3 reasons NOT to buy the 300D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by A bit more than, Aug 21, 2003.

  1. A bit more than

    Charlie Self Guest

    Jason O'Rourke responds:
    Sorry, but the application is damned near identical. The inner lining of the
    helmet is designed as a crumple zone. The exterior is supposed to be "crumple"
    proof, which is one of the reasons testing is done for penetration strength, as
    well as cracking.

    Charlie Self

    "I love California, I practically grew up in Phoenix."
    Dan Quayle
     
    Charlie Self, Aug 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. A bit more than

    Bryan Olson Guest

    No, they're worth money because some collectors want the few
    that are around. They appear durable and reliable because
    people bother fixing them when they'd just replace a modern
    unit.
    Actually what happens is that engineers use failure data to
    determine what parts are critical, then they optimize
    expenditures to yield the greatest benefit. Manufactured items
    are more reliable today than ever before, including cameras and
    VCR's.
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 23, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. A bit more than

    Bryan Olson Guest

    Let's see ... [calculate] ... that's about a 2% a year.

    Only a few quality items go back up; most of those end up in
    landfills too. Digital cameras depreciate fast. The value of a
    10D is headed one way, and it will take that expensive
    magnesium body with it.
     
    Bryan Olson, Aug 23, 2003
  4. Do you intend to replace the camera body every time you drop it?

    Otherwise, the applications are not at all the same.
     
    Jason O'Rourke, Aug 23, 2003
  5. A bit more than

    RDKirk Guest

    Eh? I don't know what that FAA rep may have been talking about, but are
    you saying there was not a Japanese 747 that lost it's tail and crashed?
    That was rather a dramatic, well-reported incident. The pilots were
    able to jockey engine speed to keep the plane in the air for 45 minutes
    until it finally struck a mountain. The recovered effects of the
    passengers included the photos and notes they took in those final
    minutes, knowing they were doomed.


    --
    "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
    or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
    is not only unpatriotic and servile,
    but is morally treasonable to the American public."

    Theodore Roosevelt
     
    RDKirk, Aug 24, 2003
  6. Hardly a tirade, but the plastic does break. About 10 years ago I led the
    development of a transport patient monitor, and the housing was die cast Al
    alloy. The tooling was very expensive, about $350K, but the parts were very
    inexpensive and the design rules called for 0.070in wall thickness. Thousands
    were sold and about a hundred were dropped and never a single housing was
    cracked. Usually damage was to the EL display, but seldom was a PC board damaged
    or were batteries ( 4 lbs. of them ) launched. Three years ago we redesigned the
    monitor around a color LCD display. This time I went with injection molded
    polycarbonate since tooling was "only" $150K. The wall thickness is 0.20in and
    the case weighs about the same as the Al case. To date we have shipped just over
    1K monitors and about a dozen have come back for repair from dropping. Every one
    has had damage to the case and internal damage to the PC board from other parts
    breaking loose, usually the batteries. What often happens is that the molded in
    standoff's holding various components break. This never once happened with die
    cast Al.

    I think the trend has been to die cast Magnesium because great strength can be
    achieved with very thin walls, about 1/4 the thickness of Polycarb. I really
    doubt that Canon or anyone else has gone die cast simply to appease some
    marketing theory. It just plain makes for a better product.

    I think we both have dropped our share of cameras, and I have never broken one
    of my metal bodies. Check out:

    http://members.cox.net/mark.tuccillo/Temp/Nikon_F_0.jpg

    This was dropped from out of a tree from about 10' onto some rocks over 20 years
    ago. The finder took the brunt of the fall and bent the housing, and there are
    two other good sized dents, but the camera still work fine today. Anyway, it is
    clear that manufacturers are using plastic only in the low end stuff that is not
    expected to see severe use. Otherwise the EOS 1 series and the D1 series would
    be polycarb.

    Mark
     
    Mark Tuccillo, Aug 24, 2003
  7. A bit more than

    Mark M Guest

    Yes. I brought that up (and Lisa commented too) out of fairness to the
    plastic vs. metal argument, even though she and I both recognise that
    plastics are well-implemented. It should also be noted, on the third hand,
    that there are no plans to reverse the trend toward the use of plastics in
    aviation--and for good reason.

    Mark M
     
    Mark M, Aug 24, 2003
  8. A bit more than

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    Plastic breaks metal breaks - life breaks. But plastic is obviously a
    superior material for camera bodies. Metal is better in very thin shells --
    like tubing and such, but where plastic can be used at thicknesses where it
    is strong enough to resist cracking it is also resliiant enough to bounce
    rather than dent. You are attempting to have something the size and weight
    of a television in a thin plastic case - 40 --50 lbs being handled through
    corridors etc. A Rebel weighs under a pound. The 19 inch monitor on my desk
    right now is in a plastic case. I have no doubt it would be destroyed by a
    drop to the floor. Were it in a metal case the same thing would be true -
    only it would be so heavy I would have to have a 15 inch monitor in order to
    get it up on the desk in the first place.
    Now don't tell me I'm going to have to look up those sites I did last
    time. You know the ones, showing plastic components that would be impossible
    to make strong enough if metal had to be used. And the plastic airplane
    windows etc.


    --
    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.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 24, 2003
  9. A bit more than

    Tony Spadaro Guest

    So what brand of airplane was it that went down because a metal universal
    joint in the tail went? I think that was Alaska Airlines and this rather
    large metal screw had managed to corkscrew itself - killing all aboard.


    --
    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.
     
    Tony Spadaro, Aug 24, 2003
  10. A bit more than

    FOR7b Guest

    Hardly a tirade, but the plastic does break. About 10 years ago I led the

    Did you consider redesigning the standoffs? To merely compare something that
    appears to have been the same design but with different materials is to avoid
    taking into consideration the different handling and durability characteristics
    of each material. That of course would then affect the design of individual
    parts.



    I disagree since before the point and shoot digicams came around most 35mm
    point and shoots were successfully sold as all plastic. Why the change would be
    a good question to ask the manufacturers. A better question would be is it
    necessary since many cheaper point and shoot digicams are still plastic.

    As I had pointed out to someone earlier you are failing to recognize that the
    overall designs are also different in those lower models. They are much smaller
    and less materials overall are used in construction. It isn't a matter of
    plastic being used, it is a matter of overall design. The way metal or plastic
    is implemented into a sound design is what will determince whether a product is
    strong enough or not. Your plastic standoffs were a good example. Maybe with a
    different design suited to the plastic being used you would not have had such a
    failure rate. It certainly isn't clear that manufacturers use metal in the EOS1
    and D1 series of cams because they are expected to see "severe use." People
    that buy those cameras have been conditioned to think metal is the only
    material that will provide the necessary ruggedness they need. I'd be much more
    inclined to use that as the reason for continued emphasis on metal construction
    in those classes of camera.


     
    FOR7b, Aug 24, 2003
  11. A bit more than

    FOR7b Guest

    Plastic breaks metal breaks - life breaks. But plastic is obviously a
    Yep, they are merely housings and were never meant to absorb an impact like a
    fall. My Samsung monitor would probably go through the floor. :)


     
    FOR7b, Aug 24, 2003
  12. A bit more than

    Mark M Guest

    But...but...but...you mean it wasn't a PLASTIC screw??
    Surely metal ANYTHING wouldn't fail.
     
    Mark M, Aug 24, 2003
  13. A bit more than

    Mike C Guest

    The Sony camera uses proprietory DC plug, which you cannot purchase from
    ordinary electronic store, you would have to buy the Sony's charger just to
    have the DC plug, added with the cost of the Sony proprietory charger, your
    product's cost price will no longer be competitive.

    Actually, lion batteries from 3rd party cell phone batteries are not too
    expensive than AA (I can get a set of 3 ion cells/3.6v for under $7.50), one
    could easily open up the plastic case and took out these ion cells to
    replace the worn up lion cells in the Sony battery case, this way the cost
    of ion cell is not too high than AA. In reality, you probably will not need
    to replace the Sony battery, including the spare unit/s until approx. 6 yrs
    later, after which they no longer could hold sufficient charge.

    Of course, if Sony uses AA, then none of these problems exist, but since ion
    batteries last a long time, and with the available cost-saving solution, the
    problem with the Sony proprietory battery is really insignificant, for the
    Sony proprietory battery issue is insufficient factor to be an arbitor of
    camera choice, other features & performance of the camera are more
    significant, for it is features & performance that will accompanied the sony
    camera owner & bother him during the first 6 years or so, not the Sony
    proprietory battery (the same goes for MS memory format), and in the
    meantime the sony camera owner got to enjoy the advantage of
    up-to-the-minute detail of battery status.
     
    Mike C, Aug 24, 2003
  14. A bit more than

    Nils Rostedt Guest

    Information of that accident can be found at
    http://aviation-safety.net/database/1985/850812-1.htm .

    "PROBABLE CAUSE: "Deterioration of flight characteristics and loss of
    primary flight controls due to rupture of the aft pressure bulkhead with
    subsequent ruptures of the tail, vertical fin and hydraulic flight control
    systems. The reason for the aft pressure bulkhead rupture was that its
    strength was reduced by the fatigue cracks propagating in the spliced
    portion of the bulkhead's webs. The initiation and propagation of the
    fatigue cracks are attributable to the improper repairs of the bulkhead..."

    This is of some interest, as it would probably be quite feasible to design
    this pressure bulkhead out of composite materials (i.e. plastics) rather
    than aluminum.

    / Nils
     
    Nils Rostedt, Aug 24, 2003
  15. A bit more than

    Mark M Guest

    This is consistent with my information that the 300 was the only crash
    initially caused y tail failure. According to this report, it is confirmed
    that it was not tail that caused the problem...rather the bulkhead...leading
    to tail (and other failures).
    Thanks for the link.
    It appears the FAA guy I referred to was correct.
     
    Mark M, Aug 24, 2003
  16. A bit more than

    FOR7b Guest

    This is of some interest, as it would probably be quite feasible to design
    Sacrilege!! ;)


     
    FOR7b, Aug 24, 2003
  17. As I stated before, it allows for a much thinner case at an equivalent strength.
    I think you are completely wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion. I own an
    F100 and I can tell you that it is tough as nails. It has taken quite a few knocks
    and is still flawlwss in operation and dentless. I doubt that the pros are
    conditioned to anything except to what actually works. In fact, if plastic ment the
    same toughness at lighter weight, they would flock to it. IMHO, they cannot achieve
    the same strength without larger thicher housings that would weigh the same if not
    more. The designers are not stupid.
     
    Mark Tuccillo, Aug 24, 2003
  18. A bit more than

    Lisa Horton Guest

    You are correct, Mark. But as others have pointed out, that tail
    section had been subjected to abnormal stresses shortly before the
    failure, so that it seems less a failure of the material than perhaps
    other factors.

    I think though, that in our partisan defending, we may be loosing sight
    of some pertinent facts.

    Plastic can be good, or not.
    Metal can be good, or not.

    The quality of the implementation may be more important than the
    selection of the material.

    And now for the requisite personal anecdote :)

    I've been buying VCR's since the mid '80's. At first, they had metal
    chassis and were fairly heavy. My first one did, and it failed after
    less than 5 years. My second one, a rather expensive at the time
    Toshiba, was very heavy, and failed at around 5 years. Both times
    however, it was motors that failed.

    My second to most recent VCR clearly had a chassis that was at least
    mostly plastic. It's going on 7 years of heavy use, without failing.
    At least one motor however, does not sound healthy. My current VCR has
    a completely plastic chassis. AAIR, the chassis and bottom panel are
    one and the same part. It is VERY light, but it has not yet reached 5
    years of service. Side note on VCR's, if you don't like to watch
    commercials, check out Panasonic VCR's with commercial skip technology.
    The last remaining video recording devices you can buy with this
    technology, maybe Panasonic is too big even for the RIAA to take on :)

    So what value does this VCR story have in the context of plastic and
    metal cameras? Not a thing! The chassis material appears to be largely
    irrelevant, as it's not the chassis that fails.

    Or maybe it does tell us something: That it's not the chassis that
    fails in cameras either, it's delicate parts inside. Maybe it tells us
    that there are other factors besides the chassis material that are more
    important to ruggedness and durability. Or maybe not.

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Aug 24, 2003
  19. A bit more than

    Lisa Horton Guest

    To relate the message of the VCR anecdote in a more concise way... :)

    I've watched the VCR's I buy go from being mostly metal to almost
    completely plastic in construction. At the same time, I've seen them
    take longer and longer to fail, they last longer and longer. The
    meaning is this: The motors got better.

    Lisa :)
     
    Lisa Horton, Aug 24, 2003
  20. A bit more than

    FOR7b Guest

    A better question would be is it
    For what though since there were tiny cameras before the digicam point and
    shoots came around?


    Neither are the marketers who are the ones that ultimately decide whether a
    particular design will sell and whether it should be approved. To leave
    marketing of a product to the engineers would be reckless. :)





     
    FOR7b, Aug 25, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.