They "myth" of the "composite bodied" DSLR

Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

Rich wrote:
Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water.

Or that idiot trolls have a clue about how cameeras should be made.

Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

Neither is polycarbonate a cheap plastic, but you're an idiot troll
who doesn't realize that.

--
Ray Fischer

"Ray Fischer" wrote in message
...
Rich wrote:
Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water.

Or that idiot trolls have a clue about how cameeras should be made.

And what do you think of yourself, Ray, and your inability resist the trolls
bait?

In article , Rich
wrote:

Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

How many times have you been told to go **** yourself?

Rich wrote:
(Ray Fischer) wrote:
Rich wrote:
Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water.

Or that idiot trolls have a clue about how cameeras should be made.

*Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. *High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

Neither is polycarbonate a cheap plastic, but you're an idiot troll
who doesn't realize that.

About $0.80 to $3.00 per pound.

Which makes it more expensive than aluminum, much more expensive
than steel, and comparable to magnesium.

Do you ever tire of being dead wrong?

Do you ever tire of being a stupid bigot?

--
Ray Fischer

"Mr. Strat" wrote in message
...
In article , Rich
wrote:

Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their
construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS
from
old CDs.

How many times have you been told to go **** yourself?

Using a plastic dildo? ;)

Rich wrote:

Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

I've asked before, but missed your answer. Have you ever taken a materials
course? Structures? Any engineering? Ever designed anything? -- Doug

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:28:23 -0500, Rich wrote:
: Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
: wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their construction
: is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
: multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
: fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
: old CDs.

Frankly, Rich, none of us think you know any more about plasticurgy than you
do about metsllurgy.

But we're REALLY looking forward to seeing your pictures ih this month's
Shoot-In! This rumor that you're actually a fine photographer who's been
holding out on us has started to take hold. We can hardly wait to see some
important samples of your work.

Bob

On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:28:23 -0500, Rich wrote:

Don't for two seconds think that silly comparisons between F-22 fighter
wings and cheap plastic consumer DSLRs hold any water. Their construction
is no more similar than polycarbonate is to metal. High-pressure formed
multilayer epoxy (that costs $15,000 a gallon) over carefully laid-down
fibre matrixes is not the same as melted and cast polycarbonate SCRAPS from
old CDs.

Hey Rich... not that I have anything against magnesium bodies or anything, but
did you ever try to BREAK a CD? They are un-breakable, and after being bent in
half (if you're strong enough) they just bend back. Try that with a cast metal
camera body... And don't drop it either...

Given the choice, I'd take the plastic.