Hi,
Paul S. said:
"the magnesium (which was hard anodized) seemed impervious"
Exactly my point. It was the anodising which was stopping the
Magnesium reacting not only with the fuel, but the general
atmosphere. Look at the same parts nowadays and they will be
too damaged for further use, especially in the case of load
bearing parts - motorcycle engines are my speciality.
To come back to camera bodies, my objections are: _very_ poor
corrosion resistance inherent in the material and, like most
(all?) non-ferrous metals, it has a finite resistance to fatigue
below the elastic limit.
Going even futher back; what do we consider durable? Your five
year old MZ-S has a bit of "brassing" on the body now. You
leave it in the cupboard for a few months for whatever reason.
How unhappy will you be when you get it out and find a hole
there? Not a likely scenario, but a possible one. I would be
_extremely_ unhappy. It is not my definition of durable. I get
just as cheesed off when I want to make some minor repair and
the plastic part crumbles.
Do you want a camera which will last twenty years? How much
would you pay for it? How about a modular one which could be
upgraded (now where have I seen that idea?) for a modest fee?
Or do you want new, new, new, gimmee it now? I find this a
fascinating area of consumer psychology, and have had numerous
examples of friends virtually giving away perfectly functioning
examples of things just because they want a new one. Most
strange......
mike
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
