How big a lens to flex a plastic body?

On Jul 2, 2:23 am, frederick wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

roups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects. The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?

I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy, inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the next two
weeks.

Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.

dwight

Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?" You had people wiping off the contacts, in many instances
no dirt was present and the camera was new. It is possible some kind
of body flexture problem produced the contact problem. Canon vaguely
attributed it in some cases to lens-body "mismatches" but it doesn't
explain why it would happen with a Canon lens on a Canon body, only an
aftermarket lens.

There's more than a few Error 99 problems being reported with 1dIII.
It's disgusting that Canon would use cheap plastic in a $5000 camera.

Be obtuse. You know error 99 can mean a whole slew of problems with
those cameras from "dirty contacts" to sensor failure.

"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jul 1, 3:07 pm, "Astigmatic Owl" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I

Never, ever, fly in a Boeing 787 if you are afraid of plastic. It has a
plastic body.

Owl

Unreinforced polycarbonate? I don't think so. In addition, like the
tail in the Airbus monster coming online, it is heavily reinforced
with massive carbon fibre ribs, much larger in thickness than
traditional aluminum airframe designs. The tail in the new Airbus is
something like 7 stories tall. I sure hope the glue holds...


It will be alright now that American pilots are trained not to use the full
rudder in flight.
When they did get trained to use the full rudder a couple of planes had
their tail ripped off.

(The main thing the pilots forget when under pressure is that the plane will
try to fly level if you release the controls so you shouldn't need to do
violent control changes unless you are trying to dodge missiles.)

RichA wrote:
On Jul 2, 2:23 am, frederick wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
ups.com...
Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects. The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?
I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy, inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the next two
weeks.
Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.
dwight
Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?" You had people wiping off the contacts, in many instances
no dirt was present and the camera was new. It is possible some kind
of body flexture problem produced the contact problem. Canon vaguely
attributed it in some cases to lens-body "mismatches" but it doesn't
explain why it would happen with a Canon lens on a Canon body, only an
aftermarket lens.
There's more than a few Error 99 problems being reported with 1dIII.
It's disgusting that Canon would use cheap plastic in a $5000 camera.

Be obtuse. You know error 99 can mean a whole slew of problems with
those cameras from "dirty contacts" to sensor failure.

You suggest that it could be because of plastic in the body, and I'm
being obtuse?

RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:07 pm, "Astigmatic Owl" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I
Never, ever, fly in a Boeing 787 if you are afraid of plastic. It has a
plastic body.

Owl

Unreinforced polycarbonate? I don't think so. In addition, like the
tail in the Airbus monster coming online, it is heavily reinforced
with massive carbon fibre ribs, much larger in thickness than
traditional aluminum airframe designs. The tail in the new Airbus is
something like 7 stories tall. I sure hope the glue holds...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...n/3493516.html

BODY Composite fibers--carbon graphite, held together by epoxy--
account for 50 percent of the overall fuselage, versus the 9 percent
in the 777, making the 787 lighter and stronger than aluminum-body
aircraft.

Technically Carbon Fibre like Fibreglas are both plastics.

RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

ups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects. The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?

I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy, inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the next two
weeks.

Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.

dwight

Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?"

"All the error 99 problems"? Did you count them all? How many were
there Rich, 3? You're such a dumbass.

Greg
--
http://ticketmastersucks.org

On Jul 2, 1:30 pm, "G.T." wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

roups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects. The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?

I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy, inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the next two
weeks.

Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.

dwight

Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?"

"All the error 99 problems"? Did you count them all? How many were
there Rich, 3? You're such a dumbass.

Greg
--http://ticketmastersucks.org

http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsu...&ErrorID=27235

Error Message:
Error 99
Translation:
This error message may be generated by several versions of Canon
digital cameras, including the 10D, 20D, and others. When this error
message appears, the camera stops working. While other Canon error
messages reference specific problems, the Error 99 code is less
precise and often indicates a problem with an undetermined source.

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 2, 1:30 pm, "G.T." wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

roups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects.
The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?

I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy,
inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the next
two
weeks.

Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.

dwight

Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?"

"All the error 99 problems"? Did you count them all? How many were
there Rich, 3? You're such a dumbass.


http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsu...&ErrorID=27235

Error Message:
Error 99
Translation:
This error message may be generated by several versions of Canon
digital cameras, including the 10D, 20D, and others. When this error
message appears, the camera stops working. While other Canon error
messages reference specific problems, the Error 99 code is less
precise and often indicates a problem with an undetermined source.

Funny, I don't see a count of all Canon cameras that have suffered from
error 99 problems. Do you have a count Rich?

Greg
--
"What have you got in that paper bag?
Is it a dose of Vitamin C?
Ain't got no time for Western medicine
I am Damo Suzuki" - Mark E Smith

"G.T." wrote in message
...

"RichA" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Jul 2, 1:30 pm, "G.T." wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 5:43 pm, "dwight" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

roups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think
it
was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects.
The
D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
effect focus on the sensor.
Oh, no! Oh me, oh my... Whatever shall I do?

I just ordered the 100-400mm lens for a test drive on my shoddy,
inferior,
plastic Rebel XT. No doubt, the camera will be destroyed over the
next two
weeks.

Damn. Wish I'd known about this before.

dwight

Remember all the error 99 problems that people attributed to "dirty
contacts?"

"All the error 99 problems"? Did you count them all? How many were
there Rich, 3? You're such a dumbass.


http://www.smartcomputing.com/techsu...&ErrorID=27235

Error Message:
Error 99
Translation:
This error message may be generated by several versions of Canon
digital cameras, including the 10D, 20D, and others. When this error
message appears, the camera stops working. While other Canon error
messages reference specific problems, the Error 99 code is less
precise and often indicates a problem with an undetermined source.

Funny, I don't see a count of all Canon cameras that have suffered from
error 99 problems. Do you have a count Rich?

Greg

Well, if we're going by anecdotal evidence, then the Error 99 code is a mere
possibility. I've never seen it.

dwight

On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 17:13:12 +1000, "Pete D" wrote:
:
: "RichA" wrote in message
: ups.com...
: Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
: for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
: using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I think it
: was the 80-400mm. The sales person asked if he was supporting the
: lens with his hand. He said he was but still felt that the body was
: being flexed slightly when he moved fast to shoot sports subjects. The
: D80 body appears to be about as robust as a plastic body is right
: now. Which make me wonder about the dynamics of longer heavy zooms
: used on lesser bodies than the D80. Obviously, given the speed and
: focal length of these lenses, it wouldn't take much misalignment to
: affect focus on the sensor.
:
: Maybe he was just mistaken, last time I looked most plastic bodies were just
: that and nothing more, stainless steel chassis with the plastic just there
: to cover the chassis.

If the plastic is fastened to the frame correctly, it should add to the
stiffness of the camera, not detract from it. The way you make a product
lighter and cheaper is to have as much of it as possible contribute to the
structural integrity of the whole. This is notably true with automobiles and
airplanes, but it applies to any object that has to withstand mechanical
stress.

Bob

On Jul 2, 12:23 pm, Spam THis dev/null wrote:
RichA wrote:
On Jul 1, 3:07 pm, "Astigmatic Owl" wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message

roups.com...

Someone came into a camera store the other day and traded in his D80
for a D200. He said he did it because the large zoom (heavy) he was
using was flexing the body outward slightly at the mount. I
Never, ever, fly in a Boeing 787 if you are afraid of plastic. It has a
plastic body.

Owl

Unreinforced polycarbonate? I don't think so. In addition, like the
tail in the Airbus monster coming online, it is heavily reinforced
with massive carbon fibre ribs, much larger in thickness than
traditional aluminum airframe designs. The tail in the new Airbus is
something like 7 stories tall. I sure hope the glue holds...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...n/3493516.html

BODY Composite fibers--carbon graphite, held together by epoxy--
account for 50 percent of the overall fuselage, versus the 9 percent
in the 777, making the 787 lighter and stronger than aluminum-body
aircraft.

Technically Carbon Fibre like Fibreglas are both plastics.

And titanium is a metal just like lead but they are hardly alike.