 |
 | 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 / October 2006The "metal chassis" scam
I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera bodies, have been touting "metal chassis" or "s/s chassis." My question to them is, what good is it if the body, the thing that protects the insides, keeps them clean and keeps light out is cracked or smashed, as plastic has a disturbing tendency to do when you drop or even bump it hard? Also, for consumers, do you REALLY think you'll be repairing a plastic-shelled entry-level DSLR? Unlikely, since any repair of a bad body break is going to cost at least 2/3rds as much to fix as a brand new body costs to buy. The mfgs might as well have made the internals out of plastic as well. At least it would have kept the cost of production and the weight even lower than it is. > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic > camera > bodies, have been touting > "metal chassis" or "s/s chassis Dang operating system changes... PLONK > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > well have made the internals out of plastic as well. At least it would > have kept the cost of production and the weight even lower than it is. What is your obsession with plastic? Jeez...get a new one trick pony... >> I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic >> camera have kept the cost of production and the weight even lower than it is. > What is your obsession with plastic? Jeez...get a new one trick > pony... Maybe he likes some plastic toys? Heh... > > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What is your obsession with plastic? Jeez...get a new one trick pony... Not as bad as your obsession with that phrase. Isn't overuse of specific words something 3 year-olds do when they learn a new one? > > What is your obsession with plastic? Jeez...get a new one trick pony... > > Not as bad as your obsession with that phrase. Isn't overuse of > specific words something 3 year-olds do when they learn a new one? If the shoe fits... >I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera >bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >well have made the internals out of plastic as well. At least it would >have kept the cost of production and the weight even lower than it is. Did you find another camera you're not going to buy? TR > bla bla bla plastic blabla bla > yadda yadda yadda plastic > bub yub ipsum lorem plastic > etc... Hey Rich, if we all chipped in and bought you a camera, would you shut up about the plastic already? Or, as I suspect you are more likely to do, would you abuse it until you finally got the plastic to fail, then come harang us for years about it afterwards? Who's for contributing to the buy-a-plastic-DSLR-for-RichA-to-make-him-shut-up fund? Austin >> bla bla bla plastic blabla bla >> yadda yadda yadda plastic [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Austin Nice thought, but let interject some reality here. A very similar thing happened not so long ago on another ng (alt.mountain-bike) for an emotionally unstable person like RIch. To make a long story short, he is now doing time for kiddie porn... no lie.  SignatureSlack > >> bla bla bla plastic blabla bla > >> yadda yadda yadda plastic [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > emotionally unstable person like RIch. To make a long story short, he is > now doing time for kiddie porn... no lie. I figured really doing so would be like giving gasoline to a pyromaniac. RichA: Do you have Asperger's Syndrome? Austin > >> bla bla bla plastic blabla bla > >> yadda yadda yadda plastic [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > emotionally unstable person like RIch. To make a long story short, he is > now doing time for kiddie porn... no lie. And you knew this because....he was your roomate? > Who's for contributing to the > buy-a-plastic-DSLR-for-RichA-to-make-him-shut-up fund? I'll contribute $10, but you have to promise to buy duct tape with it instead. It'll get the job done just as well, and I think will be more satisfying in the long run. Signaturewww.ericschreiber.com > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > bodies, have been touting > "metal chassis" or "s/s chassis." My question to them is, what good is So ask the bloody manufacturers then (if indeed that's what you mean by "mfgs") and stop damn well bothering us here with your plastic obsession. > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > bodies, have been touting > "metal chassis" or "s/s chassis." The only criticism we see is coming from you. You are a minority of one. What makes you believe that anyone here or that any of the camera manufacturers give a hoot what you think? No one is interested in your opinion. No one cares what you think. Give it up. Try to do something positive with your life, for a change. > > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > opinion. No one cares what you think. Give it up. Try to do something > positive with your life, for a change. Entry level buyers for the most part simply do not know any better. They come from P&S cameras, most of which are plastic. The higher-end buyers here who pretend they don't care are F.O.S. and woudn't trade their metal bodies for plastic if their lives depended on it. > > > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > > > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > don't care are F.O.S. and woudn't trade their metal bodies for plastic > if their lives depended on it. Abraham lincoln once said (paraphrased) "If a man calls you a Jackass, think nothing of it. But if ten men call you a Jackass, you might need to be fitted with a saddle." Lots of people have told you that you are off your rocker. I have yet to see even one agree with you. Rich, you have nothing of value to contribute. Stop wasting the bandwidth. There is one other possibility. You ignored my question before, but I'll ask again. You show all the signs of having Asperger's Syndrome. Do you? Austin > > > > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > > > > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I'll ask again. You show all the signs of having Asperger's Syndrome. > Do you? Quantas never crashed. Doc > Abraham lincoln once said (paraphrased) "If a man calls you a Jackass, > think nothing of it. But if ten men call you a Jackass, you might need [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Rich, you have nothing of value to contribute. Stop wasting the > bandwidth. The reason it keeps posting, is that people keep responding to it. If you want it to stop, just ignore it. Why do think that replacing a plastic shell part that is attached to an internal stainless frame is going to be so expensive? Since the plastic parts are injection molded in large quantities, the parts themselves will be very inexpensive, and by having an internal metal frame, the mounting of the internals is not dependant on the outside shell, so the replacement of shell parts should be particularily easy. I would expect this to be a fairly cheap repair. Of course complete replacement isn't super expensive since these are cheaper cameras anyway. Have people needing replacement shell parts been charged heavily for them? > I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > well have made the internals out of plastic as well. At least it would > have kept the cost of production and the weight even lower than it is. > ...for consumers, do you REALLY think > you'll be repairing a plastic-shelled entry-level DSLR? Unlikely, > since any repair of a bad body break is going to cost at least 2/3rds > as much to fix as a brand new body costs to buy. Oh help me RichA !! One of my no-plastic-at-all 100% metal body cameras needs to be repaired. I've taken it down to my local (professional grade) photo shop that I use. But they say that while they can arrange get it fixed, to do so will cost significantly more than what the camera's worth ... in fact, it will probably cost about the same as what the camera cost me NEW. Egads! Help me - help me - help me -RichA! Where are these --> CHEAP <-- repairs that you claim exist for cameras that have a metal body ? I need all the specifics for at least 3 companies who will provide price quotes, preferably within 75 miles of Philadelphia. Unless you can "PUT UP", I will be forced to save money by simply trashing my beloved old metal body camera and replacing it wholesale with an SLR whose body contains some plastic. Heaven forbid! If it makes a difference for the repair shops you recommend, its a K-mount Pentax. -hh > > ...for consumers, do you REALLY think > > you'll be repairing a plastic-shelled entry-level DSLR? Unlikely, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Egads! Which camera, what happened to it? > > > ...for consumers, do you REALLY think > > > you'll be repairing a plastic-shelled entry-level DSLR? Unlikely, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Which camera, what happened to it? As I said, its one of the Pentax K's. I've not used it for awhile (no, I didn't DROP it) and now its broke. I need all the specifics for at least 3 companies who will provide price quotes, preferably within 75 miles of Philadelphia. Because its a metal body, do you repair these for free or somethin'? Unless you can "PUT UP", I will be forced to save money by simply trashing my beloved old metal body camera and replacing it wholesale with an SLR whose body contains some plastic. Heaven forbid! -hh > I need all the specifics for at least 3 companies who will provide > price quotes, preferably within 75 miles of Philadelphia. If you're serious, try Google and photo.net. I found three last night but thought you were trolling. It might be cheaper to just buy another old Pentax body. > > I need all the specifics for at least 3 companies who will provide > > price quotes, preferably within 75 miles of Philadelphia. > > If you're serious, try Google and photo.net. I found three last night... I could find them myself but RichA has made the claim that its cheap to get metal bodies repaired, so he must do that himself: if he fails to do so, he's admitting that he is wrong. > but thought you were trolling. There's nothing better than a no-bullshit real world test. I'm merely asking RichA to provide real facts to back up his claims. > It might be cheaper to just buy another old Pentax body. At present, that's what I'm finding ... but "gosh!" RichA claimed that the advantage of a metal body camera is that one can get them repaired cheaper than replacement. I'm finding that to be a lie. Gosh, we don't think that RichA is a liar...or is he a clueless idiot? -hh >> > I need all the specifics for at least 3 companies who will provide >> > price quotes, preferably within 75 miles of Philadelphia. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Gosh, we don't think that RichA is a liar...or is he a clueless idiot? Gee, cheap dummy finds his ancient cameras will cost alot to repair. It might surprise him, but unlike auto manufacturers, camera makers don't keep spare parts for 20 years or more. Also, I never said metal bodied cameras were cheap to fix (try learning to read) I said plastic cameras will be expensive to fix relative to their prices. Spending $500 to fix a metal bodied camera that cost $1200-$1700 might make sense whereas fixing a $600 plastic camera for $500 makes no sense, over buying a new one. >>At present, that's what I'm finding ... but "gosh!" RichA claimed that >>the advantage of a metal body camera is that one can get them repaired [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > that cost $1200-$1700 might make sense whereas fixing a $600 plastic > camera for $500 makes no sense, over buying a new one. And if you can't get real facts just make them up hey Rich? What repairs to each are costing you $500? Rich, making things up just makes you a liar that just really, really wants to be right and just makes you look like a stupid git! >>>At present, that's what I'm finding ... but "gosh!" RichA claimed that >>>the advantage of a metal body camera is that one can get them repaired [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >just really, really wants to be right and just makes you look like a stupid >git! Throw your Canon on the ground and ask them how much to replace the sensor and the LCD. Case closed. >>>>At present, that's what I'm finding ... but "gosh!" RichA claimed that >>>>the advantage of a metal body camera is that one can get them repaired [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Throw your Canon on the ground and ask them how much to replace the > sensor and the LCD. Case closed. ????? Rich you really did star as the Lion in the Wizard of Oz, right? > Gee, cheap dummy finds his ancient cameras will cost alot to repair. > It might surprise him, but unlike auto manufacturers, camera makers [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that cost $1200-$1700 might make sense whereas fixing a $600 plastic > camera for $500 makes no sense, over buying a new one. How much does it cost to repair the cardboard use-once-throw-away cameras that you normally use? >> Gee, cheap dummy finds his ancient cameras will cost alot to repair. >> It might surprise him, but unlike auto manufacturers, camera makers [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >How much does it cost to repair the cardboard use-once-throw-away cameras >that you normally use? I haven't, but do they take the invisible pictures you claim to take? > Gee, cheap dummy... Is Rich here, who falls into backpedalling on his claim of "what he meant". > Also, I never said metal bodied cameras were cheap to fix (try > learning to read) I said plastic cameras will be expensive to fix > relative to their prices. Spending $500 to fix a metal bodied camera > that cost $1200-$1700 might make sense whereas fixing a $600 plastic > camera for $500 makes no sense, over buying a new one. Nice attempt at revisionism, Rich. Unsuccessful, but the effort (for you) us noted. The problem us that I already stayed that the cost of repair exceeded the original purchase price. As such, i'm already "out" because metal costs more to but upfront, and I still have to replace it, because of repair costs as mentioned. If I buy metal again (last I checked, my model us still being made), I'll merely be even further behind financially than switching to "evil" plastic. Simply put, Rich's claims do not pan out. -hh >> Gee, cheap dummy... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >you) us noted. The problem us that I already stayed that the cost of >repair exceeded the original purchase price. Yes, and it costs alot to have a new part made for a Model T Ford as well. > >> Also, I never said metal bodied cameras were cheap to fix (try > >> learning to read) I said plastic cameras will be expensive to fix [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Yes, and it costs alot to have a new part made for a Model T Ford as > well. The Ford Model T was manufactured 1908 - 1927, which means the newest is now 80 years old, and the common consumer camera from back in those days was the Brownie, which was also NOT a "metal body" in that same era. And later models used an early form of plastic known as 'bakelite': if your Mom had RevereWare pots & pans, its handles were made out of this material: go ask her how many years from before you were born she's had it. In any event, since you insist on an automobile analogy, the metal body camera I was referring to was substantially newer than the VW Beetle, so go check the online JC Whitney catalog website to see how inexpensive ... and extensive ... OEM-grade Beetle parts remain to this day: http://www.jcwhitney.com -hh > > >> Also, I never said metal bodied cameras were cheap to fix (try > > >> learning to read) I said plastic cameras will be expensive to fix [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > -hh We were talking about contemporary DSLRs, not frigging 1970s era SLRs. The cheapest price I've seen to have any major (body apart) work done on a DSLR is around $275.00, out of warranty. That is a lot for a plastic camera that cost $500 or so, but not for a metal-bodied DSLR that cost $1000+. So, if Joe Public crunches his Rebel XT, is he going to spend (likely) as much money to fix it as it cost (my guess is Canon would try to dissuade him from going this route), or is he going to simply buy a new 400? > We were talking about contemporary DSLRs not frigging 1970s era SLRs. The impact/shock resistance is known to be demonstrably better for composite plastics than conventional metal alloys, which means that the body construction question can only be applicable for long-term wear and durability. This makes the "dSLR vs SLR" is irrelevant, unless you realize that the high rate of change of dSLR's makes the marketplace need for such long term durability itself to be irrelevant, since the underlying digital technology will virtually be obsolete within a year after it is out of a standard 1 year warranty. As such, your complaint is either irrelevant, or you've just self-contradicted yourself. Choose your poison. > The cheapest price I've seen to have any major (body apart) work done > on a DSLR is around $275.00, out of warranty. That is a lot for a > plastic camera that cost $500 or so, but not for a metal-bodied DSLR > that cost $1000+. Where are you finding a $500 dSLR? Any out-of-warrenty dSLR will today be around a year old, which means that it would have originally cost roughly at least $1000. Even to this day today, the Rebel XT still doesn't sell OEM new for as little as $500, unless RichA is one those shady "bait and switch" dealers from Queens. > So, if Joe Public crunches his Rebel XT, is he going to spend (likely) > as much money to fix it as it cost (my guess is Canon would try to > dissuade him from going this route), or is he going to simply buy a new > 400? Actually, Joe Public doesn't have to worry about its cost, because from RichA's claim that plastic is $500 cheaper than metal, Joe Public wisely took a small fraction of his cost savings to maintain a $20/year per $1000 for an all-risks no-deductable home insurance rider for his equipment, which protects his camera investment from more things than even a metal case does, such as theft and fire. -hh >I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera >bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >cracked or smashed, as plastic has a disturbing tendency to do when you >drop or even bump it hard? A I was in Peru last month. One of the party was using a Sony Alpha DSLR-A100. At least partially plastic, according to dpreview.com: "Build quality is also very good, the camera feels solid, reliable and purposeful with good use of different materials and a nicely sized hand grip with soft rubber. My only gripe may be that the plastic used feels a little more lightweight than I'd expected (compared to plastics used in other bodies)." She dropped it. It fell at least 6 feet free fall onto a solid rock step, then bounced down the steps for a total fall of about 20 feet. I knew it was dead. However, aside from a cracked lens hood and some scuffs, it was intact, and it worked. Pictures looked fine on the in-camera screen. I expect to be seeing some full scale pictures soon. So tell me again how fragile plastics are when "bumped hard". -- Doug >> I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera >> bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -- Doug Poor Rich's intelligence doesn't appear to be able to differentiate between polystyrene and polycarbonate for strength and stability. For me, if polycarbonate is good enough for supersonic fighter windshields and high-end crash helmets, it's good enough for a camera. Plus, metal bends and stays bent; polycarbonate flexes and regains the original shape. No contest. Colin D. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >I've noticed alot of mfgs, stung by criticism of their plastic camera > >bodies, have been touting [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > -- Doug It landed on the lens hood. Which has saved many a camera body. The other impacts would have been less jarring. My advice is to call Canon, tell them not to use magnesium in their pro bodies anymore since it isn't needed. |
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.