Re: 3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by FOR7b, Aug 21, 2003.

  1. FOR7b

    FOR7b Guest

    >I mean the main body of the plane. When someone says this camera is made
    >out
    >of plastic instead of metal, they are not talking about the buttons on it, or
    >some parts that may be in or on the camera, they mean the camera body.
    >Same
    >is to be meant when talking about a plane.
    >
    >Just pretend we are talking about cameras and you should get it. :)


    Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin than
    anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in there.
    Most are complaining with their hearts and not their heads. :)

    As for the airplanes, as I said in smaller ones the plastic bodies already
    exist and it is slowly but surely being adopted for larger aircraft.


    FOR7b, Aug 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. FOR7b

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    "> Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin
    than
    > anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in

    there.
    > Most are complaining with their hearts and not their heads. :)
    >
    > As for the airplanes, as I said in smaller ones the plastic bodies already
    > exist and it is slowly but surely being adopted for larger aircraft.
    >


    To be fair, the "plastics sceptics" have a point, as it is often quite
    difficult or impossible for a layman to judge if a "plastics" part is made
    of an aerospace grade carbon composite, or a low-grade styrene plastic,
    especially if the part is well finished. The durability of a metal part is
    somewhat easier to judge visually (as long as you don't consider fatigue
    stresses, which are however not important for cameras).

    That said, I'm very impressed with the durability of my Rebel 2000 camera.
    It has survived hits that would have made big dents in a tin camera, and the
    plastic bayonet has coped splendidly with the 3-pound 100-400 mm zoom. To me
    this implies that Canon's engineers do have the competence to design durable
    plastics cameras.

    - Nils
    Nils Rostedt, Aug 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. FOR7b

    Dana Laffit Guest

    > Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin than
    > anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in there.


    And the reason for the plastic skin is to cut costs in materials which, like it or
    not, means a cut in quality. You can't have both.

    > Most are complaining with their hearts and not their heads. :)


    I prefer quality materials, you are free to buy plastic stuff. I like to
    drink out of glasses instead of plastic cups too. Both deliver the liquid to
    your mouth, but people that live in trailer parks tend to use more plastic cups
    and people that live in expensive homes usually uses glasses more.

    > As for the airplanes, as I said in smaller ones the plastic bodies already
    > exist


    You are confusing plastic with something entirely different. Show me the plane
    made out of the same type of "plastic" used in these cheap cameras.
    Dana Laffit, Aug 22, 2003
    #3
  4. FOR7b

    Dana Laffit Guest

    > That said, I'm very impressed with the durability of my Rebel 2000 camera.
    > It has survived hits that would have made big dents in a tin camera,


    Just curious as to what you do that this happens to your camera?
    Dana Laffit, Aug 22, 2003
    #4
  5. Dana Laffit <> wrote:
    >> Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin than
    >> anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in there.

    >And the reason for the plastic skin is to cut costs in materials which, like it or
    >not, means a cut in quality. You can't have both.


    Or to decrease weight. Or it make dent resistant panels (see Saturn).

    It's not always just about cost. Sometimes the plastic part is more
    expensive than the metal option.

    >I prefer quality materials, you are free to buy plastic stuff. I like to
    >drink out of glasses instead of plastic cups too. Both deliver the liquid to
    >your mouth, but people that live in trailer parks tend to use more plastic cups
    >and people that live in expensive homes usually uses glasses more.


    You're getting desparate now.

    Note that if you were hiking about, you'd be more likely to have plastic
    cups than glass ones.
    --
    Jason O'Rourke www.jor.com
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 22, 2003
    #5
  6. FOR7b

    Don Forsling Guest

    "Dana Laffit" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > That said, I'm very impressed with the durability of my Rebel 2000

    camera.
    > > It has survived hits that would have made big dents in a tin camera,

    >
    > Just curious as to what you do that this happens to your camera?
    >

    Obviously you haven't worked as a newspaper or wire sercvice press
    photographer in, say, Washington or in a war zone. But of course neither do
    many people toting cameras with bodies made of composites. There are some,
    however. I've been using a Nikon D100 lately and a newer Canon 10D-- both
    have pretty substantial bodies. That said, I've also used a Rebel Ti just
    for screwing around when I want something light on my shoulder. Believe me,
    the Rebl would survive the "drop to the sidewalk" test as well as the D100
    and the 10D. The latter two would probably have more dents and visible body
    damage. The real problem is that the shock of abuse is more likely to screw
    up the insides than the outsides regardless of whether the body is mostly
    composite or, say, titanium. It's often the shock that kills. In
    manufacturing, "cheaper" does NOT always equate with poorer performance.
    There are thousands of examples where cheaper manufacturing process have
    been developed that produced a superior, stronger product than the old
    methods. The construction industry is full of such examples.
    Thank you,

    Don Forsling
    Don Forsling, Aug 22, 2003
    #6
  7. FOR7b

    Jean Gupta Guest

    > > > It has survived hits that would have made big dents in a tin camera,
    > > Just curious as to what you do that this happens to your camera?
    > >

    > Obviously you haven't worked as a newspaper or wire sercvice press
    > photographer in, say, Washington or in a war zone.


    So, then is that what you do that this happens to your camera, or are you just
    trying to think of a rare situation where a camera might get some damage?

    Most of us are not going to enter war zones, let alone bring cameras into
    them. (Apologies for those living in countries not yet taken over by the US
    as you will be in war zones soon, but don't show your cameras or the US military
    will kill you like the other press that were trying to show the world what the
    US military is doing)

    > But of course neither do
    > many people toting cameras with bodies made of composites.


    > have pretty substantial bodies. That said, I've also used a Rebel Ti just
    > for screwing around when I want something light on my shoulder. Believe me,
    > the Rebl would survive the "drop to the sidewalk" test as well as the D100
    > and the 10D.


    Why would you drop your camera on the sidewalk? If this is a problem, then
    you can get straps that connect to the camera and you can put around your neck
    so when you let go of it, you have some sort of safety net.

    > damage. The real problem is that the shock of abuse is more likely to screw
    > up the insides than the outsides regardless of whether the body is mostly
    > composite or, say, titanium. It's often the shock that kills.


    I wouldn't know, I don't drop my cameras.

    > In manufacturing, "cheaper" does NOT always equate with poorer performance.


    In every case of every consumer item I have ever tested, compared, or repaired,
    I have found that those items made of cheaper materials ALWAYS had poorer
    performance 100% of the time.

    I end up fixing all of my friends and coworkers VCRs, Stereos, Phones, etc., yet
    never once have any of my VCRs, Stereos, etc. been on my repair bench because my
    stuff never breaks down. When I show my friends the difference between their
    items and mine from the outside, they can see that mine have better quality
    materials. Then when we open both up, they can see that cheap plastic on the
    outside means cheap plastic on the inside. Even someone with no electronics
    experience can quickly see the quality differences when looking at the inside of
    two VCRs.

    I have yet seen something that looks cheap on the outside have any better
    insides than something that had quality outsides. When it comes to consumer
    items like these, you actually CAN judge the book by it's cover.

    > There are thousands of examples where cheaper manufacturing process have
    > been developed that produced a superior, stronger product than the old
    > methods.


    Very very rare. You can take any product of a company now made and compare it
    to a similar item made a decade or two ago by them and the older one will be of
    far better and superior quality as far as craftsmanship and outer case
    designs. Even though electronics technology has gotten better, that doesn't
    always mean products are being made better with this technology. Most radios
    you buy today sound worse than those made years ago. As a matter of fact, the
    farther back you go, the better the sound in most cases. We can make better
    sounding radios now, but the idea is to make things cheaper and save money, so
    the quality goes down. You want a good sounding boom box? Don't look for
    one in a store, your best bet is to buy one from someone who got theirs 15 - 20
    years ago.

    With digital cameras, we have the image quality and resolution getting better,
    but the cases getting worse. But after we reach a peak, the image quality on
    lower consumer grade cameras will actually go back down again, just like with
    everything else. There will always be the expensive better quality cameras
    and radios, but the mainstream consumer products reach a peak and then start
    going downhill.

    Digital cameras are still a new thing. So first everyone tries to make a
    better one. Eventually they are all good enough for the average consumer, so
    then the companies go on a backwards race to make them cheaper and cheaper until
    they eventually take worse pictures than cameras that are years older. Not
    on the high SLR end, but on the entry level consumer end.

    History repeats itself. Companies are always trying to produce things for
    less cost every year.
    Jean Gupta, Aug 22, 2003
    #7
  8. FOR7b

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    So go out and buy a 1000 DSLR from someone else. Can't find one? Can't
    find one made out of metal? Keep looking, eventually Arsenal or some other
    ex-CCCP company will start putting a digital chip into one of those clunky
    copies of 50s German cameras they still have lying about.

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Dana Laffit" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin

    than
    > > anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in

    there.
    >
    > And the reason for the plastic skin is to cut costs in materials which,

    like it or
    > not, means a cut in quality. You can't have both.
    >
    > > Most are complaining with their hearts and not their heads. :)

    >
    > I prefer quality materials, you are free to buy plastic stuff. I like

    to
    > drink out of glasses instead of plastic cups too. Both deliver the

    liquid to
    > your mouth, but people that live in trailer parks tend to use more plastic

    cups
    > and people that live in expensive homes usually uses glasses more.
    >
    > > As for the airplanes, as I said in smaller ones the plastic bodies

    already
    > > exist

    >
    > You are confusing plastic with something entirely different. Show me

    the plane
    > made out of the same type of "plastic" used in these cheap cameras.
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 22, 2003
    #8
  9. FOR7b

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    No cheap enamel here -- ZINC!

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Andrey Tarasevich" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Dana Laffit wrote:
    > >> Usually the plastic that people are complaining about is more the skin

    than
    > >> anything else. Even in the very plastic cameras there is still metal in

    there.
    > >
    > > And the reason for the plastic skin is to cut costs in materials which,

    like it or
    > > not, means a cut in quality. You can't have both.

    >
    > Nonsense. The cost of the material itself doesn't make any significant
    > difference.
    >
    > >> Most are complaining with their hearts and not their heads. :)

    > >
    > > I prefer quality materials, you are free to buy plastic stuff.

    >
    > Great. But the problem is that your idea of 'quality' is seriously
    > distorted.
    >
    > > I like to drink out of glasses instead of plastic cups too.

    >
    > Glasses? Why not drink from enameled cast iron mugs? That's metal, not
    > some stupid fragile glass.
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > Andrey Tarasevich
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 22, 2003
    #9
  10. FOR7b

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Well the new Leica DSLR will have a film advance lever -- is that the
    kind of German craftsmanship you're looking for?

    --
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
    home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
    The Improved Links Pages are at
    http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
    New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
    "Ken Durf" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > So go out and buy a 1000 DSLR from someone else. Can't find one?

    Can't
    > > find one made out of metal? Keep looking, eventually Arsenal or some

    other
    > > ex-CCCP company will start putting a digital chip into one of those

    clunky
    > > copies of 50s German cameras they still have lying about.

    >
    > Now you got me drooling. That would be an excellent idea! I bet

    anyone
    > that would do this would make a fortune selling them. I'd buy one.
    > Good solid quality German engineering with a CCD in it to make it digital.
    > That would probably be the best quality camera you could get.
    >
    >
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 22, 2003
    #10
  11. "Tony Spadaro" <> wrote in message
    news:pns1b.8517$...
    > So go out and buy a 1000 DSLR from someone else. Can't find one? Can't
    > find one made out of metal? Keep looking, eventually Arsenal or some other
    > ex-CCCP company will start putting a digital chip into one of those clunky
    > copies of 50s German cameras they still have lying about.


    Someone already makes a Rolleiflex TLR knock off with a 1.3 MP sensor in
    it<g>. (Probably Japanese, though.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 23, 2003
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. A bit more than

    3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

    A bit more than, Aug 21, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    214
    Views:
    2,904
    Michael Meissner
    Sep 5, 2003
  2. FOR7b

    Re: 3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

    FOR7b, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    336
    Tony Spadaro
    Aug 24, 2003
  3. FOR7b

    Re: 3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

    FOR7b, Aug 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    305
    FOR7b
    Aug 24, 2003
  4. FOR7b

    Re: 3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

    FOR7b, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    964
    MarkH
    Aug 25, 2003
  5. FOR7b

    Re: 3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

    FOR7b, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    252
    Lisa Horton
    Aug 24, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page