On Sun, 12 Oct 2003, Cotty wrote: > On 12/10/03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged: > > >> The Rebel may have a plastic chassis but the 10D (and D30/60) do not. > > > >The Rebel D apparently has a stainless steel frame holding the sensor and > >lens mount in registration. > >At least thats what I've been told. > >The rest of it is pure plastic crap though. > > And hence an area that saves money. The thing is, build quality on > everything these days is getting worse. You look at anything from > toasters to cars. The amount of plastic is appalling. We're being > 'plastic groomed'. So most conusmers will pick up a 300D and think, 'Hey > this isn't that bad'. Picking up the *ist D or 10D/D100 and they'd notice > the difference. D1x/h / 1Ds / DC14thingywossname n and they'd notice the > difference big time.
I'm convinced that most consumers couldn't pick up a D1H/1D because it's so damned heavy. I bought a ZX-M a while back which was the first modern consumer-level camera I'd experienced. Took me a while to believe it was even there because I'm used to the weight of pro cameras. > > ...and an LX and they'd faint at the quality! Plus you can actually lift the LX, unlike a Canon F1 or Nikon F3. As to build quality getting worse: Not quite. The AVERAGE build quality is getting worse as the price gets lower. You can still get old-fashioned quality if you are willing to pay for it. Realistically the run-of-the-mill prices are getting LOWER, making us forget what things used to cost when they were all well-built because they hadn't figured out to build them cheaply. Consider that an entry-level SLR costs $250 these days, whereas when I was a kid they cost more and the dollars were worth more. The camera companies have realized that most people just don't use their cameras very much, and often replace them every so often anyway. If your "average" SLR user is paying $250-300 for a camera and using it a couple times a year why build it to endure heavy use, especially given that the replacement cost isn't that much? Cameras are getting almost disposable in that the repair cost is a good fraction of the replacement cost. Ironically many used SLRs are "totalled" as they sit in that the cost of a CLA exceeds the purchase price of the camera. Cameras made for pros, who use their cameras very hard, are probably better built than they used to be, and consequently heavier and more expensive. For all the Nikon users who are whining that "the AF lenses aren't built as well as the MF lenses" (sound familiar?) I can say that the pro AF lenses are BETTER built than their manual-focus predecessors. My MF Nikkors are constantly giving me trouble mechanically. The change is that the difference in construction between the pro stuff and the amateur stuff is much greater now that it used to be. The difference in price and weight means that few amateurs buy pro gear and don't see how much better built it is. The camera companies are probably correct that for the average amateur photographer the pro stuff is not worth the cost and weight. DJE
