so.

    Surely there are plastics around that arent suitable for camera bodies, but
    there are metals that aren't suitable too. (how a bout a cast iron Nikon??)

    This adherance to a concept that the camera should be made of some "magic"
    metal substance is a stupid as an adherance to "FILM ONLY" for photography.

    I havent bothered to look and see where the D70 ranks as far as high ISO
    performance, but Im sure its better than anything I currently own, and I know
    from looking at pictures that have been posted all over the place that it is
    better than the E-Volt for high ISO.

    (high ISO isnt the ONLY deciding factor either, I just want ot be able to do
    SOME shooting in low light without flash.)





    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    Larry wrote: 
    >>
    >>"plastic", but polycarbonate (Lexan)!! There's a big difference between
    >>
    >>polycarbonate, and the stuff they used to manufacture Kodak Brownies
    >>from! And when Brian sez that polycarbonate is more impact-resistant
    >>than magnesium, that's a bit of an understatement. Polycarbonate is the
    >>
    >>laminate used in the production of bullet-proof glass! As the king of
    >>"plastics" It's pretty much indestructible! <<
    >>
    >>But not totally. Some years ago, I was making zero clearance inserts
    >>for a table saw. I was using Lexan. ZC inserts are made by shaping to
    >>the table insert, then placing the unslotted ZC insert into the throat,
    >>clamping it in place, and running the saw blade to be used up through
    >>it. My mistake was to make one of this material for a 24 tooth rip
    >>blade with what is called an FTG, or flat top grind. Second mistake was
    >>raising the blade too fast.
    >>
    >>Close to scared the out of me when that stuff shattered, sending
    >>shards of plastic all over the shop!
    >>
    >>But it was the only time I've know of that Lexan failed, and the
    >>combination was a bit peculiar. I've also laid a motorcycle down on the
    >>road, wearing a Lexan helmet that took a pretty good crunch and slide,
    >>with no harmful effect (my first wife might argue about this). The
    >>Lexan was scraped, but you're not supposed to re-use a helmet after a
    >>crash anyway.
    >>
    >>[/ref]
    >
    >
    > As long as the TYPE of plastic used in camera production is proper to the job
    > (polycarbonate), any mention of it in a technical disscuion about the camera
    > is superfluous, except in passing.
    >
    > I have yet to see any photos anywhere, that had any indication in the picture
    > that told me what the camera was built from. I just cant tell from any of the
    > Photos Ive taken, which ones are from the Magnesium Sony, and which ones are
    > from the plastic Fuji???? The only way to tell, once the print is on the
    > paper, is to ASK, and that would be cheating.
    >
    > When I go out shopping for a camera, the very LAST thing I would consider in
    > the buying decision would be the material used to "cover the works".
    >
    > Buying, or not buying a camera because of its "plastic" body would be a
    > pretty "stupid" way to shop.
    >
    > I have spent the last 5 months trying to decide which camera to buy for the
    > up-coming horseshow season...
    >
    > I was all excited about the E-Volt because of the self cleaning feature, but
    > its performance didn't cut it when shooting "low light" (I didnt like the
    > pictures at high ISO).
    >
    > I allready tried the Digital Rebel and had problems with the one I used.
    >
    > I tried a D70 the other day and it seems to be just the right combination of
    > size weight and performance that I am looking for.
    >
    > My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the
    > kind of superfine, tal-like dust Im going to have to deal with, and see if
    > the dust gets inside the D70 as easily as it got into the DRebel.
    >
    > If the D70 passes the "dust test" should I "take a pass" because it is made
    > mostly of PLASTIC????
    >
    > I dont think so.
    >
    > Surely there are plastics around that arent suitable for camera bodies, but
    > there are metals that aren't suitable too. (how a bout a cast iron Nikon??)
    >
    > This adherance to a concept that the camera should be made of some "magic"
    > metal substance is a stupid as an adherance to "FILM ONLY" for photography.
    >
    > I havent bothered to look and see where the D70 ranks as far as high ISO
    > performance, but Im sure its better than anything I currently own, and I know
    > from looking at pictures that have been posted all over the place that it is
    > better than the E-Volt for high ISO.
    >
    > (high ISO isnt the ONLY deciding factor either, I just want ot be able to do
    > SOME shooting in low light without flash.)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >[/ref]


    Who would know what material is best suited for a camera body? Those
    that design camera bodies. Many variables would undoubtedly need to be
    discussed before a final design ~ production decision is made. Camera
    companies would surely be aware that their products must meet imposed
    quality levels for various designs and still be price competitive within
    a sector of market.

    Who among the readers can say for a certainty the the PC used to make
    Canon, Nikon, or any other camera PC body is exactly the same chemistry.

    Note what the British Plastics Federation has to say about PC.

    http://www.bpf.co.uk/bpfindustry/plastics_materials_Polycarbonate_PC.cfm






    nick Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    Larry <net> wrote:
     

    I'm not sure if you'd need to change lenses for the kind of shooting
    you do, but if you find the D70 doesn't have too bad a dust ingress
    with the lens mounted, then it would make sense to buy two or three
    D70 bodies, one for each lens. You could get two D70 bodies for
    the price of a 20D.


    --
    Ken Tough
    Ken Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    In article <5LZNOBFt$co.uk>, co.uk says... 
    >
    > I'm not sure if you'd need to change lenses for the kind of shooting
    > you do, but if you find the D70 doesn't have too bad a dust ingress
    > with the lens mounted, then it would make sense to buy two or three
    > D70 bodies, one for each lens. You could get two D70 bodies for
    > the price of a 20D.
    >
    >
    >[/ref]

    Most of my "in the ring" shooting is done between 50 and 70 mm focal length
    (equivalent).

    If I could afford to buy 2 D70s I probably would just buy lenses instead.

    I did, however, test a freinds D70 (Under his panicky snoopervision) under
    VERY dusty cirstances last night, and the camera passed with flying
    colors.

    My problem with dust in the DSLR I used in the ring before (A Digital Rebel)
    was occuring without any lens changes, and thats why I din't buy one. I
    EXPECT dust incursion when changing lenses, and I can guard against it, but
    the dust incursion I was getting was happening without opening the camera.

    We also had a Rebel with us last night, and it got dust in it just hanging
    around my friends neck!

    For now it looks like the D70 with one lens will have to get me by until
    later in the season.


    If I get the quality I expect, I dont see a need to buy "more" camera, just
    more lenses.






    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Ratings on build quality from Brit mag

    On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 07:35:06 -0500, Larry <net>
    wrote:
     
    >>
    >> I'm not sure if you'd need to change lenses for the kind of shooting
    >> you do, but if you find the D70 doesn't have too bad a dust ingress
    >> with the lens mounted, then it would make sense to buy two or three
    >> D70 bodies, one for each lens. You could get two D70 bodies for
    >> the price of a 20D.
    >>
    >>
    >>[/ref]
    >
    >Most of my "in the ring" shooting is done between 50 and 70 mm focal length
    >(equivalent).
    >
    >If I could afford to buy 2 D70s I probably would just buy lenses instead.
    >
    >I did, however, test a freinds D70 (Under his panicky snoopervision) under
    >VERY dusty cirstances last night, and the camera passed with flying
    >colors.
    >
    >My problem with dust in the DSLR I used in the ring before (A Digital Rebel)
    >was occuring without any lens changes, and thats why I din't buy one. I
    >EXPECT dust incursion when changing lenses, and I can guard against it, but
    >the dust incursion I was getting was happening without opening the camera.
    >
    >We also had a Rebel with us last night, and it got dust in it just hanging
    >around my friends neck!
    >
    >For now it looks like the D70 with one lens will have to get me by until
    >later in the season.
    >
    >
    >If I get the quality I expect, I dont see a need to buy "more" camera, just
    >more lenses.[/ref]

    Iv'e seen some waterproof elasticated soft housings that can be fitted
    over the lens (probably custom made for the huge expensive nature
    600mm zooms). This would prevent dust from getting into the lens
    through the moving zoom mechanism area. What I don't know is how easy
    it is to operate the zoom with a huge condom-like thing stuck over it,
    or if they are available for standard lenses.

    Consider constructing one yourself ?

    As for dust getting onto the sensor via the bayonet fitting - just
    tape it up, using suitable tape (eg, gaffer tape, *not* duct tape).

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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Ratings
    By ijme in forum Macromedia Exchange Dreamweaver Extensions
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 13th, 05:06 PM
  2. A .NET Control to handle Ratings and reviews
    By Rob in forum ASP.NET Building Controls
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: April 18th, 08:09 PM
  3. Build Quality Poly-carbon vs Metal
    By Jim in forum Photography
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 18th, 03:57 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139