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
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