Alan Chan wrote: > > Perhaps from the engineer's point of view, a crack is better than a dent > which might damage the inner elements. Besides, few cameras and lenses are > sealed so moisture might not be a problem.
A dent that can be demonstrated to not affect function is a non-serious problem. A crack of any kind can propogate, and become larger and longer. At some point, if it's long enough it MAY affect function. But then, it depends on where the crack is, as to whether it has the potential to become serious. Some don't and some won't. So, a dent as described above is far and away the safer damage of the two. keith whaley > regards, > Alan Chan > > >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.
