The stink of plastic

On 29 Aug 2005 11:10:01 -0700, "
wrote:

RichA blathers:

I don't...But it's up to you to prove, because you're the one making the
allegation.

It depends to on how the camera body is designed.

No, it depends on _you_ conducting the test.

The Canon in question seemed to have been designed like a race car, to
channel impact energy across the body, saving the occupants inside.

The camera was a total loss. It would almost certainly have been a
total loss had it been made of metal, plastic, or even popsicle sticks.

Your complaints started out as stupid, but are now just plain idiotic
to the extreme. You are so upset because the lowest-of-the-low lenses
at Canon are slightly worse that the junk-lenses at Nikon. Oh, the
horror of it all! Now you kvetch that when you drop a camera 30m, it,
like, BREAKS, and maybe a metal camera would break ever so less,
therefore "plastic stinks".

Basically, you are a FUDster. A rather dumb one, it would appear, but
still a FUDster.

As far as the lenses are concerned, Olympus's "low end" 40-150 zoom
basically wasted the competition from all commers in a recent test
and Nikon's ED kit zooms are much better than Canon's non-ED zoom.
Now I'm seeing Canon's WA lenses are nothing much either, "L" series
or not. As witnessed by one of the sample images from the D5 images
on dpreview.com. This say alot.
As for the post about the plastic Canon disintingrating on impact,
you could be right or wrong about your conclusions as to what kind
of damage a body can take. What I DO know is I once dropped an all
metal Olympus OM-1 from 10 feet onto concrete and it ended up with
a ding in the prism housing, which didn't displace the prism and had
no effect on the camera's performance. Try it with a D-Rebel and see
if you don't crack the body, which would basically ruin the camera.
No cheating by landing the camera on it's lens though.
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

In message , RichA
writes
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 23:19:17 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:

RichA wrote:
On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:43:40 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
wrote:


RichA wrote:

No wonder I hate it so much.

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941

Take all the plastic out of your day to day life and then tell us how
much you hate it.


Oh I realize how it's made things cheap enough for
most people to afford, but some things could be made
of metal instead (like camera bodies). However, I wouldn't
expect my 19" $700 monitor to have a stainless steel or magnesium
chassis.

Any DSLR has a good bit of plastic in it. I don't understand what there
is to "hate" about it. Actually I bet the P&S cameras are more metal as
a total percentage than a DSLR.

Depends on the P&S and the DSLR. My C8080 is mostly metal. Things
that are not are the battery door, the connection covers, and the
popup flash. The rest is magnesium and aluminum. I think most DSLRs
have metal chassis, if not metal outer coverings.
-Rich

I was walking on Dartmoor this afternoon with the very plastic 350D with
a 17-40 lens on a strap over my shoulder. I slipped and fell. The
camera swung round on the strap and hit a granite boulder with what
sounded like a very expensive crunch. Whilst my leg and arm were
receiving some attention I checked the camera. It had struck the rock
at the corner between the base and the a/v sockets and also at the lens
hood. Apart from a couple of marks in the plastic there is nothing
wrong with it. A metal casing would probably fared just as well but it
appears that plastic will stand up to a fair bit of mistreatment.
--
Robert

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:49:25 GMT, "Pete D" wrote:


"dylan" wrote in message
...

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Skip M wrote:
"RichA" wrote in message
...
No wonder I hate it so much.

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories
onto concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...

"Stories" do not equal "feet".

C'mon; someone keeps reminding us this is a "technical forum".

Joke-ish.

90ft = approx 9 stories
or
10* Stories = feet

As long as Rich is still holding onto the camera I am pretty sure everyone
will be happy with the result.


Only a rabid Canon supporter would go "down with the camera."
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

RichA wrote:

No, it depends on _you_ conducting the test.

The Canon in question seemed to have been designed like a race car, to
channel impact energy across the body, saving the occupants inside.

The camera was a total loss. It would almost certainly have been a
total loss had it been made of metal, plastic, or even popsicle sticks.

Your complaints started out as stupid, but are now just plain idiotic
to the extreme. You are so upset because the lowest-of-the-low lenses
at Canon are slightly worse that the junk-lenses at Nikon. Oh, the
horror of it all! Now you kvetch that when you drop a camera 30m, it,
like, BREAKS, and maybe a metal camera would break ever so less,
therefore "plastic stinks".

Basically, you are a FUDster. A rather dumb one, it would appear, but
still a FUDster.

As far as the lenses are concerned, Olympus's "low end" 40-150 zoom
basically wasted the competition from all commers in a recent test
and Nikon's ED kit zooms are much better than Canon's non-ED zoom.
Now I'm seeing Canon's WA lenses are nothing much either, "L" series
or not. As witnessed by one of the sample images from the D5 images
on dpreview.com. This say alot.

Canon wide-angle performance problems have been known for a _long_
time. Where have you been? Right: comparing the smell of brand X
dog**** to brand Y dog****. I would ask "why", but I am not
particularly interested in your scatological fascinations...

As for the post about the plastic Canon disintingrating on impact,
you could be right or wrong about your conclusions as to what kind
of damage a body can take. What I DO know is I once dropped an all
metal Olympus OM-1 from 10 feet onto concrete and it ended up with
a ding in the prism housing, which didn't displace the prism and had
no effect on the camera's performance.

Documentary evidence of this claim is ... where?

Try it with a D-Rebel and see
if you don't crack the body, which would basically ruin the camera.

Why should I try anything? You are the one making the (idiot) claims.
Go ahead, take your "OM-1" and drop it from 90 feet and get back to us
with the result.

No cheating by landing the camera on it's lens though.

Why don't you try thinking instead of acting as a particularly dumb
FUDster? It is fun, and in fact, it is easier.

In message ,
"Darrell" wrote:

hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size

What about 10' of solid plastic, vs 10' of steel wool?
--


John P Sheehy

In article ,
says...
In message ,
"Darrell" wrote:

hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size

What about 10' of solid plastic, vs 10' of steel wool?

What about 10' of hot chicks versus 10' of chicks?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 04:14:38 -0400, RichA wrote:

No wonder I hate it so much.

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"


Flesh appears to have some drawbacks as well:

http://www.latimes.com/travel/outdoo...ck=1&cset=true

Hiker dies posing for photo at Yosemite
Joe Robinson
IT'S the hard-won payoff for a vertical Sierra hike: a
stomach-dropping overlook from a cliff-side perch, captured for
posterity with a photo. But a snapshot with too much of an edge can
turn fatal, as it did last week for an Irish student who fell to his
death from Upper Yosemite Fall.

Dublin resident Shane Kinsella, 21, who had hiked to the top of
Yosemite National Park's famed waterfall with friends, was posing for
a picture at the edge of the falls when he slipped and fell 1,430 feet
over the precipice. His body was recovered in a pool at the base of
the falls.

"RichA" wrote in message
...

snip

10* Stories = feet

I thought ten stories equaled an anthology.

In article ,
wrote:

In message ,
"Darrell" wrote:

hmmmm, if you fell off of a 9 story building would you want to land on 10'
of plastic peanuts, or 10' of metal bolts of similar size

What about 10' of solid plastic, vs 10' of steel wool?

Steel wool?! Ow!!!

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 05:19:13 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
.. .
No wonder I hate it so much.

http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47959941


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

Tell you what, Rich, drop your camera, what ever it is, nine stories onto
concrete or rocks, and then post a photo of the result...

Not a good test. A camera could fall many different ways and end up
in many different "shapes" after the fall. But I doubt it would
"explode."
-Rich


"Bittorrents are REFUNDS for all the BAD movie products Hollywood
never gave us refunds for in the past"

Drop it in a minefield?