DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

In defense of plastic

blumesan

Well-Known Member
In defense of plastic.

I am climbing on my soapbox today with the sole aim of starting a debate on the merits and disadvantages of using modern synthetic materials in the construction of camera bodies and lens barrels. In several threads in this forum (not least in those dealing with the Aria body) the word "plastic" is invariably used as a pejoritive. Most frequently it is associated with the adjectives "cheap", "flimsy" or "inferior". Yet, and this is what puzzels me, I am not aware of a single posting which describes the failiure of a plastic component in a situation where one made of metal would have likely survived.

Let me state right here that I am not an expert on materials or photo equipment construction. Nevertheless common sense tells me that should you drop a camera or a lens, or otherwise subject them to sudden impact, the delicate internal components are much more likely to sustain substantial damage long before any significant damage is done to the housing. This is quite comparable to the situation in which one can sustain severe damage to the brain (concussion) without any significant damage to the container which houses the brain, the skull.

The first camera bodies were made of wood, as were my first pair of skis and my first tennis racket. The next generation of these objects employed metal and eventually modern technology led to the use of synthetics, fiber reinforced plastics, etc. In each case the new materials were employed because they offered real improvements to the functionality of the object and generally at little or no cost to their durability.

I will readily admit that synthetics have replaced metal in the construction of many items simply on the basis of their lower cost and at a significant sacrifice to durability and function. In such cases the epithet "cheap plastic" is well deserved. However, as I suggested above, I am unaware of any evidence that such is the case with mid to high end photographic equipment produced by reputable manufacturers. So I introduce this topic to the forum in order to avail myself and other members of the experiences and opinions which may support or contradict this thesis.

Respectfully,
Mike Blume
 
Mike,

You wrote some very reasonable words here which covered pretty well the advantages and disadvantages of plastic but let me point some issues that IMHO needs to be considered for such appraisal.

When the matter is sudden impact due to dropping or hitting your camera let me tell you that metal bodies does a better job. One reason is that they are heavier. There is a physhics law that sais that the heavier bodies take more portion of the impact energy than ligther ones, so all delicate and light components of the camera would be more protected inside a heavy body. Is like a heavy camera hurts more the material hitted and hurts less itself, when drooped

But a light body is more confortable to carry on, mainly when you are out taking pictures for the hole day, so my point have to be balance whith how much dunger are you planing to expose your equipment.

I guess most of issues against plastic bodies comes by the fact that they feel like bending and flexing in your hands, which they do, but in very small amount. Is much more a metter of perception here.

I had an interestin experience trading my Canon 50 and testing its replaicement model, the Canon 30. The last have much more metal parts than my 7 years old camera, but feels more delicate. One good ex&le (the 50) of a plastic body that can feel sturdy with a good enginering project and no too many cost reductions concerns.

Hope that help and hope my English was ease to understand.

Ricardo
 
Hi Ricardo,

"When the matter is sudden impact due to dropping or hitting your camera let me tell you that metal bodies does a better job. One reason is that they are heavier. There is a physhics law that sais that the heavier bodies take more portion of the impact energy than ligther ones, so all delicate and light components of the camera would be more protected inside a heavy body. Is like a heavy camera hurts more the material hitted and hurts less itself, when drooped"

I don't agree with this. The metal is more rigid, and therefore won't absorb the impact, but tranmit it TO the other components more so than a more resilient/absorbant material would. That is why mechanical d&ening materials are made of, plastic, rubber and other of these types of materials.

Also, the heavier something is, the higher the impact force is...from physics 101, f=ma, force = mass x acceleration, and given the acceleration is equal (gravity), more mass == more force.

Regards,

Austin
 
Hi Austin,

Your point is correct but little bit out of my point in this case. My first thoughts were related to the ratio between very light electronics components and very heavy metal or plastic structures. Is a metter of inercia here. The deceleration of internal components will be almost the same in both cases and what uses to damage it is its (components) mass, following the formula you pointed.

Think of my point here like a box on your table with a glass of water inside. Get a hammer and hit this box strong in one side. Now think that instead of a box is an iron safe on top of your table...

Also remember that all fragile components in our camera are dumped from the frame, so the vibrations generated doesn't count much here.

"Is like a heavy camera hurts more the material hitted and hurts less itself, when drooped"

Regards

Ricardo.
 
Ricardo,

Sorry, but I tend to disagree. Just look at your car.
The impact prone parts (front and back) are built rather soft like a cushion. They'll bend in a crash to keep you safe and hopefully unharmed.
Yes, the passenger cell itself is harder, but it won't take much of the impact force anymore.

Volkswagen showed some tests in the 70's what happens to a car passenger during a crash in a rather rigid Beetle compared to a softer Golf. The Golf won outright - and this was in the infancy of crash research.

However, I prefer a metal frame at least around the lens mount - having ruined my plastic Nikon F50 with the use of heavy pro lenses handheld.
But for the rest of the body I don't care much if it is "plastic" or not.
 
Claus,

You and Mike are disagreing because you are analizing the physical event for one point of view, which differs from mine. Your concept here is perfectly justified but there are more energy and forces variation in this cenario.

Seems that you are looking at the relationship between the internal components and the body, which in your ex&le would be the car and the passengers. The concept I am defending here is the relation between the group body&components and the material they are hitting (the wall).

Think about 2 cameras (1 RebelX and 1 EOS 1v) falling from your chest heigth to a soft floor. Physhic sais that they reach the floor at the same time at the same velocity. The weight of a heavier system will "dig" more into the ground so the deceleration lenght will be bigger and, consequently, the acceleration value will be smaller causing less stress on internal components. f=m.a

This ex&le is easy to undestand due to the softness of the floor, but can be used with all kinds of material since the rule here is just about mass. Harder material will generate smaller dig holes, but this holes will be even smaller for lighter cameras.

Is good to mention that plastic have a better dumpening caracteristics but it dries less energy when cracking then metal when bending. Also, if they hit someting sharp, metal would deform less due to concentrated pressure than plastic, which will probably beak apart and expose sensisitve internal componentes.

After a dozen of english mistakes, my 2 cents

Ricardo
 
Ricardo,

"The weight of a heavier system will "dig" more into the ground so the deceleration lenght will be bigger and, consequently, the acceleration value will be smaller causing less stress on internal components. f=m.a"

Without knowing the weights and the deceleration you can't make that claim.

Personally, I think your premise is wrong, as neither will "dig" into cement very far what so ever, and any difference would be insignificant.

Regards,

Austin
 
Well, I normally don't use my cameras as sledgehammers.

See it in that way: Plastic is more prone to break I agree with you on that. But on the other hand I prefer to replace a "cheap" plastic panel over the more expensive replacement of the electronical parts shaken to rubbles by the impact.

And I'm not sure if I should be proud of my full metal jacket Nikon FM2 that it digs a deeper hole than the plastic F90 when I drop them
(still didn't get a Contax, but soon!)
 
Wonderful.
I was hopeing for a lively discussion.

I disagree with Ricardo's physics. The internal damage will depend on the rate of deceleration at the end of a fall. Perhaps a foam mattress will cause less rapid deceleration, but I doubt if there is much difference between a carpet and a cement floor. The damage to the internal components results not so much from a transfer of the impact to them, rather due to the fact that they keep moving when the body stops. This displacement is very detrimental to delicate electronics and carefully aligned prisms.

Claus's observations are certainly pertinent. However I doubt if either metal or plastic camera bodies provide much of a crush zone effect. But he is certainly on point when he notes that plastic lens mounts will take less punishment from everyday use.

I would really like to hear more of actual users eperience with failures of plastic components.

Thanks to all.

Mike.
 
Mike, I think I can help on that.

My first F50 fell from the open tank bag on a paved parking lot - about 3 ft. Luckily it fell lens first (no, it didn't make a dent in the asphalt!).
The wonderful 35-80 "kit" lens was shattered into pieces (cheap plastic cr*p). The body itself was unharmed.
Though the camera was still working it gave some rattleing noise when you shook it. However I didn't test if AF, exposure and so on where still in calibration (didn't have a clue about that "techno babble" that time).
Back home I sent the camera without comment to Nikon and they replaced it - also without comment - with a refurbished camera under warranty.
This second F50 got killed from the usage of the heavy 35-70/2.8 Nikkor and 80-200/2.8 Tokina.
Those lenses nearly pulled the lensmount out of the body. I still have it though as a backup backup camera, but my daughter only uses it with cheap (and light!) lenses.

My FM2 went down with the tripod once when a client fell over the synch cable (if they have to hold in the jack they don't!!!). Lens dead, camera alive - and still my favourite in the studio.
 
Back
Top