Re: Why polycarbonate is so attractive for cameras

Kibo informs me that Rich <none@xxxxxxxx> stated that:

>On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:00:02 -0800, "G.T." <getnews1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote:
>
>>RichA wrote:
>>> It's strong, but even more than that, it's dirt-cheap, especially
>>> compared to the
>>> cost, machining of any metal. It's almost as cheap as the plastic used
>>> to make things like
>>> water bottles, Tupperware, etc.
>>>
>>> Look down the list on the left, near the bottom;
>>>
>>> http://www.plasticstechnology.com/dp/pt/resins.cfm
>>>
>>
>>What's your point? That cheap equals poor quality? No, it equals good
>>value in this case. You're a fucking broken record.
>>
>>Greg
>
>My point is what it has always been; That camera makers only adopted
>plastic for one reason, because it is cheap compared to metal.

As well as being cheaper, it's also easier to shape, copes better with
knocks, doesn't 'bronze', doesn't suffer from metal-fatigue, & is
lighter. Designing cases & frames for any device is a complex web of
tradeoffs, & the cost of one of the myriad of materials involved is only
one of them.

>Which is why higher-end DSLRs will never (barring any radical changes
>in the price of common metals) be made of plastic which will be
>forever confined to the low end of the market.

Also because because idiots like you think that "plastic = cheap", which
results in high-end cameras that are heavier than they actually need to
be. It's worth mentioning that your brand of 'logic' looks even stupider
when evaluating bulletproof vests.

--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

.