Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why plastic is trash for cameras

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
August 24, 2005 1:34:41 PM

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

Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
or magnesium? No contest.
-Rich

http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019

More about : plastic trash cameras

Anonymous
August 24, 2005 2:35:27 PM

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

Rich wrote:
> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> or magnesium? No contest.
> -Rich
>
> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019

No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
idea, regardless of material?
August 24, 2005 5:23:20 PM

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

Then pray Canon makes "L" lenses in plastic.
Not likely.
Related resources
August 24, 2005 8:01:31 PM

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

Apparently, the plastic wasn't!
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 9:58:41 PM

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

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1124901281.466087.196420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> or magnesium? No contest.
> -Rich
>
> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>

On the other hand - an old-fashon lens is much heavier, and the shock is
stronger when dropped. Besides, the plastic lens is normally prized at the
same level as repairing the other lens.

Only one conclusion: Don't drop lenses, and if you do - blaim yourself and
not the material.
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 11:58:41 PM

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

So you have done comparison tests with an all metal lens to show that the
same will not happen? No, I thought not, I guess that makes you a troll
then!

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1124901281.466087.196420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> or magnesium? No contest.
> -Rich
>
> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:25:47 AM

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

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:1124901281.466087.196420@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> or magnesium? No contest.
> -Rich
>
> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
Ok, that doesn't show a weakness in plastic, it shows a weakness in the
joint. The same thing could happen with a steel/aluminum connection, too.
Notice that the plastic isn't broken, just the junction. So the lesson here
is to buy a lens of a homogeneous construction, all plastic, all metal,
whatever...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 1:48:49 AM

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

In article <1124904927.023345.294520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
charliediy@aol.com says...
>
> Rich wrote:
> > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> > a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> > or magnesium? No contest.
> > -Rich
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
> No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
> idea, regardless of material?

Or that the plastic used in this lens was most likely NOT polycarbonate?

He's a dense fellow, for sure.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 6:11:05 AM

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

In article <1124924491.134659.126960@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca says...
> Apparently, the plastic wasn't!

So Rich, or "Michael", whatever your name is:

Why don't you pipe down? You like making really bold statements for
attention, yet you do a very poor job of it. Frankly, you're boring.
You bore me.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 25, 2005 6:19:34 AM

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

On 24 Aug 2005 10:35:27 -0700, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>Rich wrote:
>> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
>> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
>> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
>> or magnesium? No contest.
>> -Rich
>>
>> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
>No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
>idea, regardless of material?


that's right, but this fellow (me, in this case) would probably have
guessed that dropping lenses was not a good idea if he had been asked
about it, even without someone explaining it to me.

Having the cheap lens break rather than the more expensive camera
might not be such a bad idea.
Anonymous
August 25, 2005 11:53:37 PM

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

Charlie Self wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
>>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
>>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
>>a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
>>or magnesium? No contest.
>>-Rich
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
>
> No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
> idea, regardless of material?
>

Happens sometimes though.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 2:38:19 AM

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

RichA wrote:

> As I've pointed out before, plastic is a cost-saver, nothing more.
> Even weight doesn't enter into it because for most lenses, the weight
> comes from the glass, not thin-walled aluminum castings.
> -Rich

So now you're an expert materials engineer? Is there anything you can't
do? All hail Emperor Rich!
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 3:56:45 AM

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

no one wrote:
> Charlie Self wrote:
>
> > Rich wrote:
> >
> >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> >>a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> >>or magnesium? No contest.
> >>-Rich
> >>
> >>http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
> >
> >
> > No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
> > idea, regardless of material?
> >
>
> Happens sometimes though.

Sure. And sometimes thin metal castings break, just about as easily as
plastic moldings, but no one seems to bother posting those.
Understrength specifications always fail easily, regardless of
material. Plastic is not a perfect material for all camera molding
uses, but it is not as bad, nor is it as cheap, as too many people
imply. If the moldings are done correctly, using the correct plastic,
with support for things like screw threads where needed, they'll be as
durable as something like a thin magnesium or aluminum castings.
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 12:22:51 PM

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

"Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
> Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> or magnesium? No contest.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019

Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
(or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters".
--
- gisle hannemyr [ gisle{at}hannemyr.no - http://folk.uio.no/gisle/ ]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kodak DCS460, Canon Powershot G5, Olympus 2020Z
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 1:52:00 PM

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

In article <q5hdddp684.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no>, gisle+news@ifi.uio.no
says...
> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> > a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> > or magnesium? No contest.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
> Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
> (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters".

Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 8:26:21 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
> > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
> > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
> > a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
> > or magnesium? No contest.
> >
> > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
> Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
> (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters".

Plastic is at least as strong as metal! 'Rich' was right all along!
Anonymous
August 26, 2005 11:32:45 PM

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

Gisle Hannemyr wrote:

> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
>
>>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
>>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
>>a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
>>or magnesium? No contest.
>>
>>http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>
>
> Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com:
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
> (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters".

Not exactly sure what that proves. Both look trashed to me.
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:32:02 AM

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

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:52:00 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <q5hdddp684.fsf@nelja.ifi.uio.no>, gisle+news@ifi.uio.no
>says...
>> "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca> writes:
>> > Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
>> > It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
>> > a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
>> > or magnesium? No contest.
>> >
>> > http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>>
>> Well, I just spotted this in the D100 forum on dpreview.com:
>> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&m...
>> (or just search for the thread named "Mythbusters".
>
>Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff.

Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic
and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:33:48 AM

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

On 25 Aug 2005 23:56:45 -0700, "Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com>
wrote:

>
>no one wrote:
>> Charlie Self wrote:
>>
>> > Rich wrote:
>> >
>> >>Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
>> >>It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
>> >>a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
>> >>or magnesium? No contest.
>> >>-Rich
>> >>
>> >>http://www.pbase.com/ckraft/image/48137019
>> >
>> >
>> > No one explained to "this fellow" that dropping lenses was not a great
>> > idea, regardless of material?
>> >
>>
>> Happens sometimes though.
>
>Sure. And sometimes thin metal castings break, just about as easily as
>plastic moldings, but no one seems to bother posting those.
>Understrength specifications always fail easily, regardless of
>material. Plastic is not a perfect material for all camera molding
>uses, but it is not as bad, nor is it as cheap, as too many people
>imply. If the moldings are done correctly, using the correct plastic,
>with support for things like screw threads where needed, they'll be as
>durable as something like a thin magnesium or aluminum castings.

Plastic has other negative characteristics. It's expansion and
contraction with temp changes is alot worse than metal.
It also outgasses upon exposure to temp extremes, although I don't
know what effect that might have on the camera's other parts.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:04:08 AM

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

On 24 Aug 2005 09:34:41 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
wrote:

And just what kind of trashy plastic kit do you have, Rich?


**************************************************************

"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
has existed throughout history by means of photography?
The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
Yet, that very idea has motivated me.

James Nachtwey
War Photographer
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 4:04:09 AM

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

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 00:04:08 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:

>On 24 Aug 2005 09:34:41 -0700, "Rich" <michaelanderson4@sympatico.ca>
>wrote:
>
>And just what kind of trashy plastic kit do you have, Rich?
>

Couldn't bring myself to buying anything like that. Looks like it
may be the 20D as a "base" camera for me. Meanwhile, I have to make
do with my 8 meg magnesium bodied prosumer.
-Rich
>
>**************************************************************
>
>"There has always been war. War is raging throughout the world
> at the present moment. And there is little reason to believe
> that war will cease to exist in the future. As man has become
> increasingly civilized, his means of destroying his fellow man
> have become ever more efficient, cruel and devastating.
> Is it possible to put an end to a form of human behavior which
> has existed throughout history by means of photography?
> The proportions of that notion seem ridiculously out of balance.
> Yet, that very idea has motivated me.
>
> James Nachtwey
> War Photographer
> http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:20:37 AM

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

In article <03dvg15mj8qulne93jssn93q08ginp318f@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff.
>
> Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic
> and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed.
> -Rich

Doesn't matter.

If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that
comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same.

A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd
both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no
good reason to over-engineer a part like that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 8:11:13 PM

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

RichA once again proves he is an intellectually dishonest dweeb:

>>> Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic
>>> and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed.
>>> -Rich
>>
>>Doesn't matter.
>>
>>If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that
>>comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same.
>
> What the f--- are you talking about??

The fact that you pick and choose your facts. Either the plastic
cameras are (a) stronger, (b) weaker or (c) the same strength as metal
ones. Evidence in hand shows they are the same, and we know why this
is so by simple appeal to well established physical/engineering
principles (the "materials" stuff that Brian Baird was referring to).


> They USE materials like
> titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner
> and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics.

If they can take the "same punishment", then the issue is moot and your
entire 'argument' collapses. Of course, now that BB points this out,
you take the dishonest route and disclaim your previous statements.

> Where do you get such nutty ideas?

Why do you refuse to think? Why are you a FUDster? What is the point?
Is being stupid _fun_ for you?

> >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd
> >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no
> >good reason to over-engineer a part like that.
>
> Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares
> about the inside?

You did, but now you don't. What are your goal-posts made of? Must be
pretty light, given how fast you move them around.
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 10:28:18 PM

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

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 04:20:37 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <03dvg15mj8qulne93jssn93q08ginp318f@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> >Excellent find. Pretty funny stuff.
>>
>> Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic
>> and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed.
>> -Rich
>
>Doesn't matter.
>
>If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that
>comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same.

What the f--- are you talking about?? They USE materials like
titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner
and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics.
Where do you get such nutty ideas?

>
>A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd
>both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no
>good reason to over-engineer a part like that.

Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares
about the inside?
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 8:05:20 AM

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

In article <sr27h11k32m6ujcc0j4654emk8rmfuh8b0@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that
> >comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same.
>
> What the f--- are you talking about?? They USE materials like
> titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner
> and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics.
> Where do you get such nutty ideas?

No, they use titanium and aluminum over STEEL because it is LIGHTER.

Additionally, you misunderstand a simple statement. Which is typical
with you.

> >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd
> >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no
> >good reason to over-engineer a part like that.
>
> Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares
> about the inside?
> -Rich

That's why metals don't offer advantages over plastics in many cases,
doofus.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 30, 2005 9:57:57 AM

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

Darrell schreef:

> Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
> rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 
>
> A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
> impacted!

huhhuh, wel said beavis...
August 30, 2005 12:27:05 PM

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

Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 

A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
impacted!
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 4:49:37 PM

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

In article <v8ydnQH7D5Y9zYneRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, spam@this.eh says...
> Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
> rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 
>
> A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
> impacted!
>
>
>
>

If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same
speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works
differently on different materials??


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
August 30, 2005 8:19:51 PM

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

"Larry Lynch" <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d7e582ff246bd8f98969d@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> In article <v8ydnQH7D5Y9zYneRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, spam@this.eh says...
>> Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
>> rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 
>>
>> A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
>> impacted!
>>
>
> If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same
> speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works
> differently on different materials??
>
My point was at 95mph impact would destroy any camera... IMHO
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:02:46 PM

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

RichA can't defend his own arguments:

> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.

Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:39:41 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d7e582ff246bd8f98969d@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet says...
> In article <v8ydnQH7D5Y9zYneRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, spam@this.eh says...
> > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
> > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 
> >
> > A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
> > impacted!

> If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same
> speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works
> differently on different materials??

Because a feather floats to the ground! Huzzah!

;) 
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 10:39:42 PM

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

In article <MPG.1d7e71fcc423299b9899dd@news.verizon.net>, no@no.thank.u
says...
> In article <MPG.1d7e582ff246bd8f98969d@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
> larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet says...
> > In article <v8ydnQH7D5Y9zYneRVn-2Q@rogers.com>, spam@this.eh says...
> > > Maybe Zenit will make a Foveon dSLR out of cast iron boiler plate, hot
> > > rivetted and welded for extra strength. ;) 
> > >
> > > A 9 story fall the camera would be travelling at about 90-95 mph when it
> > > impacted!
>
> > If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same
> > speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works
> > differently on different materials??
>
> Because a feather floats to the ground! Huzzah!
>
> ;) 
>
Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational
effect.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:18:51 AM

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

On 29 Aug 2005 16:11:13 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA once again proves he is an intellectually dishonest dweeb:
>
>>>> Except that the aluminum is half the thickness of the plastic
>>>> and it's front bezel seems to have escaped unscathed.
>>>> -Rich
>>>
>>>Doesn't matter.
>>>
>>>If you knew ANYTHING about materials (you don't, BTW), you'd know that
>>>comparing thickness is useless unless the materials are the same.
>>
>> What the f--- are you talking about??
>
>The fact that you pick and choose your facts. Either the plastic
>cameras are (a) stronger, (b) weaker or (c) the same strength as metal
>ones. Evidence in hand shows they are the same, and we know why this
>is so by simple appeal to well established physical/engineering
>principles (the "materials" stuff that Brian Baird was referring to).
>
>
>> They USE materials like
>> titanium and aluminum over plastic BECAUSE you can make things thinner
>> and they will take the same punishment as thicker plastics.
>
>If they can take the "same punishment", then the issue is moot and your
>entire 'argument' collapses. Of course, now that BB points this out,
>you take the dishonest route and disclaim your previous statements.
>
>> Where do you get such nutty ideas?
>
>Why do you refuse to think? Why are you a FUDster? What is the point?
> Is being stupid _fun_ for you?
>
>> >A steel box would be thinner than the aluminum one, but amazingly they'd
>> >both fail at the same time - just like this example. Why? There is no
>> >good reason to over-engineer a part like that.
>>
>> Not in that case, since once the camera body is trashed who cares
>> about the inside?
>
>You did, but now you don't. What are your goal-posts made of? Must be
>pretty light, given how fast you move them around.

Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 12:52:00 AM

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

RichA is making less sense:

> >RichA can't defend his own arguments:
> >
> >> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
> >> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
> >
> >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?
>
> Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic
> walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum
> ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit,
> but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls.

Ok, you say that 'Aluminum alloys' 'typically' have 5x the strength of
plastic.

You now explain the observation of equal strength by claiming the
"plastic walls on the mirror box" were 'about' "TWICE" as thick.

In this reality, 2 does not equal 5. Your explanation of this
discrepancy is what?

However, this is all a stupid distraction from the central point:
since the plastic and metal cameras have been shown to be just as
strong, it makes no difference (at least from a strength standpoint)
what they are made of. Can't you even do the job of a FUDster
properly?
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:15:45 AM

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

In message <MPG.1d7e582ff246bd8f98969d@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Larry Lynch <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>If wind resistance is equal, a plastic camera would hit at the same
>speed, so why include the speed, unless you think gravity works
>differently on different materials??

If two objects are shaped the same, but one is denser than the other,
the less dense one will be held back more by air resistance.

Think two boxes that are the same, but one is empty and the other is
filled with rocks.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:17:34 AM

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

In message <MPG.1d7e74cad3f76b9a98969e@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
Larry Lynch <larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet> wrote:

>Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational
>effect.

.... but air resistance is not directly related to shape; mass is a
parameter as well.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 1:57:40 AM

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

On 30 Aug 2005 18:02:46 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>RichA can't defend his own arguments:
>
>> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
>> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
>
>Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?

Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic
walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum
ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit,
but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 3:51:28 AM

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

In article <MPG.1d7e74cad3f76b9a98969e@newsgroups.comcast.net>,
larrylynch3rd@comcast.dotnet says...
> > Because a feather floats to the ground! Huzzah!
> >
> > ;) 
> >
> Because of resistance to air, not due to a "different" gravitational
> effect.

I know. I was being facetious.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 3:54:18 AM

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

In article <fsi9h15evf9u9ibvpqvbvft93urgr840jo@4ax.com>, JPS@no.komm
says...
> Think two boxes that are the same, but one is empty and the other is
> filled with rocks.

But then compare a box of lead versus the box of rocks.

Air resistance is a diminishing effect. Once an object gains enough
momentum, more isn't going to make as drastic a difference.

In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:04:24 AM

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

In article <5bt9h1p84fk1cnfpairnq0svsp5rpb6b09@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.

Blah blah blah...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:04:25 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 01:04:24 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <5bt9h1p84fk1cnfpairnq0svsp5rpb6b09@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
>> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
>
>Blah blah blah...

No, the correct method is to put on your monkey mask, cover your ears,
eyes and mouth (well, Canon nuts don't cover their mouths) and go,
waa, waa, waaaaaa!
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 5:07:25 AM

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

In article <1125450166.002667.257490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
eawckyegcy@yahoo.com says...
> RichA can't defend his own arguments:
>
> > Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
> > and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
>
> Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?

I think the answer will always elude Rich. But it might be funny to see
his response.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 7:49:57 AM

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

In article <vh3ah1tqbcddbe36cdcjl4ppoae6ic6aec@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?
>
> Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic
> walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum
> ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit,
> but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls.
> -Rich

You still haven't really answered the question.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 31, 2005 9:18:53 AM

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

Brian Baird wrote:
>
>
> In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum.


In other words, in RichA's head.
--
Slack
Anonymous
August 31, 2005 4:43:51 PM

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

In article <7oSdnfDVpK64PYjeRVn-pA@giganews.com>, slacker7
_ReMoVe_ThIs@scglobal.net says...
> Brian Baird wrote:
> >
> >
> > In any case, let's just say the entire thing happens in a vacuum.
>
>
> In other words, in RichA's head.
> --
> Slack

Mother nature abhors a vacuum.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
August 31, 2005 6:46:44 PM

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

In article <vh3ah1tqbcddbe36cdcjl4ppoae6ic6aec@4ax.com>, none@none.com says...
> On 30 Aug 2005 18:02:46 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
> <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >RichA can't defend his own arguments:
> >
> >> Aluminum alloys (typically) have five TIMES the strength of plastic
> >> and s/s has TEN times the strength of plastic. Look it up.
> >
> >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?
>
> Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic
> walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum
> ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit,
> but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls.
> -Rich
>
Yep - I'll be lining up fo rthat camera built out of box beams. Could use it to drive 100 mm nails whgen there is
nothing worth photographing. Guess it might concern airport security though...

Mike (in anticipation)
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 1:28:31 AM

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

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 03:49:57 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <vh3ah1tqbcddbe36cdcjl4ppoae6ic6aec@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> >Then why did the "metal" and "plastic" cameras fail at the same time?
>>
>> Are you talking about the mirror box vice test? Because the plastic
>> walls on the mirror box were about TWICE as thick as the aluminum
>> ones. You can easily deform a sheet steel piece of hot air conduit,
>> but try doing that with a box beam with 1/4" thick walls.
>> -Rich
>
>You still haven't really answered the question.

They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test
was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little.
But like I said, if you want plastic to perform like steel or
aluminum, it has to be considerably thicker and I'm not convinced
that plastic cameras don't have weak points that metal bodied cameras
do not. You could make a camera out of cardboard and if it's thick
enough (comparatively) it will resist crushing just like steel, but
who'd want to?
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
September 1, 2005 6:37:05 AM

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

In article <25mch1t0vcnsm3vcf3lc8qs2uimkmvlqpi@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test
> was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little.

It proves more than your amateur efforts.

> But like I said, if you want plastic to perform like steel or
> aluminum, it has to be considerably thicker and I'm not convinced
> that plastic cameras don't have weak points that metal bodied cameras
> do not. You could make a camera out of cardboard and if it's thick
> enough (comparatively) it will resist crushing just like steel, but
> who'd want to?
> -Rich

Again, show me where thickness = bad?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 3:22:27 AM

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

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 02:37:05 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <25mch1t0vcnsm3vcf3lc8qs2uimkmvlqpi@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> They probably had similar strength as configured, but the test
>> was an amateur effort anyway so it proves very little.
>
>It proves more than your amateur efforts.
>
>> But like I said, if you want plastic to perform like steel or
>> aluminum, it has to be considerably thicker and I'm not convinced
>> that plastic cameras don't have weak points that metal bodied cameras
>> do not. You could make a camera out of cardboard and if it's thick
>> enough (comparatively) it will resist crushing just like steel, but
>> who'd want to?
>> -Rich
>
>Again, show me where thickness = bad?

Bad is subjective in this case. For me, spending
over $500 on a camera made of plastic is bad.
For you it's not. But if you really believe that
plastic is acceptable for a camera body, how would
you like a plastic 1DS MkII for $5000?
My guess is that very few people would go for it.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"
Anonymous
September 2, 2005 4:40:31 PM

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

RichA wrote:

> Bad is subjective in this case.

You started this idiot thread with:

Just another example. This fellow dropped a lens.
It broke at the plastic point, even though the lens was
a plastic-metal combo. Polycarbonate versus aluminum, stainless
or magnesium? No contest.

So was the above camera broken by subjectivity or something else?

> For me, spending
> over $500 on a camera made of plastic is bad.

First, you say that plastic is weak and unreliable. Now it's all just
a matter of taste.

> For you it's not. But if you really believe that
> plastic is acceptable for a camera body, how would
> you like a plastic 1DS MkII for $5000?
> My guess is that very few people would go for it.

Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on? All of this
bullshit just makes you look even _more_ stupid than you may actually
be.
!