 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005Why plastic is trash for cameras
Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless or magnesium? No contest. -Rich http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great idea, regardless of material? >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great > idea, regardless of material? So, I knew this guy, and he had a plastic thing, and it broke, and he's all like "Plastic is crap, man" and I was "no way" and he goes "Way" but that's because he's a lamer. > > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great > idea, regardless of material? Or that the plastic used in this lens was most likely NOT polycarbonate? He's a dense fellow, for sure.  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird Apparently, the plastic wasn't! > Apparently, the plastic wasn't! So Rich, or "Michael", whatever your name is: Why don't you pipe down? You like making really bold statements for attention, yet you do a very poor job of it. Frankly, you're boring. You bore me. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great >idea, regardless of material? that's right, but this fellow (me, in this case) would probably have guessed that dropping lenses was not a good idea if he had been asked about it, even without someone explaining it to me. Having the cheap lens break rather than the more expensive camera might not be such a bad idea. >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great > idea, regardless of material? Happens sometimes though. > >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Happens sometimes though. Sure. And sometimes thin metal castings break, just about as easily as plastic moldings, but no one seems to bother posting those. Understrength specifications always fail easily, regardless of material. Plastic is not a perfect material for all camera molding uses, but it is not as bad, nor is it as cheap, as too many people imply. If the moldings are done correctly, using the correct plastic, with support for things like screw threads where needed, they'll be as durable as something like a thin magnesium or aluminum castings. >> >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >> >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >with support for things like screw threads where needed, they'll be as >durable as something like a thin magnesium or aluminum castings. Plastic has other negative characteristics. It's expansion and contraction with temp changes is alot worse than metal. It also outgasses upon exposure to temp extremes, although I don't know what effect that might have on the camera's other parts. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 On the other hand - an old-fashon lens is much heavier, and the shock is stronger when dropped. Besides, the plastic lens is normally prized at the same level as repairing the other lens. Only one conclusion: Don't drop lenses, and if you do - blaim yourself and not the material. So you have done comparison tests with an all metal lens to show that the same will not happen? No, I thought not, I guess that makes you a troll then! > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 Then pray Canon makes "L" lenses in plastic. Not likely. > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 Ok, that doesn't show a weakness in plastic, it shows a weakness in the joint. The same thing could happen with a steel/aluminum connection, too. Notice that the plastic isn't broken, just the junction. So the lesson here is to buy a lens of a homogeneous construction, all plastic, all metal, whatever... SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com >> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >is to buy a lens of a homogeneous construction, all plastic, all metal, >whatever... Ever see where they have to put a screw into plastic? On anything with quality, it will have a brass or other metal insert. Why? Because plastic can't hold threads. Ever notice that if a piece of plastic has a screw hole in an area near the edge, it's very easy to fracture from the screw hole outward? Metal is superior in both cases. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" >>> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >>> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood >never gave us refunds for in the past" In this case the plastic did break, and there were no metal inserts where the screws went into the plastic. there were 4 screws holding the rear portion of the lens to the main body, two screws pulled out, the other tow came with plastic attached. for sure, metal would have been stronger, something like stainless steel would have prevented the lens from breaking at this point. Hard to guess what other damage might have happened. It was an inexpensive lens, made inexpensivly. >>>> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >>>> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > >It was an inexpensive lens, made inexpensivly. As I've pointed out before, plastic is a cost-saver, nothing more. Even weight doesn't enter into it because for most lenses, the weight comes from the glass, not thin-walled aluminum castings. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > As I've pointed out before, plastic is a cost-saver, nothing more. > Even weight doesn't enter into it because for most lenses, the weight > comes from the glass, not thin-walled aluminum castings. > -Rich So now you're an expert materials engineer? Is there anything you can't do? All hail Emperor Rich! > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was > a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless > or magnesium? No contest. > > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019 Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14762013 (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters". Signature- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14762013 > (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters". Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >> > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff. Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > >Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff. > > Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic > and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed. > -Rich Doesn't matter. If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same. A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no good reason to over-engineer a part like that. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that >comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same. What the f--- are you talking about?? They USE materials like titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics. Where do you get such nutty ideas? >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no >good reason to over-engineer a part like that. Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares about the inside? -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" RichA once again proves he is an intellectually dishonest dweeb: >>> Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic >>> and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What the f--- are you talking about?? The fact that you pick and choose your facts. Either the plastic cameras are (a) stronger, (b) weaker or (c) the same strength as metal ones. Evidence in hand shows they are the same, and we know why this is so by simple appeal to well established physical/engineering principles (the "materials" stuff that Brian Baird was referring to). > They USE materials like > titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner > and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics. If they can take the "same punishment", then the issue is moot and your entire 'argument' collapses. Of course, now that BB points this out, you take the dishonest route and disclaim your previous statements. > Where do you get such nutty ideas? Why do you refuse to think? Why are you a FUDster? What is the point? Is being stupid _fun_ for you? > >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd > >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no > >good reason to over-engineer a part like that. > > Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares > about the inside? You did, but now you don't. What are your goal-posts made of? Must be pretty light, given how fast you move them around. >RichA once again proves he is an intellectually dishonest dweeb: > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >You did, but now you don't. What are your goal-posts made of? Must be >pretty light, given how fast you move them around. Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" RichA can't defend his own arguments: > Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic > and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time? > RichA can't defend his own arguments: > > > Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic > > and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. > > Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time? I think the answer will always elude Rich. But it might be funny to see his response. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >RichA can't defend his own arguments: > >> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic >> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. > >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time? Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit, but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > >RichA can't defend his own arguments: > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls. > -Rich Yep - I'll be lining up fo rthat camera built out of box beams. Could use it to drive 100 mm nails whgen there is nothing worth photographing. Guess it might concern airport security though... Mike (in anticipation) > >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls. > -Rich You still haven't really answered the question. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You still haven't really answered the question. They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little. But like I said, if you want plastic to perform like steel or aluminum, it has to be considerably thicker and I'm not convinced that plastic cameras don't have weak points that metal bodied cameras do not. You could make a camera out of cardboard and if it's thick enough (comparatively) it will resist crushing just like steel, but who'd want to? -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test > was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little. It proves more than your amateur efforts. > But like I said, if you want plastic to perform like steel or > aluminum, it has to be considerably thicker and I'm not convinced [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > who'd want to? > -Rich Again, show me where thickness = bad? Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test >> was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >Again, show me where thickness = bad? Bad is subjective in this case. For me, spending over $500 on a camera made of plastic is bad. For you it's not. But if you really believe that plastic is acceptable for a camera body, how would you like a plastic 1DS MkII for $5000? My guess is that very few people would go for it. -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > Bad is subjective in this case. You started this idiot thread with: Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless or magnesium? No contest. So was the above camera broken by subjectivity or something else? > For me, spending > over $500 on a camera made of plastic is bad. First, you say that plastic is weak and unreliable. Now it's all just a matter of taste. > For you it's not. But if you really believe that > plastic is acceptable for a camera body, how would > you like a plastic 1DS MkII for $5000? > My guess is that very few people would go for it. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on? All of this bullshit just makes you look even _more_ stupid than you may actually be. >> Bad is subjective in this case. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >bullshit just makes you look even _more_ stupid than you may actually >be. Why not answer the question, dunce? -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > Why not answer the question, dunce? > -Rich Still waiting for you to answer yours. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Why not answer the question, dunce? >> -Rich > >Still waiting for you to answer yours. That's what I thought. None of you would pay $1000+ for a plastic bodied DSLR, even though plastic is "as good" as metal. Chortle! -Rich > >> Why not answer the question, dunce? > >> -Rich [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > plastic is "as good" as metal. Chortle! > -Rich Actually, the body on the Pentax *istD is plastic, but it's over a stainless steel frame. But what you're describing, rather than being a brilliant coup on your part, is a feat of marketing ability, not particular need. Plastic combines with some metals in many situations to provide a more durable, and lighter, camera than is possible with either material alone. In other arenas, say hand power tools, the plastic makes up all of the bodies of even the most expensive tools, and, to make matters worse (from your point of view), this is blow-molded plastic. Primary reasons are two: weight and safety. Durability is about the same as with the machined cast aluminum cases of the '50s and '60s, unless the tool is dropped, at which point one of the superior features of plastic comes in. The plastic tool survives. Cast aluminum cracks. Oh, yeah. There's another reason. Cost. Today's power tools are cheaper than ever before (this will change as feed stocks for plastics go out of sight, along with the cost of transporting the tools). They are also more durable and offer a ton of features not available in the '50s and '60s. Somewhat like cameras. You're trying to create a straw man with your all-plastic-bodied camera, but mostly what you're doing is bullshitting. > Oh, yeah. There's another reason. Cost. Today's power tools are cheaper > than ever before (this will change as feed stocks for plastics go out > of sight, along with the cost of transporting the tools). This has already begun due to the cost of petroleum. Many of my plastic suppliers have already start the cost escalation. -- Slack > > Oh, yeah. There's another reason. Cost. Today's power tools are cheaper > > than ever before (this will change as feed stocks for plastics go out [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Slack Yes. This is one area all the pundits seem to ignore. We're in a plastic society, with plastic used for almost everything from razors to pens to lighters to grocery bags. When we hear about price increases, it's always at the gas pump, but that is not where the worst of this will eventually hit, because many of us can adjust our driving at least a little. It's going to be difficult to even talk a supermarket into going back to paper bags, or convince pen manufacturers that those lovely resin barrels they have been used for 75 years or so can easily be replaced by metal or wood--they can, of course, but the changeover is costly. Cars are about half plastic these days, and the average home has about 35% plastic in its make-up, from paint bases, to vinyl siding to insulation to electrical insulation to house wrap to window cladding and on. Shingles have risen and are about to rise again--this hurts, as I need a new roof, and it is a matter of need, not choice. Of course, not all plastic is from petroleum feed stock, with some from wood cellulose and some other types from coal, but if I had to guess, I'd say maybe 80% of today's plastic is petroleum based. Things are about to change. Drastically. >> Oh, yeah. There's another reason. Cost. Today's power tools are cheaper >> than ever before (this will change as feed stocks for plastics go out >> of sight, along with the cost of transporting the tools). > >This has already begun due to the cost of petroleum. Many of my plastic >suppliers have already start the cost escalation. It will be interesting to see them keep trying to pretend inflation is still under control when nearly everything rises in price because of energy and plastic resin price increases. -Rich >> >> Why not answer the question, dunce? >> >> -Rich [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >You're trying to create a straw man with your all-plastic-bodied >camera, but mostly what you're doing is bullshitting. 1. Tools made of plastic do not work well. In fact, their lack of precision due to using plastic internally as well as externally makes them a nightmare to use. Compare a cheap nearly all plastic Skill jigsaw to a Makita with a cast metal front housing (where the strength is needed) and all metal internals. Try cutting with both. 2. I almost bought a Fuji S2 but when I picked up the body and applied a little pressure, the plastic actually creaked because it partially deformed. 3. Power tool durability is a question. I have no evidence that they are better today than years ago. I had an all metal Black and Decker drill that lasted with normal use since the mid 1960s. Finally, the motor burned out when I used it with sanding disks to strip auto paint. It had also been dropped an uncountable number of times, no cracked housing. > >> >> Why not answer the question, dunce? > >> >> -Rich [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > jigsaw to a Makita with a cast metal front housing (where the strength > is needed) and all metal internals. Try cutting with both. There are numerous other tools out there where the cases are all plastic, and even the gears are partially plastic. They work fine. Brands include DeWalt and Milwaukee, but there are others. Some tools use a small amount of cast aluminum, but it is not necessary. I'm not up for taking your word as a tool expert. I've been testing tools for magazines for almost 20 years now, and have been using woodworking and carpentry tools extensively for about 50 years. > 3. Power tool durability is a question. I have no evidence that they > are better today than years ago. I had an all metal Black and Decker > drill that lasted with normal use since the mid 1960s. Finally, the > motor burned out when I used it with sanding disks to strip auto > paint. It had also been dropped an uncountable number of times, no > cracked housing. What is normal use in your instance? I've still got an old aluminum Craftsman 1/2" drill somewhere. It is single speed, non-reversible and has not been badly handled, but I never use it for two reasons. I consider the case design dangerous, because of a lack of grounding, and it is too damned heavy of extensive overhead use. Stripping auto paint is not a particularly rough job for any kind of drill, though there are tools that do a faster and better job. That shouldn't be the killer. Did you check to see that the motor was actually burned out? It may well have only needed new brushes. > Why not answer the question, dunce? Because your question is posed in bad faith. Recall, once again, you started this idiot thread with: Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless or magnesium? No contest. You then spend many postings attemping to show the innate superiority of "metal" over "plastic". Having failed completely, you then state it is actually all "subjective" -- as if all your prior, and false, quantifications were never made. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=define%3Abad+faith&btnG=Google+Search&meta= Why should anyone answer your idiot questions? The real question is why you bother to act like a complete retard: is thinking properly truly difficult for you? Is honesty completely out of the question? Don't bother, we already know the answers to these questions, Mr. Anderson; they follow from the fact that you are a proven dingbat shithead FUDster troll. >> Why not answer the question, dunce? > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Anderson; they follow from the fact that you are a proven dingbat >shithead FUDster troll. Of course you do, because you're stock-in-trade is drawing conclusions without real information. Like that silly test. -Rich RichA is making less sense: > >RichA can't defend his own arguments: > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit, > but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls. Ok, you say that 'Aluminum alloys' 'typically' have 5x the strength of plastic. You now explain the observation of equal strength by claiming the "plastic walls on the mirror box" were 'about' "TWICE" as thick. In this reality, 2 does not equal 5. Your explanation of this discrepancy is what? However, this is all a stupid distraction from the central point: since the plastic and metal cameras have been shown to be just as strong, it makes no difference (at least from a strength standpoint) what they are made of. Can't you even do the job of a FUDster properly? > Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic > and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. Blah blah blah... Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic >> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up. > >Blah blah blah... No, the correct method is to put on your monkey mask, cover your ears, eyes and mouth (well, Canon nuts don't cover their mouths) and go, waa, waa, waaaaaa! -Rich "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" > >If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that > >comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics. > Where do you get such nutty ideas? No, they use titanium and aluminum over STEEL because it is LIGHTER. Additionally, you misunderstand a simple statement. Which is typical with you. > >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd > >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about the inside? > -Rich That's why metals don't offer advantages over plastics in many cases, doofus. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it impacted! Darrell schreef: > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) > > A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it > impacted! huhhuh, wel said beavis... > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) > > A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it > impacted! If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works differently on different materials?? SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. > > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot > > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) > > > > A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it > > impacted! > If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same > speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works > differently on different materials?? Because a feather floats to the ground! Huzzah! ;) Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot > > > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > ;) Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational effect. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational >effect. ... but air resistance is not directly related to shape; mass is a parameter as well. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > > Because a feather floats to the ground! Huzzah! > > > > ;) > > > Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational > effect. I know. I was being facetious. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >> Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot >> rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works > differently on different materials?? My point was at 95mph impact would destroy any camera... IMHO >If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same >speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works >differently on different materials?? If two objects are shaped the same, but one is denser than the other, the less dense one will be held back more by air resistance. Think two boxes that are the same, but one is empty and the other is filled with rocks. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > Think two boxes that are the same, but one is empty and the other is > filled with rocks. But then compare a box of lead versus the box of rocks. Air resistance is a diminishing effect. Once an object gains enough momentum, more isn't going to make as drastic a difference. In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum. In other words, in RichA's head. -- Slack > > In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum. > > In other words, in RichA's head. > -- > Slack Mother nature abhors a vacuum. Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird > > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. > > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14762013 > (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters". Plastic is at least as strong as metal! 'Rich' was right all along! >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens. >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=14762013 > (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters". Not exactly sure what that proves. Both look trashed to me. And just what kind of trashy plastic kit do you have, Rich? ************************************************************** "There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating. Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which has existed throughout history by means of photography? The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance. Yet, that very idea has motivated me. James Nachtwey War Photographer http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >And just what kind of trashy plastic kit do you have, Rich? Couldn't bring myself to buying anything like that. Looks like it may be the 20D as a "base" camera for me. Meanwhile, I have to make do with my 8 meg magnesium bodied prosumer. -Rich >************************************************************** > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > War Photographer > http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ "Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood never gave us refunds for in the past" |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.