 |
 | 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 / February 2007What is worse than a flimsy plastic DSLR housing? I found something FAR worse.
What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of their flimsy plastic shells. But, at least cameras like the Canon Rebel XTi take excellent pictures. Take a look at the results from this Samsung P&S piece of s---!!!! http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/samsungnv7/page7.asp The WORST possible scenario; A solid machined metal and EXPENSIVE housing, covering a CRAPPY, worthless and TINY sensor, with WAY too many pixels to EVER perform well!!! This is worse than Leica re-skinning Panasonic P&S's and upping the price 50%!!! : What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of : their flimsy plastic shells. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] : well!!! This is worse than Leica re-skinning Panasonic P&S's and : upping the price 50%!!! Leica don't just resell Panasonic cameras with their own name on them. They participated in the development of the amazing vario lens and use their own programming in the processor. Comparing my own FZ50 Panasonic with the "reskinned" Leica suggest to me the resulting images are quite a different. Weather they are different enough to justify the price depends on how much status you seek amongst people you might try to impress with your spending. As for the Samsung? Not even a rebadged Pentax will save them. You seem to know what you are talking about with regard to camera bodies. As such I presume you believe DP review is the voice of the camera gods? Can I sell you a subscription to Popular Photography? Shutterbug? Ladies Home Companion? I believe these publications all have about equal reliability to web sites, snake oil salesmen and politicians. And computer magazines. They may be truthful, but . . . . > You seem to know what you are talking about with regard to camera bodies. > As such I presume you believe DP review is the voice of the camera gods? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > snake oil salesmen and politicians. And computer magazines. > They may be truthful, but . . . . Anyone that takes one source as their sole reason for purchasing anything should have their head examined.  SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". In article <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez-B0ACDA.01094525012007@news.isp.giganews.com>, Little Green Eyed Dragon <AShadeosPerceptionvanishez@myplace.com> wrote: > > You seem to know what you are talking about with regard to camera bodies. > > As such I presume you believe DP review is the voice of the camera gods? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Anyone that takes one source as their sole reason for purchasing > anything should have their head examined. And anyone who believes that RichA "seems to know what he is talking about" - about anything - should do likewise :^) SignatureYou need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence. -- Charles A. Beard > What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of > their flimsy plastic shells. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > well!!! This is worse than Leica re-skinning Panasonic P&S's and > upping the price 50%!!! Why look at the worst cameras - there are some interesting innovations this year: 28 - 504mm zoom: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012507olympusp550uz.asp An ISO 10,000 camera: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012504olympusfe250.asp Small-sensor cameras can produce excellent images when used with understanding. David >> What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of >> their flimsy plastic shells. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012507olympusp550uz.asp What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but it suggests that they may be using stabilization both in the lens and at the sensor. If so, that looks like a first. Neil > What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the > "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but it > suggests that they may be using stabilization both in the lens and at the > sensor. A few moments at google reveals their claims. > If so, that looks like a first. Your idea "isn't even wrong". >> What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the >> "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > A few moments at google reveals their claims. Dang, you can't beat Google. >> If so, that looks like a first. > > Your idea "isn't even wrong". Actually my idea was wrong, according to info on Google. That "Dual Image Stabilization" doesn't involve the lens at all, it's just "an advanced combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and Digital Image Stabilization." I don't think I like the sound of that "digital image stabilization" business. Neil > Actually my idea was wrong, according to info on Google. That "Dual Image > Stabilization" doesn't involve the lens at all, it's just "an advanced > combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and Digital Image > Stabilization." I don't think I like the sound of that "digital image > stabilization" business. It is always difficult to penetrate the marketing bafflegab, but my feeling is that they are referring to some kind of electronic stabilization commonly present in video cameras. How much of an improvement this or other kind of down-stream stabilizer would amount to is unknown (my guess: negligible; shifting a smeared image around isn't stabilizing it), but "Dual Image Stabilization" certainly sounds like something straight out of Star Trek that all the 19 year old technoweenies Must Have. No doubt, just like with shaving razors, we'll soon have triple and quadruple as well. >>> What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the >>> "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Stabilization." I don't think I like the sound of that "digital image > stabilization" business. Usually it consists of bumping up the ISO without telling you. "Digital Image Stabilization" is the new industry buzzphrase for fake IS. All of these things degrade picture quality. SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor >>> What's most interesting about that is not the zoom range per se, but the >>> "Dual Image Stabilization." The term isn't explained in the article, but [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Neil We've covered "digital image stabilization" before. It's a wider aperture coupled with a higher shutter speed. SignatureCalifornia's Assembly prepared Monday to move the state's primary up to February. An early California primary has unique advantages. It gives each candidate the chance to spend all their money to finish third behind Gary Coleman and a porn star. > "David J Taylor" [] >> 28 - 504mm zoom: >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Neil Sadly, with current marketing, one stabilisation is probably optical, and the other is simply a higher shutter speed.... Sigh! Interesting though, I hadn't spotted that. David >> "David J Taylor" > [] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Sadly, with current marketing, one stabilisation is probably optical, and > the other is simply a higher shutter speed.... Apparently not, but not much better either. Google reports it as "an advanced combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and Digital Image Stabilization." That last sounds suspiciously like the "electronic image stabilization" used in lower-priced camcorders -- definitely inferior to the real thing. Neil > "David J Taylor" [] >>>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07012507olympusp550uz.asp [] > Apparently not, but not much better either. Google reports it as "an > advanced combination of mechanical CCD-shift Image Stabilization and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Neil Yes, I agree. I looked with Google but didn't find anything. Where did you find this? Thanks, David >> "David J Taylor" > [] [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I looked with Google but didn't find anything. Where did you find this? http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=482 Not the same camera, but apparently the same "Dual Image Stabilization" system. Neil [] > http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_PressDetails.asp?pressNo=482 > > Not the same camera, but apparently the same "Dual Image > Stabilization" system. > > Neil Thanks, David >> "David J Taylor" > [] [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Interesting though, I hadn't spotted that. Dpreview posted an "opinion" about this, and I agree with them on this one: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07010501notimagestabilization.asp -Mark² SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson [] > Dpreview posted an "opinion" about this, and I agree with them on > this one: > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0701/07010501notimagestabilization.asp > > -Mark² Yes, I agree with them about the deliberately misleading descriptions of image stabilisation. I feel we are headed back to the era of "500 watt peak rms average music audio power" descriptions! I'm sure that the cameras with true optical image stabilisation will shine through though. David > [] >> Dpreview posted an "opinion" about this, and I agree with them on [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > David Is that like the electric appliances (shop vac etc) that claim "5 hp motor" running on 110 volts pulling 10 amps (which, assuming 100% efficient conversion is just over 1 hp). Same bunch of advertising jerks -- whatever sells the product (all you do is change the definition to match ... even if wrong). mikey On Jan 25, 7:54 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >> "David J Taylor" > > [] [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > -Mark² There is nothing wrong with a mechanical stabilization system involving the CCD. Zeiss were the first to use this in their image- stabilized binoculars years ago and it worked pretty well. The SCAM is the electronic stabilization which isn't stabilization at all, but an increase in shutter speed because of an automatic increase in ISO speed. If you've ever seen 400 ISO or higher with a 1/2.5 sensor, you'll know that no one would want this kind of thing if they had a choice or understood what it meant.. > On Jan 25, 7:54 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > you'll know that no one would want this kind of thing if they had a > choice or understood what it meant.. That's not the objection. The objection is to things like a bit of code in the camera that does NOTHING except to bump up ISO and shutter speed in dark situations..then calling this "digital IS." -That...is misleading BS at its worst. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of >their flimsy plastic shells. Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the plastic body? I didn't think so. SignatureCalifornia's Assembly prepared Monday to move the state's primary up to February. An early California primary has unique advantages. It gives each candidate the chance to spend all their money to finish third behind Gary Coleman and a porn star. > >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of > >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the > plastic body? > > I didn't think so. Not personally, but I've seen what has happened to some when called on to stand up to punishment. Plastic is fine for weight saving, cost cutting, but it does not produce the best camera bodies. The Nikon D80 is probably as good as it will ever get. >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >cutting, but it does not produce the best camera bodies. The Nikon D80 >is probably as good as it will ever get. Define "punishment." Here's a problem I have: when some are called on their pronouncements, they go off on such ramblings as you've done here; no actual data to back up their claims, just anecdotal hearsay that's undefined and undocumented. SignatureCalifornia's Assembly prepared Monday to move the state's primary up to February. An early California primary has unique advantages. It gives each candidate the chance to spend all their money to finish third behind Gary Coleman and a porn star. > >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of > >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > - The evidence is out there, if someone wants to find it. If you own a plastic DSLR, I doubt you do. I would simply say "Who are you to question the engineering depts of Canon, Nikon, Olympus?" They make their pro cameras of metal. Pro cameras have to stand up to abuse. They don't use plastic. >>>>> What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because >>>>> of [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > their pro cameras of metal. Pro cameras have to stand up to abuse. > They don't use plastic. Plastic is only a possible question for those who abuse their gear. If you don't...it's not a problem at all. Note in this picture of my "plastic" D30...that the plastic body actually SURIVED a 90 foot cliff drop... Not much else survived, but that plastic came out almost entirely unscathed. http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941/original Only the grip attachment and lens blew up...NOT the body. Oops! So much for you theories...that you base entirely upon you lack of any personal ownership of ANY DSLR...plastic or otherwise. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Jan 28, 2:29 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > >>>>> What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because > >>>>> of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > So much for you theories...that you base entirely upon you lack of any > personal ownership of ANY DSLR...plastic or otherwise. Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot falls.... >On Jan 28, 2:29 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number >here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] >dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot >falls.... But you said others would need to find evidence of this. Have you changed your mind, and decided to do the work to back up your own claim? Note, of course, that finding such evidence would of necessity include some sort of evidence that the damage would not have occured if the body were metal. SignatureCalifornia's Assembly prepared Monday to move the state's primary up to February. An early California primary has unique advantages. It gives each candidate the chance to spend all their money to finish third behind Gary Coleman and a porn star. > On Jan 28, 2:29 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot > falls.... It didn't survive. The internals were wasted, or course. But your hated plastic body remained intact. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson On Jan 29, 12:08 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2:29 pm, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > falls....It didn't survive. The internals were wasted, or course. But your hated > plastic body remained intact. That is interesting. Because one of the things plastic body camera makers say is that "the camera has an inner metal chassis" as if to imply that will protect the camera. Apparently it doesn't, based on what you are saying. One more reason to have a metal body. The very best plastic bodies (all Nikons) are very serviceable. But I'd still take a metal body if I had the choice. > On Jan 29, 12:08 am, "Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number > here)@cox..net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > as if to imply that will protect the camera. Apparently it doesn't, > based on what you are saying. >One more reason to have a metal body. Ha ha! Now that...is just plain funny, Rich. Do you REALLY think that a metal (ANY metal) body would have preserved internals during a *literal* 90 foot drop? > The very best plastic bodies (all Nikons) are very serviceable. But > I'd still take a metal body if I had the choice. Me too, actually. But your carrying on is just ridiculous. SignatureImages (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at: www.pbase.com/markuson >> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff >> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >The very best plastic bodies (all Nikons) are very serviceable. But >I'd still take a metal body if I had the choice. The reason for the metal internal framework is to hang all the other bits on, while providing a more rigid framework for the optical parts, and to provide a ground for the electrical bits. SignatureEgypt slammed a contest to name the Seven New Wonders of the World. The Pyramids are the only one of the ancient wonders still in existence. At least they were before the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was brought out of retirement for Saddam's farewell party. >>> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff >>> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >bits on, while providing a more rigid framework for the optical parts, >and to provide a ground for the electrical bits. And in the case of (some) non-plastic bodies it is to support the metal shell (case). SignatureIan G8ILZ There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. ~Ansel Adams > >> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff > >> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > bits on, while providing a more rigid framework for the optical parts, > and to provide a ground for the electrical bits. Yes, plastic is deficient in these areas as well. >> >> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff >> >> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Yes, plastic is deficient in these areas as well. Hardly. Ask Glock. SignatureBill Clinton will be in Williamsburg tomorrow to address House Democrats who are meeting there. It was on his itinerary anyway. Twice a year Hillary makes him go to Colonial Williamsburg just to remind him what happens to two-time adulterers. >>> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff >>> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>That is interesting. Because one of the things plastic body camera >>makers say is that "the camera has an inner metal chassis" Actually, lots of plastic body cameras have an inner chassis made of glass-fibre impregnated plastic, which has similar mechanical characteristics to the metals used for the same job. The chassis has to be very rigid or the tight optical & mechanical alignment will be thrown out of spec by simply lifting the camera. >>as if to imply that will protect the camera. Apparently it doesn't, >>based on what you are saying. One more reason to have a metal body. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >bits on, while providing a more rigid framework for the optical parts, >and to provide a ground for the electrical bits. Yep. It's all a series of engineering tradeoffs. In general, a metal frame's rigid, which is good for optical quality/consistancy & for mechanical alignment, but bad for knock-resistance & thermal expansion. A plastic frame, broadly, has the opposite strengths & weaknesses. > >>> > Blah, blah, blah. Nice to see your camera survived a "90ft cliff > >>> > dive." While others of the same kind have cracked cases from six foot [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > knock-resistance & thermal expansion. A plastic frame, broadly, has > the opposite strengths & weaknesses. It's not just rigidity, it's machining accuracy too. It's easy to run thousands of copies of metal bodies accurate to 1/1000 of an inch, unlike with most plastics. Additionally, because of metal's greater thermal stability, you can keep tolerances tighter than with plastic over a wider temperture range. >> >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of >> >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >The evidence is out there, if someone wants to find it. This isn't a TV show. :-) >If you own a >plastic DSLR, I doubt you do. I would simply say "Who are you to >question the engineering depts of Canon, Nikon, Olympus?" They make >their pro cameras of metal. Pro cameras have to stand up to abuse. >They don't use plastic. And are you now an engineer who is willing toi saythat plastic used in DSLR bodies aren't up to the task? Obviously not, or you'd have said so. But this tripe about the evidence being out there is just that. It's you making the claim, and it's you who can't find any evidence to back it up. SignatureCalifornia's Assembly prepared Monday to move the state's primary up to February. An early California primary has unique advantages. It gives each candidate the chance to spend all their money to finish third behind Gary Coleman and a porn star. > >> >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of > >> >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) falling apart because of the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > you making the claim, and it's you who can't find any evidence to back > it up. Plastic is junk. Take Olympus's 50-200mm lens. $1000.00. Nearly all metal. Two of them I read about had broken in half. Where? Right at the junction where they used a small amount of plastic. Plastic serves two functions when used in DSLRs: It's light it's cheap. That's it. They will NEVER make a pro DSLR out of the current polycarbonate they use in the entry level cameras either. If another material comes to the pro lines, it will be some kind of metal-worthy composite like carbon fibre. And if they do use it, it will be to save weight. >> DSLR bodies aren't up to the task? >> Obviously not, or you'd have said so. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Plastic is junk. Well, to you (and, I'm sure, others). However, plastic isn't junk; it serves very well. The very fact that you can't find anything to back up your claims is telling on that point, isn't it? >Take Olympus's 50-200mm lens. $1000.00. Nearly all >metal. Two of them I read about had broken in half. >Where? Right at the junction where they used a small amount of >plastic. WOW! *T W O* of them! >Plastic serves two functions when used in DSLRs: It's light it's >cheap. That's it. They will NEVER make a pro DSLR out of the current >polycarbonate they use in the entry level cameras either. If another >material comes to the pro lines, it will be some kind of metal-worthy >composite like carbon fibre. And if they do use it, it will be to >save weight. And yet, even after you've been told of the advantages, you persist in your flights of fantasy. And, you seem to have a crystal ball that tells you what the future of pro DSLRs will be. How nice. It's a shame you can't tell what's going on in the present. SignatureEgypt slammed a contest to name the Seven New Wonders of the World. The Pyramids are the only one of the ancient wonders still in existence. At least they were before the Hanging Gardens of Babylon was brought out of retirement for Saddam's farewell party. >> >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of >> >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > their pro cameras of metal. Pro cameras have to stand up to abuse. > They don't use plastic. Depends on what kind of abuse you're talking about. Metal dents. Polycarbonate doesn't. At least I have never seen a dented polycarbonate camera body, and I've sure seen plenty of dented metal ones (and must admit I've dented a couple myself). Neil > >> >> >What could be worse? I criticized some entry-level DSLRs because of > >> >> >their flimsy plastic shells.Have you ever had one (or heard of one) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Neil People also might want to check-out industrial CCD cameras. Most have metal bodies either extruded or cast aluminum. Very few (if any) are plastic. Same goes for scientific digital cameras. >People also might want to check-out industrial CCD cameras. Most have >metal bodies either extruded or >cast aluminum. Very few (if any) are plastic. Same goes for >scientific digital cameras. None of those are used handheld, so their weight doesn't matter. |
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.