You can practically smell the plastic...

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

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/

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

In article <22o1i1hfbl38upfm0i38vpo2td5e6t8ctd@4ax.com>, Rich
<none@none.com> wrote:

All I can smell is a turd who has a hard-on for Canon.

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

"Randall Ainsworth" <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:080920052041093061%rag@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <22o1i1hfbl38upfm0i38vpo2td5e6t8ctd@4ax.com>, Rich
> <none@none.com> wrote:
>
> All I can smell is a turd who has a hard-on for Canon.

As opposed to someone who has one for anything non-Canon. BTW, read more
carefully. The OP was for a Sony, not a Canon. Looks like that
Rectal-cranial inversion procedure is working well for you.

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

In article <dfrv30$jka$1@domitilla.aioe.org>, Peter A. Stavrakoglou
<ntotrr(remove)@optonline.net> wrote:

> As opposed to someone who has one for anything non-Canon. BTW, read more
> carefully. The OP was for a Sony, not a Canon. Looks like that
> Rectal-cranial inversion procedure is working well for you.

How's that overpriced 3.42MP piece of junk working out for you? Like
the yellow skin tones?

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

What a fabulous smell, beats metals anytime!

"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:22o1i1hfbl38upfm0i38vpo2td5e6t8ctd@4ax.com...
> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/

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

On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 05:42:55 -0700, Randall Ainsworth
<rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:

>In article <HIbUe.212369$E95.200608@fed1read01>, Proconsul
><nospam@nospam.org> wrote:
>
>> Randall Ainsworth <rag@nospam.techline.com> wrote:
>>
>> | In article <22o1i1hfbl38upfm0i38vpo2td5e6t8ctd@4ax.com>, Rich
>> | <none@none.com> wrote:
>> |
>> | All I can smell is a turd who has a hard-on for Canon.
>>
>> Who said anything about Canon?
>
>I'm sure Rich was getting to it. It's his favorite topic.

Ok. It's going to be SO sad when that lowly Sony with it's
C.Z. lens kicks the ASS of the Canons and their pathetic kit
lenses. I guess then $800-$1000 won't seem so expensive for it?
-Rich

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

On Fri, 9 Sep 2005 08:47:18 -0400, "jean" <try-to@find.it> wrote:

>Finally someone understands the need for higher ISO in a P+S, now shrink it
>down and remove some features so it can fit in a pocket (but keep manual
>settings!)
>
>Jean
>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> a écrit dans le message de
>news:22o1i1hfbl38upfm0i38vpo2td5e6t8ctd@4ax.com...
>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/
>

Notice the stunning fact that the lens itself isn't much
bigger than the one on the older 828 with it's much smaller
sensor. Sort of hints that Canon's (and other DSLR maker's)
lumbering old 35mm lenses are OLD HAT and NEED replacing.
-Rich

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

Rich blithers stupidly:

> Hey, with oil reaching for $80-$100/barrel maybe magnesium will price
> out closer to oil-based plastics and they can start building cameras
> with good bodies more often??

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ [...] is4q04.pdf

http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_art [...] ?x=b11,0,w

So tell us, retard, how much will oil have to cost before the price of
plastic equals magnesium?

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

According to eawckyegcy@yahoo.com <eawckyegcy@yahoo.com>:
> Rich blithers stupidly:
>
> > Hey, with oil reaching for $80-$100/barrel maybe magnesium will price
> > out closer to oil-based plastics and they can start building cameras
> > with good bodies more often??
>
> http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ [...] is4q04.pdf
>
> http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_art [...] ?x=b11,0,w
>
> So tell us, retard, how much will oil have to cost before the price of
> plastic equals magnesium?

Not to mention the additional costs of machining the aluminum to
adequate precision, instead of molding the plastics. :-)

And a *good* plastic body (with a good choice of plastics) is
more immune to damage from impact (e.g. dropping) than a metal such as
magnesium, which is likely to distort permanently, requiring
re-adjusting of lots of things within that body -- assuming that the
distortion is not sufficient to render it useless.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

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

On 9 Sep 2005 14:44:44 -0700, "eawckyegcy@yahoo.com"
<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich blithers stupidly:
>
>> Hey, with oil reaching for $80-$100/barrel maybe magnesium will price
>> out closer to oil-based plastics and they can start building cameras
>> with good bodies more often??
>
>http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/magnesium/mgmis4q04.pdf
>
>http://www.imakenews.com/lng/e_article000447671.cfm?x=b11,0,w
>
>So tell us, retard, how much will oil have to cost before the price of
>plastic equals magnesium?

I was kidding, dunce. Even if it were as cheap as plastic,
you'd still have to precision machine it.
-Rich

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

> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/

And what's so inherently wrong with plastic? Many industries are using
carbon fiber in structural uses (including bicycles, which I'm *very*
familiar with, along with airplanes, exotic racing cars, golf clubs... the
list goes on and on). And let's face it, carbon fiber is pretty much
reinforced plastic, when you get down to it. The advantages (over metal)
include-

#1: Extreme light weight. You can make something every bit as strong as
something made of metal, yet a lot lighter. Or you can make it the same
weight as something metal, but much stronger.

#2: Unique shaping capabilities. Carbon fiber can be molded into pretty much
any shape imaginable, without giving up strength.

#3: Vibration damping. Carbon fiber essentially doesn't carry a tune. If you
hit it, it doesn't resonate, it just kinda thuds.

I don't know of any camera manufacturer that's exploiting the advantages of
carbon fiber for their bodies yet, and there probably won't be any for some
time, due primarily to momentum... high-end photographers are used to
high-end equipment being metal, and cheap stuff being plastic. Carbon fiber
doesn't visually differentiate itself enough from common plastic to break
through the anti-plastic mindset.

Ultimately, a camera built out of stronger, lighter-weight materials will be
better-able to withstand impact (not just due to stronger materials but also
less mass striking the ground), and the vibration-damping qualities should
help reduce mechanical vibration. This flies in the face of the current
logic, which is that greater mass=less susceptibility to vibration issues.

It will take a while, just like it did for bikes (where the "steel is real"
crowd is getting smaller by the day). But it will happen.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 05:22:42 GMT, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>> http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/
>
>And what's so inherently wrong with plastic? Many industries are using
>carbon fiber in structural uses (including bicycles, which I'm *very*
>familiar with, along with airplanes, exotic racing cars, golf clubs... the
>list goes on and on). And let's face it, carbon fiber is pretty much
>reinforced plastic, when you get down to it. The advantages (over metal)
>include-
>
>#1: Extreme light weight. You can make something every bit as strong as
>something made of metal, yet a lot lighter. Or you can make it the same
>weight as something metal, but much stronger.
>
>#2: Unique shaping capabilities. Carbon fiber can be molded into pretty much
>any shape imaginable, without giving up strength.
>
>#3: Vibration damping. Carbon fiber essentially doesn't carry a tune. If you
>hit it, it doesn't resonate, it just kinda thuds.
>
>I don't know of any camera manufacturer that's exploiting the advantages of
>carbon fiber for their bodies yet, and there probably won't be any for some
>time, due primarily to momentum... high-end photographers are used to
>high-end equipment being metal, and cheap stuff being plastic. Carbon fiber
>doesn't visually differentiate itself enough from common plastic to break
>through the anti-plastic mindset.
>
>Ultimately, a camera built out of stronger, lighter-weight materials will be
>better-able to withstand impact (not just due to stronger materials but also
>less mass striking the ground), and the vibration-damping qualities should
>help reduce mechanical vibration. This flies in the face of the current
>logic, which is that greater mass=less susceptibility to vibration issues.
>
>It will take a while, just like it did for bikes (where the "steel is real"
>crowd is getting smaller by the day). But it will happen.
>
>--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
>www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
>

The best indicator of the suitibility of materials is the military use
of those materials. I know the most recent fighter planes (that the
U.S. can hardly afford) are made of composites, but how about things
like field radios, etc, that are more closely related by size to
cameras?
-Rich

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

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> And what's so inherently wrong with plastic?

Nothing; it's just that Rich is a freakin' lunatic nutcase FUDster.

> I don't know of any camera manufacturer that's exploiting the advantages of
> carbon fiber for their bodies yet, and there probably won't be any for some
> time, due primarily to momentum... high-end photographers are used to
> high-end equipment being metal, and cheap stuff being plastic. Carbon fiber
> doesn't visually differentiate itself enough from common plastic to break
> through the anti-plastic mindset.

Yes, the only issue here is primarily the perceptions in 'the market'.
If the Mr. Moneybags customer wants a heavy, metal camera, then that's
what Mr. Moneybags gets. Sadly, the "metal" vs. "plastic" 'debate' is
only carried on my ignorant fruitcakes like Rich, or those who were
photographically weened prior to the mid 1990's or so. The latter
should know better, but for whatever reason, have chosen to remain
ignorant. (Rich is a hopeless kook; he just fantasizes about owning
the high-end gear he can't possibly afford. Hence his nutty fixation
on facets of the equipment that are, by and large, irrelevant.)

> Ultimately, a camera built out of stronger, lighter-weight materials will be
> better-able to withstand impact (not just due to stronger materials but also
> less mass striking the ground), and the vibration-damping qualities should
> help reduce mechanical vibration. This flies in the face of the current
> logic, which is that greater mass=less susceptibility to vibration issues.

More mass just decreases the frequency -- the energy is still present.
Composites dissipate the energy, which is ultimately what you want.
I've given up trying to explain though. So now when I see someone
carrying around super-heavy metal tripods and the like, I just laugh.
In many cases, "IS" has removed the need for a tripod (many of my
finest images via my 500/4 are handheld -- and I am no muscleman), and
in those times when a tripod is needed, the CF versions are _vastly_
superior in almost every way to the metal equivalents.

> It will take a while, just like it did for bikes (where the "steel is real"
> crowd is getting smaller by the day). But it will happen.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with
it." -- Max Planck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Planck)

Any young scientist types are encouraged to read "Science from Fisher
Information: A Unification", B. Roy Frieden (ISBN 0-52-100911-1).

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_S [...] evolutions

Damn, wikipedia is just getting better. Even the face of relentless
vandalism! Knowledge knows what to do -- Rich, however, is a terminal
idiot.

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

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:07:52 -0400, David Geesaman
<dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Rich wrote:
>>
>> The best indicator of the suitibility of materials is the military use
>> of those materials.
>
> Not really a good comparison. One major criteria of military materials
>is as armor - you don't want your equipment to absorb shrapnel into its
>inner components like a piece of cheese. As well, it needs to absorb
>excessive drop tests.

Gee, I wonder why they choose metal over plastic then?
-Rich

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

In article <cmv5i1pd2h2rmj5eg9n2ilgc7npunglocd@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> but how about things
> like field radios, etc, that are more closely related by size to
> cameras?

The M16 has a good deal of plastic.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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

In article <4324fce6$0$47507$892e7fe2@authen.white.readfreenews.net>,
miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-cairnscarsound.com.au says...
> > The M16 has a good deal of plastic.
>
> And takes lousy pictures.

They chose muzzle velocity over resolution. For shame!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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

I think video cameras moved to plastic bodies without much fuss mainly
because there are less of the 'zealots' like we see here.

The M16 btw. is a lousy rifle... however it was designed for a
particular job... cheap to make, light, to be made in the millions. The
structure is mainly plastic and extruded alloy. As time passed, certain
parts moved from metal -> plastic eg. the magazine.

I expect that the design of the camera is more important than the
materials.

Some cameras with a metal frame and plastic body feel like quality -
some don't. I felt the 300D/350D feel a bit cheap but the Nikons don't.
Neither do the Pentaxes.

T.

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

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d8ec35f2faf4011989a2c@news.verizon.net...
> In article <cmv5i1pd2h2rmj5eg9n2ilgc7npunglocd@4ax.com>, none@none.com
> says...
>> but how about things
>> like field radios, etc, that are more closely related by size to
>> cameras?
>
> The M16 has a good deal of plastic.
>
So are Glocks, and body armour. The anti-plastic posters seem to think
plastic is bakelite.

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:04:55 -0400, "David Geesaman"
<dgeesamannospam@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Rich" <none@none.com> wrote in message
>news:cmh6i1p3d355l7o49jq76kn554jl59mb7b@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:07:52 -0400, David Geesaman
>> <dgeesamanIHateSpam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The best indicator of the suitibility of materials is the military use
>>>> of those materials.
>>>
>>> Not really a good comparison. One major criteria of military materials
>>>is as armor - you don't want your equipment to absorb shrapnel into its
>>>inner components like a piece of cheese. As well, it needs to absorb
>>>excessive drop tests.
>>
>> Gee, I wonder why they choose metal over plastic then?
>
> Many reasons, which I won't bother to explain since you're an idiot.
>
> Dave
>

No, please; Explain why they chose metal over plastic for a high
impact application?
-Rich

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

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:47:22 -0700, "Brion K. Lienhart"
<brionl@lienhart.name> wrote:

>David Geesaman wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The best indicator of the suitibility of materials is the military use
>>> of those materials.
>>
>>
>> Not really a good comparison. One major criteria of military
>> materials is as armor - you don't want your equipment to absorb shrapnel
>> into its inner components like a piece of cheese. As well, it needs to
>> absorb excessive drop tests.
>
>Actually, because of the long, drawn-out procurement process most of the
>military equipment used today was designed 10-15 years ago, or more.
>
>But we don't need to consult the people who have Ph.D.s in materials
>science. Just ask Rich: "metal good, plastic bad." There you go, just
>saved yourself a couple of millions dollars in design and testing.
>
>Have you ever watched a radio controlled car race? Seen the little cars
>whipping around the track, crashing into each other, rolling over,
>blasting all over the place? Guess what they're predominately made of?
>That's right, plastic. The gears in the gearbox are plastic. The chassis
>is plastic. The body is plastic. Do you ever take your camera and drive
>it into a wall at 20 mph?

I remember metal bumpers which could take impacts better than plastic
in cars now. Of course you know that car bodies are now designed to
disintigrate on impact, dissipating the energy and protecting the
occupants better, pretty hard to do with metal SINCE IT HOLDS
TOGETHER!!!!

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

In article <ca7ci1tflh5c67nmts49r81sjqsutv4ath@4ax.com>, none@none.com
says...
> Then explain why the entire Glock isn't plastic?

The answer is too simple and you're too stupid to understand even that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

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

On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 04:02:23 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <ca7ci1tflh5c67nmts49r81sjqsutv4ath@4ax.com>, none@none.com
>says...
>> Then explain why the entire Glock isn't plastic?
>
>The answer is too simple and you're too stupid to understand even that.

Because the WORKING parts would degrade after the first shot, if they
didn't explode in your face. So much for plastic. But it would be
funny to see the plastic barrel catch fire from the powder explosions.
-Rich

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

Rich wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:37:54 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:31:23 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
> >
> >>I remember metal bumpers which could take impacts better than plastic
> >>in cars now. Of course you know that car bodies are now designed to
> >>disintigrate on impact, dissipating the energy and protecting the
> >>occupants better, pretty hard to do with metal SINCE IT HOLDS
> >>TOGETHER!!!!
> >
> >Please explain exactly what this load of bollocks is supposed to
> >prove, apart from the fact that you haven't a clue about the
> >construction of modern car bodies?
> >
> >Al
>
> Auto racing has become far safer because of this design technique.
> -Rich

Have you ever stood next to a car and examined it? Disintegrate on
impact? Modern cars are, and have been for a long time, designed to
crumple on impact to dissipate energy and, one hopes, to help protect
occupants. But to simply fall apart?

Where is your disintegrating plastic used in modern car bodies? The
'Vette does OK with glass, but most cars I see and work with are still
steel, do not disintegrate unless impact is incredibly hard, but will
crumple on impact (a profitable feature for body shops, as well as a
safety feature for occupants). Even padded dashboards don't
disintegrate.

And making auto racing safer is not a design desire for most auto
companies. Their need is to make day-to-day driving safer. If that
benefits racers, fine, but racers have their own set of protections,
starting with full roll cages that help keep the vehicle intact around
them, not disintegrating.

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

"Charlie Self" <charliediy@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1126687769.750816.249650@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rich wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 23:37:54 +0100, Alan Bremner <alan@domain.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 20:31:23 -0400, Rich <none@none.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I remember metal bumpers which could take impacts better than plastic
>> >>in cars now. Of course you know that car bodies are now designed to
>> >>disintigrate on impact, dissipating the energy and protecting the
>> >>occupants better, pretty hard to do with metal SINCE IT HOLDS
>> >>TOGETHER!!!!
>> >
>> >Please explain exactly what this load of bollocks is supposed to
>> >prove, apart from the fact that you haven't a clue about the
>> >construction of modern car bodies?
>> >
>> >Al
>>
>> Auto racing has become far safer because of this design technique.
>> -Rich
>
> Have you ever stood next to a car and examined it? Disintegrate on
> impact? Modern cars are, and have been for a long time, designed to
> crumple on impact to dissipate energy and, one hopes, to help protect
> occupants. But to simply fall apart?
>
> Where is your disintegrating plastic used in modern car bodies? The
> 'Vette does OK with glass, but most cars I see and work with are still
> steel, do not disintegrate unless impact is incredibly hard, but will
> crumple on impact (a profitable feature for body shops, as well as a
> safety feature for occupants). Even padded dashboards don't
> disintegrate.
>
> And making auto racing safer is not a design desire for most auto
> companies. Their need is to make day-to-day driving safer. If that
> benefits racers, fine, but racers have their own set of protections,
> starting with full roll cages that help keep the vehicle intact around
> them, not disintegrating.
>
But modern race cars are designed with crumple zones, front, rear and,
unlike their roadgoing cousins, side. The central driver "pod" is designed
to maintain its integrity, in addition. The cars are also designed to
"shed" parts in an effort to also shed energy, parts like suspension,
engine, etc. Tethers keep some of these parts from flying into crowds, at
least in theory.
F1, IRL and CART cars are required to pass stringent crash testing, too.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

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

On Wed, 14 Sep 2005 19:57:46 -0700, "Skip M" <shadowcatcher@cox.net>
wrote:

>Space frames haven't been used in pure racing cars in many long years, now
>being the province of NASCAR ( the racing version of Fred Flintstone's car)
>and production based racers like TransAm and GrandAm.

Bang goes another analogy, then. :-)

Al
--
[This space intentionally left blank]