«

All the m4/3rds bodies now are plastic. Some are "skinnned" in sheet
aluminum, but structurally, they are plastic. Even if you support
larger lenses by the lens, there comes a time when you'll want the
camera to support them, at least for a short time. Plastic does work
better when the body panels are small than if they are large (less
flexture), and small bodies are a 4/3rds characteristic, but for
larger lenses, it would be good to have a metal body. Sony has done
it with the NEX, so the m4/3rds people should be able to as well.

RichA <> wrote:
>
>All the m4/3rds bodies now are plastic. Some are "skinnned" in sheet
>aluminum, but structurally, they are plastic. Even if you support
>larger lenses by the lens, there comes a time when you'll want the
>camera to support them, at least for a short time.


Why? Even with APS-C and full frame DSLRs, it makes sense to support
larger lenses and clip the camera body onto the bayonet at the back.
If using heavy lenses, the same would make sense with micro 4/3rds.


>Plastic does work
>better when the body panels are small than if they are large (less
>flexture), and small bodies are a 4/3rds characteristic, but for
>larger lenses, it would be good to have a metal body.


No point. See above.


>Sony has done it with the NEX


The NEX-3 and C3 are plastic. The NEX-5 and 5N are plastic with a
metal skin. I don't know about the NEX-7, but I guess that it follows
the same construction as the NEX-5 and 5N.


>so the m4/3rds people should be able to as well.


No point. See above.

Rich <> wrote:
>Bruce <> wrote in
>news: :
>Didn't quite get your point about bayonetting. Attaching the lens??
>Most people when carrying cameras let them hang, by the body, from a
>strap.


That's because most people use lightweight lenses, such as the Olympus
M.Zuiko 40-200mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. Even the Panasonic
100-300mm is a fairly light lens. That's just one benefit of plastic.


>This is not advisible with even moderately heavy lenses and a
>m4/3rd body.


It's fine with the lenses stated above, which are probably the longest
lenses used by 99% of m4/3 users. Anything longer, or heavier, and
you should support the lens, not the camera.

On Nov 20, 10:02*pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:43:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >All the m4/3rds bodies now are plastic. *Some are "skinnned" in sheet
> >aluminum, but structurally, they are plastic. *Even if you support
> >larger lenses by the lens, there comes a time when you'll want the
> >camera to support them, at least for a short time. *Plastic does work
> >better when the body panels are small than if they are large (less
> >flexture), and small bodies are a 4/3rds characteristic, but for
> >larger lenses, it would be good to have a metal body. *Sony has done
> >it with the NEX, so the m4/3rds people should be able to as well.
>
> If the metal skin is bonded to the plastic, the two materials work
> together. The metal is much more rigid than the plastic and will
> therefore carry the majority of any applied load. This means that in
> normal use the user is handling a camera substantially as rigid as if
> it were metal. This only changes when the metal delaminates from the
> plastic, usually from being subject to excessive force.
>

Or temperature changes where the plastic expands and contracts a lot
more than the metal.

RichA <> wrote:

>On Nov 20, 10:02*pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 10:43:38 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >All the m4/3rds bodies now are plastic. *Some are "skinnned" in sheet
>> >aluminum, but structurally, they are plastic. *Even if you support
>> >larger lenses by the lens, there comes a time when you'll want the
>> >camera to support them, at least for a short time. *Plastic does work
>> >better when the body panels are small than if they are large (less
>> >flexture), and small bodies are a 4/3rds characteristic, but for
>> >larger lenses, it would be good to have a metal body. *Sony has done
>> >it with the NEX, so the m4/3rds people should be able to as well.
>>
>> If the metal skin is bonded to the plastic, the two materials work
>> together. The metal is much more rigid than the plastic and will
>> therefore carry the majority of any applied load. This means that in
>> normal use the user is handling a camera substantially as rigid as if
>> it were metal. This only changes when the metal delaminates from the
>> plastic, usually from being subject to excessive force.
>>
>
>Or temperature changes where the plastic expands and contracts a lot
>more than the metal.


Or, more likely, temperature changes where the plastic expands and
contracts a lot *LESS* than the metal.

On Nov 21, 7:03*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news: :
> >Didn't quite get your point about bayonetting. *Attaching the lens??
> >Most people when carrying cameras let them hang, by the body, from a
> >strap.
>
> That's because most people use lightweight lenses, such as the Olympus
> M.Zuiko 40-200mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. *Even the Panasonic
> 100-300mm is a fairly light lens. *That's just one benefit of plastic.
>
> >This is not advisible with even moderately heavy lenses and a
> >m4/3rd body.
>
> It's fine with the lenses stated above, which are probably the longest
> lenses used by 99% of m4/3 users. *Anything longer, or heavier, and
> you should support the lens, not the camera.

Kind of awkward, if you do it for a long time. My most comfortable
DSLR when used with any lens was the Olympus E-1, which allowed you to
(thanks to the deep grip) dangle it from the tips of your fingers if
you wanted. Usually, with a normal sized DSLR (say a D300) you could
use all but the heaviest lenses by simply leveraging with the grip
(especially if you had an optional battery grip attached). A 24-70mm
f2.8 was supportable in this way. Beyond that, you need to support
the lens too.
However, the big difference when it comes to lens support is how much
weight are you taking? With a m4/3rds body and a larger lens, you are
supporting almost all the lens and some of the camera weight when you
support the lens. You actually are applying and upward pressure to
the lens (usually the focus ring) and this is somewhat questionable as
focusing rings are not meant to have unequal pressure applied to
them. With a grippable DSLR, you can pull backwards on the DSLR grip
thereby taking some of the lens weight off the hand supporting it,
which usually means zooming or focusing manually is easier.
The heaviest thing I had on a Panasonic G1 was a Nikon Q series 135mm
f2.8. One of the strap eyelets unscrewed itself (though not when that
lens was on the camera) but that is a known flaw with the G1/GH1.

RichA <> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 7:03*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news: :
>> >Didn't quite get your point about bayonetting. *Attaching the lens??
>> >Most people when carrying cameras let them hang, by the body, from a
>> >strap.
>>
>> That's because most people use lightweight lenses, such as the Olympus
>> M.Zuiko 40-200mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. *Even the Panasonic
>> 100-300mm is a fairly light lens. *That's just one benefit of plastic.
>>
>> >This is not advisible with even moderately heavy lenses and a
>> >m4/3rd body.
>>
>> It's fine with the lenses stated above, which are probably the longest
>> lenses used by 99% of m4/3 users. *Anything longer, or heavier, and
>> you should support the lens, not the camera.
>
>Kind of awkward, if you do it for a long time. My most comfortable
>DSLR when used with any lens was the Olympus E-1, which allowed you to
>(thanks to the deep grip) dangle it from the tips of your fingers if
>you wanted. Usually, with a normal sized DSLR (say a D300) you could
>use all but the heaviest lenses by simply leveraging with the grip
>(especially if you had an optional battery grip attached). A 24-70mm
>f2.8 was supportable in this way. Beyond that, you need to support
>the lens too.
>However, the big difference when it comes to lens support is how much
>weight are you taking? With a m4/3rds body and a larger lens, you are
>supporting almost all the lens and some of the camera weight when you
>support the lens. You actually are applying and upward pressure to
>the lens (usually the focus ring) and this is somewhat questionable as
>focusing rings are not meant to have unequal pressure applied to
>them. With a grippable DSLR, you can pull backwards on the DSLR grip
>thereby taking some of the lens weight off the hand supporting it,
>which usually means zooming or focusing manually is easier.
>The heaviest thing I had on a Panasonic G1 was a Nikon Q series 135mm
>f2.8. One of the strap eyelets unscrewed itself (though not when that
>lens was on the camera) but that is a known flaw with the G1/GH1.


People buy m4/3 for its lightness and compactness. If you want to
start carrying around heavy lenses, you should perhaps re-evaluate
whether m4/3 is the right system for you.

I don't know of any m4/3 lenses that are heavy enough to cause any
concern about the strength of the lens mount on the camera. If you
are using long and/or heavy legacy lenses, you should primarily
support the lens and treat the m4/3 camera body as a relatively
lightweight attachment to the rear of that lens.

I realise I am repeating myself, but that's because there isn't any
more to say. You are arguing about a non-problem.

On 11/22/2011 3:25 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:30:24 -0600, Rich<> wrote:
<snip>>

>>
>> The fact they don't turn as smoothly when you allow the weight of a lens
>> to press down pretty much proves it. But feel free to experiment.
>
> It doesn't prove that "focusing rings are not meant to have unequal
> pressure applied to them". All it does is prove that frictional forces
> increase when you increase the forces applied to the focusing ring;
> but I would expect that. It says nothing at all about whether or not
> the focusing ring is designed to withstand any particular system of
> forces.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

Eric, I'm sure you realize you are contradicting the opinion of the
world's pre=eminent optical design engineer. It can tell you what's
wrong with any product, just by looking at a photo, or someone else's
description.

--
Peter

Rich <> wrote:
>Eric Stevens <> wrote in
>news: :
>> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:11:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
>> wrote:
>>>Kind of awkward, if you do it for a long time. My most comfortable
>>>DSLR when used with any lens was the Olympus E-1, which allowed you to
>>>(thanks to the deep grip) dangle it from the tips of your fingers if
>>>you wanted. Usually, with a normal sized DSLR (say a D300) you could
>>>use all but the heaviest lenses by simply leveraging with the grip
>>>(especially if you had an optional battery grip attached). A 24-70mm
>>>f2.8 was supportable in this way. Beyond that, you need to support
>>>the lens too.
>>>However, the big difference when it comes to lens support is how much
>>>weight are you taking? With a m4/3rds body and a larger lens, you are
>>>supporting almost all the lens and some of the camera weight when you
>>>support the lens. You actually are applying and upward pressure to
>>>the lens (usually the focus ring) and this is somewhat questionable as
>>>focusing rings are not meant to have unequal pressure applied to
>>>them.
>>
>> Who says? Apart from you, that is.
>>
>
>The fact they don't turn as smoothly when you allow the weight of a lens
>to press down pretty much proves it. But feel free to experiment.


So now you're imagining a lens that is heavy enough to distort the
lens mount of a m4/3 camera body. but whose focusing ring is so flimsy
that it bends.

It's pure fantasy.

On Nov 22, 3:25*am, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 21:30:24 -0600, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote in
> >news: :
>
> >> On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 08:11:08 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 21, 7:03*am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >>>> >news: :
> >>>> >Didn't quite get your point about bayonetting. *Attaching the lens??
> >>>> >Most people when carrying cameras let them hang, by the body, from a
> >>>> >strap.
>
> >>>> That's because most people use lightweight lenses, such as the
> >Olympus
> >>>> M.Zuiko 40-200mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. *Even the Panasonic
> >>>> 100-300mm is a fairly light lens. *That's just one benefit of
> >plastic.
>
> >>>> >This is not advisible with even moderately heavy lenses and a
> >>>> >m4/3rd body.
>
> >>>> It's fine with the lenses stated above, which are probably the
> >longest
> >>>> lenses used by 99% of m4/3 users. *Anything longer, or heavier, and
> >>>> you should support the lens, not the camera.
>
> >>>Kind of awkward, if you do it for a long time. My most comfortable
> >>>DSLR when used with any lens was the Olympus E-1, which allowed you to
> >>>(thanks to the deep grip) dangle it from the tips of your fingers if
> >>>you wanted. *Usually, with a normal sized DSLR (say a D300) you could
> >>>use all but the heaviest lenses by simply leveraging with the grip
> >>>(especially if you had an optional battery grip attached). *A 24-70mm
> >>>f2.8 was supportable in this way. *Beyond that, you need to support
> >>>the lens too.
> >>>However, the big difference when it comes to lens support is how much
> >>>weight are you taking? *With a m4/3rds body and a larger lens, you are
> >>>supporting almost all the lens and some of the camera weight when you
> >>>support the lens. *You actually are applying and upward pressure to
> >>>the lens (usually the focus ring) and this is somewhat questionable as
> >>>focusing rings are not meant to have unequal pressure applied to
> >>>them.
>
> >> Who says? Apart from you, that is.
>
> >The fact they don't turn as smoothly when you allow the weight of a lens
> >to press down pretty much proves it. *But feel free to experiment.
>
> It doesn't prove that "focusing rings are not meant to have unequal
> pressure applied to them". All it does is prove that frictional forces
> increase when you increase the forces applied to the focusing ring;
> but I would expect that. It says nothing at all about whether or not
> the focusing ring is designed to withstand any particular system of
> forces.

Withstand? As in fail or not fail? I said nothing of the kind. How
well the zoom or focus ring work depends on even or uneven pressure on
them.