I have to agree it is the particular type of plastic, the design/execution
(fabrication), and application that counts. But just as metals work-harden
under stress, plastics can suffer from other forms of fatigue and damage.
But I don't think plastics can match the longivity of the better metals, and
therefore couldn't be said to be overall better structural materials.
Replaceable component parts yes - chassis and shells maybe not.
I think the disposable/repairable connection is plastics and electronics
having increasingly being incorporated together. Hence the association. And
often plastic assemblies are a factory press-fit; i.e. they will usually
break if any attempt is made to disassemble them.
Cheers,
Lee
----Original Message Follows----
From: dreammoose <dreammoose@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] "poor-quality" plastic cameras
About 33 years ago, I was taking the tour inside Hoover Dam and somehow
dropped my Nikon Ftn (OMs didn't exist yet) 5+ feet onto the concrete floor.
Somehow, the fact that the floor was part of such a massive piece of
concrete made it seem harder. The camera acquired a rather modest ding on
the corner and I got a crooked, out of focus picture of the ceiling. Never
had any problem with the camera for the several years I used it before
replacing it with my first OM.
I don't disagree at all with what William said about the right type and
quality of plastic, used correctly, being superior to metals for most of the
structural uses in camera construction. That doesn't mean a sturdily made
metal camera isn't rugged. One thing not discussed directly in this thread
is the quality of design and choice of materials (assuming the materials
used are those actually specified per Richard Allen's post). It is possible
to make a camera that is mostly metal that is rugged and reliable or one
that is fragile and unreliable (we can all think of examples) and the same
is true of a mostly plastic camera. Putting the whole thing down to plastic
vs. metal is way too simplistic. I posted a while ago about a failure of the
plastic focus/zoom mechanism in my Can*n S110 that was clearly an avoidable
design flaw, not a problem with using plastic, but how it was used. On the
other hand, who among the mechanically inclined hasn't encountered metal
structural pieces that crystallized and cracked under vibration and/or
stress?
Also, putting the whole disposable vs. repairable issue onto structural
materials is off base. Much of that comes from electronics issues of
reliability, repairability and obsolence.
Moose
John Cwiklinski wrote:
William wrote:
<<
I invite any reader to try the same thing with a Nikon F, Olympus OM, etc,
and let us know what happens. (No? If metal cameras are so rugged, why are
you afraid of dropping one 3' onto an asphalt surface?) Plastic withstands
all sorts of abuse that would severely damage a metal-bodied camera.
<<
I have inadvertently dropped (actually kicked) an OM camera from a high
school gym bleachers. Sure, it made alot of noise, people stared at me,
etc. As it was going down, my thought was on the circuitry, not the
mechanical. (Still works great, today)
The D100 is not professional and is based on the Nikon N80 body (I
believe), whereas the D1X is still considered the pro version. Both take
the majority of Nikon's SLR lenses.
I'm not sure what the intent of your post is. I don't think I would go out
and buy any camera just to do a drop test. I think I'd rather use it for
its designed purpose, taking photos.
As always, my 0.02 USD.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|