Body material - in the days of old they could do rugged things...

<p>So why aren't all entry-level SLR cameras made of metal? I am engineer and do undderstand what manufacture cost mean... but aren't they aimed to seasoned photographers? Many years of usage? Then, even many compacts are made of metal, but SLR - it is need. Remember FE, FM? Pentax K1000?<br>

Once I picked, in the dusk of film era, a very old Pentax 50/1.7...Old as universe... Even the aperture ring was metal, and "Asahi Pentax" was <em>engraved </em>on the barrel...We do need reliability. I want D60 and D90 to be metal. I assume that when a person gets a SLR he wants a rugged one.</p>

<p>"Entry level". People are concerned about weight, and plastic is lighter than metal. The plastic isn't that weak- it's actually a pretty strong plastic. People who don't mind the weight and want super ruggedness can get a Nikon D300 or D3 :P.<br>

Or go buy a film camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So why aren't all entry-level SLR cameras made of metal? I am engineer and do undderstand what manufacture cost mean... but aren't they aimed to seasoned photographers?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in a word, no. this may seem obvious but entry-level cameras are aimed at entry-level users. for "seasoned photographers" used to 35mm film focal lengths, there's the D700 and D3. in other words, you pay more for the benefit of experience. or metal DSLR bodies.</p>

<p>I'm not particularly nice to my cameras - they hang over my shoulder all day, and get a punch from time to time. I have not had any problems with the D70-body not being of metal. My experience is that Nikon cameras are tough.</p>

<p>Yes, see how many people are still using D50s. That means something...</p>

<p>Entry-level/consumer DSLRs are not aimed at seasoned photographers. They're aimed at as many people as possible. I think (but no source to back it up) that the majority of D40/D60/D5000 buyers will want the camera to take good photos of family trips and holidays. Exactly the occassions where a heavy bag with a rugged DSLR gets in the way....</p>

<p>And my D50 and D80 never felt like they would fall apart. Not a squeak, no play in the body panels, not after a lot of use either. Plastic as a material has come of age, and there is no longer need to do everything in metal, without sacrificing reliability.</p>

<p>But funny, nearly all engineers I know always tend to be a tad conservative when it comes to material choice. Old habits die hard, I guess ;-)</p>

<p>What a lot of people dont think about is the fitness for purpose of an object.</p>

<p>Entry level cameras are made the way they are because they fit the purpose for which they are intended.</p>

<p>People who need a ruged camera will have the money to spend on a better made body.</p>

<p>Also, modern plastics are very tough and stiff. Something which I would imagine is very important in a camera. Steel bodies will be prone to flex and warp.</p>

<p>What I would like to see however is a CFRP body, and see what fool would spend good money on it!</p>

<p>Just to add to Wouter's commend regarding engineers...</p>

<p>I am doing a PhD in aerospace materials and when I talk to more experienced engineers they always want to use what they used when they were "growing up".</p>

<p>I cant remeber the exact quote but I think its along the lines...</p>

<p>physics only changes when a physicist dies.</p>

<p>r</p>

<p>I was in the photo industry in the 1970s when plastic-body 35mm SLRs were first introduced. The roar of protest from experienced photographers was deafening. But consumers flocked to the new cameras in the millions. The new designs did exactly what the manufacturers intended -- converted non-35mm snapshooters to the world of SLR photography. The experienced photographers never did stop complaining; all the while a whole new mass market was being created around them. By the way, that's the same plastic that football helmets are made of. Engineers take note: Even better composite materials are now coming out of the aerospace industry.</p>

<p>Will</p>

<p>metal dents.</p>

<p>plastic bounces... to a point...</p>

<p>plastic is probably the best material for my D50. I wouldn't like it a lot heavier than this.</p>

<p>I have a D200 and have found it to be very durable. But still a metal entry level camera such as the D60 would bring out the check book. I would want one. A tough black anodized metal finish and leather like exterior (color options?) would be great and fun to have. </p>

<p>Plastics are a lot better than they used to be. My D90 feels quite sturdy enough. Also, these cameras are designed to be used for years, not decades - the body will be obsolete and worthless before it wears out.</p>

<p >In days gone by, when the sensor in the camera was updated every 36 exposures it was expected that the camera would last for years, maybe decades. Now days, to update the sensor you need to replace the entire body. Because of this development, the life cycle of the body only needs to be 18 to 24 months. Now it’s like most electronic gadgets, it’s disposable. The question is, when will manufactures build a durable body with a replaceable sensor.</p>

<p >Ken</p>

<p>From a sales perspective, one can never underestimate the importance of weight. Entry level DSLR's are not aimed at season photographers, the same way the Nikon EM, FG and FG-20 weren't in the 70's and 80's. They are aimed at enticing the average citizen into stepping up to a SLR from a point and shoot. Of course a seasoned photographer can use an 'entry level' SLR and make incredible pictures with it. But let's be honest, that's not the market Nikon is pitching the camera to. In fact, Nikon would much rather have the seasoned photographers stay away from them and buy the more expensive models instead.</p>

<p>The other ugly truth about DSLR's is they don't have to last. A D60 produced today doesn't need to have a shelf life much more than 5 years. Nikon doesn't need to make a camera that will last through the ages, the buying public will plunk down another wad of cash for the next camera every 5 years or so. And the majority in even less time than that.</p>

<p>To return to the issue of weight - I love my Nikon F3, but I do find it heavy to carry around in certain situations. So much so that I'm seriously considering picking up a Nikon FG-20 and a 50mm Series E lens, which should weigh in at a paltry 600 grams (100 less than the F3's body alone). Will the FG-20 be around as long as the F3? Definitely not. There's no question metal bodied SLR's are far more durable. But the point I've been circling around is that plastic bodies have their place in the SLR world, be it for a new photographer or a seasoned one.</p>

<p>I've got a variety of Nikon bodies. My old F is tough as nails, but shows dings where they've happened. My FM and FE2, same way - every ding is quite permanent. I've also got an N4004 (plastic-bodied 35mm from the mid-1980's). I've completely abused it. It's my "disposable" auto-focus 35mm body. I throw it into bags without thinking or caring about it. I've had a dog pick it up and run with it. I've dropped it from a horse (with the 50/1.8 that I still use!). The damn thing keeps on working.<br /><br />I keep telling myself that one of these days I'm going to get an F100 while I can still find a pretty one at a decent price. I keep saying that as soon as that N4004 dies, that'll be the sign. I think I'm going to have to change my thinking around to, "that N4004's AF system is a dog, and <em>that's</em> a good reason to kill it off." So, even 20+ year-old plastic SLR bodes (and the N4004 was a consumer body) are quite tough. It's not a material to dismiss as undesireable.<br /><br />That said, I like the feel of the magnesium frames in the D200/300/700 sized bodies. Just feels <em>right</em>, esepcially in terms of balance when using heavy lenses and with a larger speedlight mounted.</p>

<p>Many times my old Nikon N80 and me have slid down too steep slopes, bouncing off of rocks and sliding through gravel. The only sign of abuse is the metal ring of the sky light filter. The plastic body looks like new.</p>

<p>I might be wrong, but so far I remember a large number of complains from people and even reviewers about possible plastic failures, but very few if any actual failure reports, despite the facts that 80% of DSLR sales are probably at entry level point and Internet tends to amplify negative comments. I suspect most people could like metal just for its feeling (which by the way can be a good enough reason, especially if you do this for hobby), but would not trade off lightness and price for this.<br>

PS My old car ('67 opel kadett) was all metal, solidly built in Germany, all mechanical, no electronics. It needed some repair at least twice a year. My current Opel Astra (2000) is full of plastics and electronic gadgets. It has not required any repair yet. And I'm a mechanical engineer...</p>

<p>"Bulletproof glass" (Lexan, I think is the trade name) is a plastic. Take an ordinary CD, put on eye protectors and a pair of gloves to protect against possible cuts, and then bend the CD till it breaks. I guarantee that an equal thickness of ordinary sheet metal such as was used for the top and bottom plates of old SLR's would be permanently bent by a lesser application of force than it took to snap the CD. <br />The interior chassis of the D90 is stainless steel, with an outer shell of plastics and rubber. The higher-end (and dimensionally larger) Nikons use magnesium alloy etc. for their chassis, because it's a bit lighter for the same strength. I'm pretty sure that any traumatic force that would fall just short of crushing those interior metal structures would irreparably shatter the LCD panels, break off control knobs, crack the rear LCD display, crush the pentaprism housing, etc. <br />They used metal "in the days of old" because that was what was available and cost-efficient and felt impressive to the touch. By the way, all of my vintage metal-based "user" cameras have some degree of rust or other corrosion showing in small areas now, whereas my oldest plastic cameras look pristine, and none of them have ever broken.</p>

<p>I thought the D90 was all plastic, to get a metal interior chassis you had to go up to the D300, which is magesium alloy underneath the plastic shell.<br>

I too love old metal cameras. The Nikon F that was owned by my late father is a work of art to me, I love to use it, it's never been overhauled but works very well. The Nikon FE2 had a couple dents in it by the time I sold it 13 years after I received it as a high school graduation gift, but it still worked as perfectly as it did the day it was new. My current Nikon F100 is also a brilliant design, I just love to hold it and look through that gorgeous viewfinder. The D300 too, but it has a much smaller viewfinder than the F100.</p>

<p>Money is also an issue. Plastic allows designers to integrate a large number of parts that in a metal body would require a lot of assembly (=cost). Metal and plastics both have their own (dis)advantages. Personally I'm quite happy with nowadays bodies although mine seems to be made of magnesium alloy. More by coincidence than by choice.</p>

<p>The new Pentax K7 has a stainless steel core and is metal-clad. Roughly comparable performance to D300/D90 (better than D200). Very water/dust resistant. Metal lens construction, too...check Pentax's pancake primes.</p>

<p>I think a metal chassis with a polycarbonate (ie: plastic) shell is actually better in my experience. My Nikon F3 when dropped would almost always:</p>

<ol>

<li>Dent.</li>

<li>Break.</li>

</ol>

<p>Whereas my Nikon 8008s would:</p>

<ol>

<li>Bounce.</li>

<li>Maybe gain a cosmetic crack, but not usually.</li>

</ol>

<p>So personally, and perhaps it's based on sheer luck, I'd rather have a plastic outside.</p>

<p>Also while metal is a lot sexier, it does get awful heavy.</p>

<p>PS: I think the metal tends to transmit the shock inward, whereas the plastic buffers it.</p>

<p>The metal on a D300 is rigid but not flexible and relatively thin, it will break quite easily when forced. In most usage I find polycarbonate a better material since it does a far better job at absorbing impact. Some old, large cameras make more use of steel, which is heavy but quite long lasting. The only thing I prefer modern metal bodies more than plastic bodies is for things like macro where rigidity is a must. And then I'd rather go with high-quality steel.</p>

<p>The only cameras I've ever had that survived a hard drop on to concrete were made out of plastic.</p>