 |
 | 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 2006The irony of plastic use in DSLRs and other cameras
What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD > which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where > it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! Oh look Rich, your fly is undone! >> What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >> technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD >> which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where >> it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! >Oh look Rich, your fly is undone! Is it plastic? ----- Paul J. Gans > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD > which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where > it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! Still riding that one trick pony, eh? >> What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >> technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Still riding that one trick pony, eh? Glass is not a requirement, but it tends to be more scratch resistant. A computer monitor is unlikely to be in contact with various objects that could scratch it, while a camera tends to be placed against shirt buttons, zippers, etc. >>> What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >>> technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >that could scratch it, while a camera tends to be placed against shirt >buttons, zippers, etc. Glass is a plastic in the true sense of the word. Hint, it was once sand, or something like it. > Glass is a plastic in the true sense of the word. Actually it's a fluid - a very viscous fluid to be sure, but a fluid rather than a plastic.  SignatureJohn Bean >> Glass is a plastic in the true sense of the word. > > Actually it's a fluid - a very viscous fluid to be sure, but > a fluid rather than a plastic. Actually - that appears to be a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Glass_as_a_liquid >>> Glass is a plastic in the true sense of the word. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Actually - that appears to be a myth: >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass#Glass_as_a_liquid Well, not quite. I said it wasn't plastic in nature, but fluid. The reference you cite says "different views can be justified since characterizing glass as either 'solid' or 'liquid' is not an entirely straightforward matter" and quotes a reference: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html The conclusion says: "There is no clear answer to the question "Is glass solid or liquid?" ". It does appear to be a myth that glass flows, but that isn't what I said. Either way... it isn't a plastic! :-) SignatureJohn Bean > The conclusion says: "There is no clear answer to the > question "Is glass solid or liquid?" ". Scientifically speaking, ordinary glass at room temperature is a solid, no quibble. There is a clear change in heat capacity between a typical liquid value at high temperatures to a typical solid value at low temperatures. The transition is not sharp, but still represents a phase transition. My ex-colleague Peter Wolynes worked out the theory of all this. Doug McDonald >> which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where >> it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! > > Still riding that one trick pony, eh? I see he's also still confused about when to use it's and when to use its. Poor bugger. > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD > which uses glass in it's construction. The only part of a camera where > it would actually make SENSE to use plastic, and it's not available!!! Oh do give it a rest Rich. Plastic plastic plastic. Anything else? Doc > > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Doc The new Leica is metal? But that goes without saying.... >> > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >> > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The new Leica is metal? But that goes without saying.... Is that why you bought one? > >> > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > >> > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Is that why you bought one? $6000 for a rangefinder camera and a limited selection of focal lengths won't sell to very many people. >> >> > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >> >> > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > $6000 for a rangefinder camera and a limited selection of focal lengths > won't sell to very many people. So it would not matter if it was made of wood, you are still not getting one are you so just why would you care what it is made of? > "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > So it would not matter if it was made of wood, you are still not getting one > are you so just why would you care what it is made of? He doesn't. Just likes making threads. Signaturejohn mcwilliams >> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message >>> >> So it would not matter if it was made of wood, you are still not getting one >> are you so just why would you care what it is made of? > >He doesn't. Just likes making threads. Then lock him up in a tower with a spinning wheel... and no internet connection. SignatureJohn Bean bet they could make it cheaper if they used plastic darkroommike >>>>> What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming >>>>> technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > $6000 for a rangefinder camera and a limited selection of focal lengths > won't sell to very many people. > > > What is the irony? The only part that would benefit from coming > > > technology that will see plastic as a suitable replacement is the LCD [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > The new Leica is metal? But that goes without saying.... The Irony here (Cue Alanis - it's like raaaaeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaiiiiiiinnn) is that you don't have a Digital SLR and yet here you are day in day out. Get a camera or get a life Doc |
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.