Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon shutters

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 3:12:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

What is the deal here? People complaining of failures,
shutters rated for 50,000 on one camera, 100,000 on another.
Are they only talking the shutter or the mirror movement mechanism
too? The reason is that there are prosumers out there with 150,000+
firings that show no evidence of imminent shutter failure, but they
don't have a mirror to move, most of them.
-Rich

More about : canon shutters

Anonymous
August 10, 2005 8:34:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <01sif1h77lm85c30ne7h6ct3o0d5i3j87u@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> What is the deal here? People complaining of failures,
> shutters rated for 50,000 on one camera, 100,000 on another.

They're not rated. Everything on shutter life is from unofficial
sources, except on Canon rep mentioning (I think) 150,000 on the 1
series cameras.

> Are they only talking the shutter or the mirror movement mechanism
> too? The reason is that there are prosumers out there with 150,000+
> firings that show no evidence of imminent shutter failure, but they
> don't have a mirror to move, most of them.
> -Rich
>

Prosumers use a "digital shutter" so there's no mechanical part to
break. SLRs use a mirror and a mechanical shutter.

Would you actually read up on things before trolling? Thanks.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 3:13:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

RichA wrote:

> What is the deal here?

Yer a mindless twit?
Related resources
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 9:35:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:01sif1h77lm85c30ne7h6ct3o0d5i3j87u@4ax.com...
> What is the deal here? People complaining of failures,
> shutters rated for 50,000 on one camera, 100,000 on another.
> Are they only talking the shutter or the mirror movement mechanism
> too? The reason is that there are prosumers out there with 150,000+
> firings that show no evidence of imminent shutter failure, but they
> don't have a mirror to move, most of them.
> -Rich

I have responded and posted several times about canon *failures*. My posts
have to do with the mechanical's that drive the auto focus sub mirror in the
Rebel 300 EOS. 2 different repair shops indicated that the Rebel is not made
to take the abuse of 50k or 100k shutter clicks (what ever it is, or ends
up being) in part, because the piece in question is plastic and higher end
camera's have a metal actuator cam/pin assemble.

Sorry, I don't have the actual part number or official name for the part in
question. Its the little cam/pin that makes the auto focus sub mirror go up
and down when you click the picture.

I just blew through my camera in one year. Had I known that the rebel wasn't
made to take massive pictures like this, I could have slowed down. I didn't
have to take so many redundant pictures. 9000 pictures is not a lot of
pictures IMHO.

I am trying to warn entry level Digital SLR camera owners to watch out for
this. If the camera has a plastic auto focus cam actuator, like the Rebel -
its going to break on you much sooner then you expect..

What does the new XT have?

Anybody have a junk Rebel or other canon body that I can steal this part to
fix my camera?

David.
Anonymous
August 10, 2005 11:50:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <VVqKe.3163$0d.1380@trnddc06>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
> 9000 pictures is not a lot of
> pictures IMHO.

The hell it isn't!

In any case, many Digital Rebel owners are still going after 10,000+.
My 10D certainly hasn't had a single failure and I'm very close to
15,000 shots.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:17:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 10 Aug 2005 11:13:28 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA wrote:
>
>> What is the deal here?
>
>Yer a mindless twit?

And you are one of Canon's three monkeys.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 3:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d64248654a3410f9897dc@news.verizon.net...
> In article <VVqKe.3163$0d.1380@trnddc06>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
>> 9000 pictures is not a lot of
>> pictures IMHO.
>
> The hell it isn't!
>
> In any case, many Digital Rebel owners are still going after 10,000+.
> My 10D certainly hasn't had a single failure and I'm very close to
> 15,000 shots.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

Close to 30k on my Rebel and still going.

I dropped my 1D and for $295.00 Canon Factory Service installed a new
sensor, mirror and assy, and viewfinder and assy. I dunno how much they
would charge for the same on a Rebel.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:33:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Hoofr@verizon.net said...
>9000 pictures is not a lot of pictures IMHO.
>
> no@no.thank.u said...
>The hell it isn't!


It is my humble opinion.

In defense, I took 9000 pictures in 14 months, thats roughly 150 a week. I
shoot dance recitals, basketball games, weddings, hiking trips, family stuff
and pictures for my work, construction projects. I shoot less than what a
(active) professional photographer shoots I think, but far more than the
casual everyday camera shooter.

In anycase, I don't think this warrants dragging the devil into this?
Everyone talks, some argue, that I should get 30k to 50k. by these
standards, 9k is not good. I suppose if I shot at a slower rate, and it took
me 3 or 4 years to reach 9,000, I would be lulled into thinking everything
was normal and pay the $200 maintenance fee without notice.

I probably was just unlikely.

What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.

http://www.hoofr.com/gallery-1.htm

David.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:40:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <0QvKe.8542$p%3.35663@typhoon.sonic.net>,
kilbyfan@spamnotAOL.com says...
> I dropped my 1D and for $295.00 Canon Factory Service installed a new
> sensor, mirror and assy, and viewfinder and assy. I dunno how much they
> would charge for the same on a Rebel.

That's pretty cheap, considering. I'd imagine it probably wouldn't be
much cheaper on the Rebel because a good portion of the repair cost is
most likely in labor.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:46:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06>, Hoofr@Verizon.net says...

> I probably was just unlikely.

Unlucky, yes.

> What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
> actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
> if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
> I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.

The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.

People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress
requirements of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option
and certainly more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of
metal.

Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
plastics would.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 5:46:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:46:04 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06>, Hoofr@Verizon.net says...
>
>> I probably was just unlikely.
>
>Unlucky, yes.
>
>> What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
>> actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
>> if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
>> I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.
>
>The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
>camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
>probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.
>
>People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress
>requirements of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option
>and certainly more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of
>metal.
>
>Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
>plastics would.

The Rebel isn't a fighter jet. You won't find many of those plastics
in the consumer realm.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:04:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <8adlf15699k02fgjqcs565l7s25od5k466@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >Yer a mindless twit?
>
> And you are one of Canon's three monkeys.

Please, we have far more than three monkeys.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:26:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Brian Baird wrote:
> In article <jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06>, Hoofr@Verizon.net says...
>
>
>>I probably was just unlikely.
>
>
> Unlucky, yes.
>
>
>>What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic autofocus
>>actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a metal one, and
>>if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider this. In hindsight
>>I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.
>
>
> The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
> camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
> probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.
>
> People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress
> requirements of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option
> and certainly more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of
> metal.
>
> Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
> plastics would.


I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
more often with digital camera than film.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:32:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <OrAKe.4317$RS.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
someone@somewhere.net says...
> > Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
> > plastics would.

> I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
> for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
> might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
> digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
> more often with digital camera than film.

I wouldn't hazard any guesses as to whether the part 'needs' to be metal
or plastic until I've seen the specifications required of the part.

As for the buck... well, making something out of plastic can cost
pennies, perform equally as well and be part of a much faster production
cycle.

Given that the digital Rebel line does not seem to be plagued by shutter
failures, I'd say the engineers did their jobs.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 2:24:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 01:33:03 +0000, David A. wrote:

> It is my humble opinion.
>
> In defense, I took 9000 pictures in 14 months, thats roughly 150 a week. I
> shoot dance recitals, basketball games, weddings, hiking trips, family
> stuff and pictures for my work, construction projects. I shoot less than
> what a (active) professional photographer shoots I think, but far more
> than the casual everyday camera shooter.
>
> In anycase, I don't think this warrants dragging the devil into this?
> Everyone talks, some argue, that I should get 30k to 50k. by these
> standards, 9k is not good. I suppose if I shot at a slower rate, and it
> took me 3 or 4 years to reach 9,000, I would be lulled into thinking
> everything was normal and pay the $200 maintenance fee without notice.
>
> I probably was just unlikely.

I wrote about this issue a few years ago after my very expensive D30
needed a shutter replacement after (yep) 14 months of use. I can't recall
how many exposures I had made with it, but I suspect that when I bought
it, it wasn't exactly out-the-box.

That wasn't the only problem with it. It suffered from many other faults
too, but suffice to say Canon agreed to replace it with a new D60 after I
threatened legal action.

--
Save photography | shoot some film today!
email: drop rods and insert surfaces
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 7:54:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <VVqKe.3163$0d.1380@trnddc06>, David A <Hoofr@verizon.net>
writes
>
>I just blew through my camera in one year. Had I known that the rebel wasn't
>made to take massive pictures like this, I could have slowed down. I didn't
>have to take so many redundant pictures. 9000 pictures is not a lot of
>pictures IMHO.
>
9,000? You're lucky - mine decided to jam after just 2,500 shots and
three-and-a-half months. Since it had already been back once for
warranty repairs, I estimated that Canon had actually had possession of
my EOS-300D slightly longer than I had, since I bought it! :( 

--
Graeme Carrott
Assistant Editor, Air North (NE Branch of Air Britain)
www.airnorth.demon.co.uk
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:06:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"l e o" <someone@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:o rAKe.4317$RS.1091@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> Brian Baird wrote:
>> In article <jVxKe.6560$0d.4607@trnddc06>, Hoofr@Verizon.net says...
>>
>>
>>>I probably was just unlikely.
>>
>> Unlucky, yes.
>>
>>
>>>What I really want people to know is that the Rebel has a plastic
>>>autofocus actuator assembly/piece, and better quality camera's have a
>>>metal one, and if you demand a lot from your camera, you should consider
>>>this. In hindsight I wish I had bought the 10D camera, or better.
>>
>>
>> The modern shutter/mirror assemblies don't seem to fail that much on ANY
>> camera these days. I'd say that your chances of having a 10D fail were
>> probably about the same as having them fail on the Rebel.
>>
>> People like to put plastic down, but given the weight/stress requirements
>> of the shutter I don't see it being THAT bad of an option and certainly
>> more cost effective than a cast or machined piece of metal.
>>
>> Additionally, metal can fatigue and snap - sometimes before certain
>> plastics would.
>
>
> I think this cruial part needs metal and it would cost less than a buck
> for the assembly anyway. I know each penny count for many companies. It
> might just be an oversight when they converted from the film Rebel to
> digital version without thinking people click on the shutter many times
> more often with digital camera than film.

I agree with you.

I worked in the investment casting industry for 13 years, and have been
around plastic injection too. The bottom line cost for the plastic piece vs
a metal piece isn't based (primarily) on the cost of the plastic or the
metal material used. Its the design, tooling, automated production
equipment, packaging, shipping and assembly, etc. Yes, metal material costs
more than plastic material, but we are talking pennies at best in material
cost difference.

David A.
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:14:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

To follow up on the last comment I just made,

both plastic and metal carry the same (significant) costs to design, tool,
fabricate, assemble, etc. Its not the cost of materials that drive the
bottom line cost, at least significantly.

If plastic can be designed to work - great, you save those few pennies in
material costs, if not, you look at warrantee repair costs and bad PR. Then
you start looking at cost/benefit curves, because all things fail
ultimately, where do you draw the line? - leave that up to Canon and the
marketplace.

I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you sooner
then you think. We will certainly see.

David A
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 8:14:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:14:20 GMT, "David A" <Hoofr@verizon.net> wrote:

>To follow up on the last comment I just made,
>
>both plastic and metal carry the same (significant) costs to design, tool,
>fabricate, assemble, etc. Its not the cost of materials that drive the
>bottom line cost, at least significantly.
>

Not true. Metal fabrication costs are far greater. Most plastic
relies on a mold, which does cost alot to manufacture. But once it
is finished, it's cost drops everytime they make a part with it.
Metal must be machined, at least for cameras. This is AFTER the mold
is made to do the basic casting. Some plastic is machined but for the
most part, it is simply cast. In addition, there are high casting
costs owing to the melting point of metal versus plastic.
-Rich
Anonymous
August 11, 2005 11:58:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dfplf1dlh30p5iloo989hi9g7gnkj1qk8k@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> The Rebel isn't a fighter jet. You won't find many of those plastics
> in the consumer realm.

The hell you won't.

Seriously, your knowledge of plastics is... how we say... "limited at
best."
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 12:01:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <wPKKe.6514$0d.3252@trnddc03>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
> I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you sooner
> then you think. We will certainly see.

I think we already have - the Digital Rebel has been out for over two
years and doesn't seem to have significant shutter issues. Not to say
there haven't been failures, but if the piece was not designed properly
I'd expect to see a lot more.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 1:35:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:58:48 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <dfplf1dlh30p5iloo989hi9g7gnkj1qk8k@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> The Rebel isn't a fighter jet. You won't find many of those plastics
>> in the consumer realm.
>
>The hell you won't.
>
>Seriously, your knowledge of plastics is... how we say... "limited at
>best."

I don't think any composites are used in the Rebel XT.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 2:27:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d657891da1a47e99897ee@news.verizon.net...
> In article <wPKKe.6514$0d.3252@trnddc03>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
>> I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you
>> sooner
>> then you think. We will certainly see.
>
> I think we already have - the Digital Rebel has been out for over two
> years and doesn't seem to have significant shutter issues. Not to say
> there haven't been failures, but if the piece was not designed properly
> I'd expect to see a lot more.

That the results I've got. I've used mine almost exclusively in tough, hot,
cold, and some rainy situations and not carried around in a nice padded
waterproof case. It's been banged and beaten (never dropped), and scratched
up plenty. Knock on wood it's still going strong and coming up on two years.
These results are not typical but I also have a 1D and all it took was one
good fall from the car seat to the road and I had to send it in for service.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:05:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"RichA" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:tqanf199oh91uco2rc2bqcl99m3alhdqaf@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 16:14:20 GMT, "David A" <Hoofr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>To follow up on the last comment I just made,
>>
>>both plastic and metal carry the same (significant) costs to design, tool,
>>fabricate, assemble, etc. Its not the cost of materials that drive the
>>bottom line cost, at least significantly.
>>
>
> Not true. Metal fabrication costs are far greater. Most plastic
> relies on a mold, which does cost alot to manufacture. But once it
> is finished, it's cost drops everytime they make a part with it.
> Metal must be machined, at least for cameras. This is AFTER the mold
> is made to do the basic casting. Some plastic is machined but for the
> most part, it is simply cast. In addition, there are high casting
> costs owing to the melting point of metal versus plastic.
> -Rich
>
>

Really?

There are some fundamental assumptions on your part about casting processes
and post casting processes that are incorrect.

Before I became a nobody camera guy - I spent 13 years working in the
investment casting industry. Quality control, quotes, contracts, tooling,
machining, heat treating, non destructive testing, etc. making castings for
every possible industry you can image, nuclear, aerospace, automotive, oil,
etc. I wasn't a button pusher. I was management.

The part in question could be cast for less then .50 but quantities would
have to exceed 100,000, with no machining (important) which is conceivable.
Not that the part would sell for .50 mind you, we are talking cost.

We tooled up and produced about 2 million of the little fingers that hold on
the trac balls on lap tops, remember them from about 10 years ago? They came
in 3 sizes for about .30 each. Cast, heat treated, bent, machined, drilled
and tapped. The "apparatus" that did this, did so in 00:01:08. each. The
Japanese competitor came to design with a plastic piece for about .15 each,
and it snapped and popped across the room at the show and tell. We won the
bid. We would have loved to sell this part for .75 or $1.25, and if we were
talking about making 5000 of them, we would have had not choice. But we were
competing with plastic and talking 2 million+. It was amazing how we did
this for .30 ea (with profit), and this type of technology happens all the
time. A big buyer like Canon talking 100,000's , could get this part tooled
up and produced in metal for much less then you might think, and, most
importantly, definitely not WAY more than plastic by default.

To your point, it would be bad if machining was required though, this would
drive up costs considerably. But the investment casting processes out there
today are remarkable. I know they are, (and you don't), because nobody gets
into an investment casting house unless you are an investment casting worker
or a casting buyer. There are no tourist tours. I don't intend to be
stand-off-ish about this, but most people don't see this stuff and you can't
just walk into an investment casting company for a tour. Extremely
confidential industry. The machine trades see a lot of castings and do a lot
of expensive work, which would drive costs up, but the investment casting
houses these days do more then just spit out little metal parts.

I would be hot water telling you what I am telling you about the lap top
fingers, but since the part is dead and long gone, who cares. Microsoft and
the investment casting company in question would NOT want this information
known 10 years ago.

Back to plastic - there are some extremely competitive and competent plastic
work out their. The part in question very well could be made in plastic and
work just fine. But, apparently the higher end camera's have this part in
metal and I am sure the Rebel isn't metal because they saved - $50 - per
camera. Maybe .10 or .30. Even a $1 isn't enough cost savings to offset
thousands of camera's coming back for warrantee repair, a repair of $1 part
or a $10 part or even a $20 part....who cares.... its the 2 hours labor that
kills the deal for Canon.....

Unless.....

the plastic part lasts *at least* one year.

Hymmmmm?

This plastic vs metal piece topic apparently is relatively new to the
newsgroup forum, and I am speculating that I may be the tip of an iceberg
here. The camera repair guys I talked to said it is starting to show up in
the tech talk. I bought the camera kind of early and used it hard. I either
got unlucky, or a whole bunch of people are going to start popping up with
this same problem. Time will tell. I am casting my vote for metal.

David A.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d657891da1a47e99897ee@news.verizon.net...
> In article <wPKKe.6514$0d.3252@trnddc03>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
>> I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you
>> sooner
>> then you think. We will certainly see.
>
> I think we already have - the Digital Rebel has been out for over two
> years and doesn't seem to have significant shutter issues. Not to say
> there haven't been failures, but if the piece was not designed properly
> I'd expect to see a lot more.
> --
> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

I am not talking about the shutter mechanism, as in the shutter that opens
and closes over the sensor unit. Mine still works fine.

David A.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 5:12:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"David A" <Hoofr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:KCSKe.6583$0d.4948@trnddc03...
>
> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d657891da1a47e99897ee@news.verizon.net...
>> In article <wPKKe.6514$0d.3252@trnddc03>, Hoofr@verizon.net says...
>>> I am suggesting for heavy users, the plastic Rebel might fail for you
>>> sooner
>>> then you think. We will certainly see.
>>
>> I think we already have - the Digital Rebel has been out for over two
>> years and doesn't seem to have significant shutter issues. Not to say
>> there haven't been failures, but if the piece was not designed properly
>> I'd expect to see a lot more.
>> --
>> http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
>
> I am not talking about the shutter mechanism, as in the shutter that opens
> and closes over the sensor unit. Mine still works fine.
>
> David A.

Just occured to me that this topic was intially about shutters, not the sub
mirror assembly to begin with. Just trying to keep things straight.

David A.
Anonymous
August 12, 2005 7:07:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <06vnf1tqscp7dfrjsdq6s8kq28f8ho4tgv@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >Seriously, your knowledge of plastics is... how we say... "limited at
> >best."
>
> I don't think any composites are used in the Rebel XT.

You wouldn't need a composite. You wouldn't WANT a composite.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 14, 2005 5:20:09 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On the Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:12:10 -0400, RichA <none@none.com> wrote:

>What is the deal here?

Another rich comment. The last rich comment.

PLONK
---------------------
Remember Glencoe.
Visit:
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/glencoe.html
---------------------
!