Sony's a7, most expensive plastic-bodied camera yet

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:55:57 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: $1700 and it's plastic!! I can't figure out why either. Even their mid-level,
: $700 NEX cameras had/have metal bodies. There are other weird differences
: between it and the a7R such as focusing and lack of sensor cleaning and the
: AA filters. In addition, they dropped the "NEX" nomenclature in order to go
: with the far less interesting "a" designation.

You're fighting a losing battle against plastic, Rich. I assume you're aware
that you can now fly across the Pacific Ocean in a plastic airplane.

And just to satisfy my curiosity, in what way was the "NEX" designation
interesting?

Bob

Le 17/02/14 06:28, Robert Coe a écrit :
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:55:57 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: $1700 and it's plastic!! I can't figure out why either. Even their mid-level,
: $700 NEX cameras had/have metal bodies. There are other weird differences
: between it and the a7R such as focusing and lack of sensor cleaning and the
: AA filters. In addition, they dropped the "NEX" nomenclature in order to go
: with the far less interesting "a" designation.

You're fighting a losing battle against plastic, Rich. I assume you're aware
that you can now fly across the Pacific Ocean in a plastic airplane.

I assume the engines and engines cases are not made of plastic .
Metal has an interesting property ovec plastic : it conduct the heat.
I was recently able to record 70 minutes of video -continuous with just
small stops to record in maneageable files- with a NEX5.
At the end it was quite warm, but nothing harmfull.
Of course I used a power cord.
If it was not for the ****ty user-interface, anemic batteries and
anorexic body I would like this little thing a lot.
The video quality was better than the quality of a high end consumer
camcorder a few years old (trying to record the whole event, I had both
of them side by side on tripods).

Noëlle Adam

In article ,
says...

Le 17/02/14 06:28, Robert Coe a écrit :
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:55:57 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: $1700 and it's plastic!! I can't figure out why either. Even their mid-level,
: $700 NEX cameras had/have metal bodies. There are other weird differences
: between it and the a7R such as focusing and lack of sensor cleaning and the
: AA filters. In addition, they dropped the "NEX" nomenclature in order to go
: with the far less interesting "a" designation.

You're fighting a losing battle against plastic, Rich. I assume you're aware
that you can now fly across the Pacific Ocean in a plastic airplane.

I assume the engines and engines cases are not made of plastic .

It depends on the part of the engine. Fan and compressor blades are
often plastic in modern engines. Turbine blades not so much. The hot-
section stators are often ceramic and GE is trying ceramic blades in the
first-stage turbine on the F414.

Metal has an interesting property ovec plastic : it conduct the heat.

It has another interesting property. Above a certain temperature it
melts. Turbine blades already require active cooling to avoid this.
Ceramics are capable of higher operating temperatures than metals.
Since turbine inlet temperature is one of the controlling factors
governing the efficiency of gas turbine engines and since modern jet
engines operate near the limit of what the best metals can withstand,
there is a need for higher-temperature materials.

I was recently able to record 70 minutes of video -continuous with just
small stops to record in maneageable files- with a NEX5.
At the end it was quite warm, but nothing harmfull.
Of course I used a power cord.
If it was not for the ****ty user-interface, anemic batteries and
anorexic body I would like this little thing a lot.
The video quality was better than the quality of a high end consumer
camcorder a few years old (trying to record the whole event, I had both
of them side by side on tripods).

Noëlle Adam

On 18/02/2014 9:54 a.m., RichA wrote:
On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:28:42 AM UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:55:57 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:

: $1700 and it's plastic!! I can't figure out why either. Even their mid-level,

: $700 NEX cameras had/have metal bodies. There are other weird differences

: between it and the a7R such as focusing and lack of sensor cleaning and the

: AA filters. In addition, they dropped the "NEX" nomenclature in order to go

: with the far less interesting "a" designation.



You're fighting a losing battle against plastic, Rich. I assume you're aware

that you can now fly across the Pacific Ocean in a plastic airplane.



And just to satisfy my curiosity, in what way was the "NEX" designation

interesting?



Bob

Because it was different, not the usual boring letter-number classification.

So you know what nex means in latin?
I think the was probably a secret joke, suggested by the last person
there who had a clue about photography, an ex-minolta employee, as a
parting gift.

In article , RichA wrote:

On Monday, February 17, 2014 12:28:42 AM UTC-5, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 19:55:57 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:

: $1700 and it's plastic!! I can't figure out why either. Even their mid-level,

: $700 NEX cameras had/have metal bodies. There are other weird differences

: between it and the a7R such as focusing and lack of sensor cleaning and the

: AA filters. In addition, they dropped the "NEX" nomenclature in order to go

: with the far less interesting "a" designation.



You're fighting a losing battle against plastic, Rich. I assume you're aware

that you can now fly across the Pacific Ocean in a plastic airplane.



And just to satisfy my curiosity, in what way was the "NEX" designation

interesting?



Bob

Because it was different, not the usual boring letter-number classification.

"NEX 5" isn't a "letter-number" classification? I suppose in the same way
the Nikon D800E isn't a "letter-number" classification...

--
Sandman[.net]