On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Rob Brigham wrote: > While I suspect that Brad's comment was pure speculation, I am certain > you are wrong that weight is the only advantage to plasics. I thought > impact absorbtion was better for one. When plastic is deformed > slightly it is more likely to return to its original shape than metal.
Possibly, but it's also more likely to crack. So many examples... I've seen so many K-series bodies with dents on the top plate from being dropped that still worked perfectly. I bought a Super Program off eBay once that had a cracked top plate. It didn't dent, just cracked. For digital, I'm currently using an old Canon S10, which has a metal body. It used to be my Canon rep's demo camera, and its edges are covered in many small dents, none of which affect its performance, only its aesthetics. Now there's no way to say for sure, but I suspect that some those blows would have been strong enough to crack a plastic housing, and once you get the smallest crack the whole integrity of the camera is threatened, as moisture and dust can get in. I'm not a structural or a materials engineer, so I'm speaking from a somewhat ignorant perspective, but based on my experience I'd rather have metal than plastic. > Yeah, unless you gott carry it a long way. I see Brad has remembered > my example and reused it. He is right - it is a good example of how > moder lightweight materials are much better than metal. Carbon fibre > is also more similar to wood in terms of vibration absorbsion which > metal tripods just transmit to the camera. No argument here. chris
