 |
 | 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 / March 2005Ratings 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 > They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying > the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people? > -Rich 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. 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? >I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to > feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good > cause? 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. 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! >I think there is a significant psychological issue - I happily admit to > feeling `uncomfortable` shooting with a lightweight or plasticky [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good > cause? 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. > 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: 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. > Because despite all the complaints about poor build quality, do you > really see *that* many reports of cameras that break, without good > cause? No.  SignatureDavid Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@dd-b.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/> > 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: 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. Signature-- 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. > They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying > the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > people? > -Rich 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 [ ... ] >> 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? [ ... ] >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. 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. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.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 --- >They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying >the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >people? >-Rich 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 >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? 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. >>They disliked the Canon 300 and Nikon D70 builds, saying >>the build quality was poor. They loved the Canon [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >polycarbonate, I would suspect that they would consider it a bonus >benefit over cheap magnesium, rather than a deficit. 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. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.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 --- > 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. Might be good for small batches, but Lexan and other forms of Polycarb injection and vacuum mold so easily and are much cheaper. birch points out: >>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! << 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 sh.t 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. > birch points out: > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Lexan was scraped, but you're not supposed to re-use a helmet after a > crash anyway. 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, talcum-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.) SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >>birch points out: >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > (high ISO isnt the ONLY deciding factor either, I just want ot be able to do > SOME shooting in low light without flash.) 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 >My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the >kind of superfine, talcum-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. 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. SignatureKen Tough > >My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the > >kind of superfine, talcum-like dust Im going to have to deal with, and see if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > D70 bodies, one for each lens. You could get two D70 bodies for > the price of a 20D. 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 circumstances 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. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >> >My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the >> >kind of superfine, talcum-like dust Im going to have to deal with, and see if [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >If I get the quality I expect, I dont see a need to buy "more" camera, just >more lenses. 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 > >> >My next step is to take ione to an indoor arena where horses are raising the > >> >kind of superfine, talcum-like dust Im going to have to deal with, and see if [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > it is to operate the zoom with a huge condom-like thing stuck over it, > or if they are available for standard lenses. I've not had much trouble with lenses per-se, only with DSLRs and only with the FEW I've used (and up 'till last night that was limited to the Digital Rebel) The problem I've had has been with dust on the sensor, in a VERY short period of taking pictures in the show ring. I have stuck with ZLR type digitals (way past the point where I should have changed to DSLR) because the Rebel was the only DSLR I could afford (up 'till now). My small photo operation could afford a D20, if I didn't mind spending that amount of money, but I don't really feel I need THAT much camera to do what I do. I've had no complaints from my customers about picture quality, and most of the prints I have sold in the last two years have been from shots with a Sony F-717 or a Fuji S7000, along with a few from the Sony F-828. (I know it sounds incredible, but good shots, with some post work can be had with those cameras). SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. >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. Well ... one D70 with the "28-105mm f3.5-4.5 D" would do what you are asking for. I think that the kit lens covers your range, too, but I'm sure about the one which I've listed, as it is what I use most of the time on my D70. (I already had that lens, so I skipped the kit, and just bought the body. >I did, however, test a freinds D70 (Under his panicky snoopervision) under >VERY dusty circumstances last night, and the camera passed with flying >colors. Good. >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. That is unfortunate. >We also had a Rebel with us last night, and it got dust in it just hanging >around my friends neck! Not even being focused? That *is* bad. I wonder what the path into the body is? >For now it looks like the D70 with one lens will have to get me by until >later in the season. O.K. It is a good start, anyway. >If I get the quality I expect, I dont see a need to buy "more" camera, just >more lenses. That would normally make sense -- but with your particularly dusty conditions, maybe not. I've added two other lens to mine so far, a 50mm f1.4 with autofocus, and a 180mm f2.8 which got a CPU added at a later time. If you can handle the extra weight (and cost) of a second lens, perhaps you should consider something like the 28-205mm instead. A lot more weight, and just as weak on the wide angle end, but perhaps a better fit for your needs as they grow. Good Luck, DoN. P.S. Mystic? Do you happen to attend the Sea Music Festival in June each year? I used to, but have missed the past couple of years. I was audio recording in the Fishtown Chapel at the left front pew. SignatureEmail: <dnichols@d-and-d.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 --- > That would normally make sense -- but with your particularly > dusty conditions, maybe not. I've added two other lens to mine so far, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > each year? I used to, but have missed the past couple of years. > I was audio recording in the Fishtown Chapel at the left front pew. I havent done the Mystic Music Festival for years, but it is fun. Come to think of it, I havent done the art festival either. There is usually a horse show to shoot while the Festivals are going on. I think I'll probably be happy with the D70. I havent yet found the path the dust is using to get into my freinds DRebel, but he is now curious and will probably keep looking 'til he finds it. SignatureLarry Lynch Mystic, Ct. |
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.