Plastics in the camera industry

Am I the only one discouraged by the build quality of today's

cameras and lenses?

 

Remember back in the days? when the cameras were all metal and

leatherette? so well crafted and with precision fit and finish, they

actually looked like quality optical instruments. Cameras used to

earn respect and only the real man of the house can touch them.

 

In case no one has noticed, almost all of today's equipments are

plastic toys that people throw around in their gym bags with no

respects. (especially those digital pocket toys that even 6th

graders have)

 

Why? How can you guys tolerate this?

Most of us can tolerate it because they're cheaper to manufacturer which translates (hopefully) into a lower price, and because they are generally still plenty durable for even demanding users.

Paul how far back are you talking? Canon introduced the AE-1 in the spring of 1976 it has a Polycarbonate body covers. And a number of camera had plastic in thier construction well back into the 60's Plastics go way back.

 

And if you want an all metal bodied camera to tote around why do you justy buy a nice Canon F-1 or Nikon F2 they are readily available all over ebay and the web. Spend a few bucks and have it tuned up and your set.

Yeah, so? Do these cameras take pictures that are not as good as their older counterparts?

 

My impression is this argument is just for the sake of argument (darn close to a troll). Let's assume your premise is absolutely correct (do you actually know the variations between the bodies as far as metal/plastic composition is concerned?). What is the problem here?

 

The idea is to take pictures, not worship a stupid, inanimate object. How does the amount of respect one has for their toys parlay into the ability to be a better photographer. And how does the amount of metal in a body actually translate into more respect? Yes, I love my old Rollei TLR but I also appreciate my daughter's Rebel 2K (50/1.8) as a quality P&S when needed. But those Nikon F5's, they really suck.

I owned a small Univex (cost, $0.19) and a Kodak Bullet (cost, $2.??) in the late 1930's, both bakelite. I still have the Bullet, great shape. And all those small Brownies, many still going strong.

Kodak used plastic lenses in viewfinders in the 1960's. The freebie 120 box cameras of the 1950's I got were mostly all plastic. Earlier cameras were bakelite. The WW2 era Argus 35mm was plastic; the Kodak 35mm RF camera of the 1940's was plastic. PLastics have been used in cameras for well over 60 years. At some time one has to let go; and realize that is ok to use plastics. <BR><BR>Here I have a Schneider 12cm F6.8 wide angle lens from the mid 1930's. It has plastic diaphrame blades as the iris. <BR><BR>Plastics have been around since the Civil War. <BR><BR>The Olypmus OM-1 has cables; and plastic pulleys inside.<BR><BR>Plastic is used as an insulating bushing on most cameras with flash; is ASA or PC sockets. <BR><BR>The film even has a plastic base.<BR><BR>To avoid plastics; one would require a glass plate camera; and maybe a lens with no plastic iris blades; a camera prior to 1930 might be required.

Some of us go out shooting with our cameras rather than wondering what they are made from.

"Let's assume your premise is absolutely correct (do you actually know the variations between the bodies as far as metal/plastic composition is concerned?)."

 

Yes

 

"What is the problem here?"

 

The problem is that plastic feels cheap, looks cheap, and doesn't have the precision machined quality. Have you ever seen a plastic Rolex?

 

"The idea is to take pictures, not worship a stupid, inanimate object. "

 

Inanimate objects are not "stupid". "Stupid" shouldn't be used for inanimate object first of all. Show some maturity. A camera is a beautiful, engineered, machine. As an engineer, I have certain respect for devices that perform beautiful tasks.

 

"How does the amount of respect one has for their toys parlay into the ability to be a better photographer."

 

None. But who said you can't be a better photographer and yet have an equipment that feels robust to the touch and eye? Please don't put words into my mouth or assume too much.

 

And how does the amount of metal in a body actually translate into more respect?

 

There is an overall integration of precision fits that lets you know cost reduction was not objective #1 in the making of the thing. It reminds me of the high quality machines I've used :all metal telescopes, precision firearms, gauges and instruments and measuring tools. In pretty much everything, if it has plastic in it, it will sure feel cheap. And the only reason it's used is for the cost reduct in manufacturing. Yet, I guess the manufacturers are aware that many people likes metal that's why they are coating all the plastic electronics now with silver paint so that the short sighted people will actually think they are going to stay on forever.

 

"But those Nikon F5's, they really suck."

 

You are not giving any reasons why. While I've never used them. I wouldn't call any pro equipment with the word "suck". They might be overpriced or overrated, that might be.

I see from another thread that you say you are a beginner.

 

Here's some advice from someone who isn't. Every minute you spend thinking and writing about what a camera is made from is a minute that you could spend learning how to take photographs.

 

When my father gave me my first camera (age 10 or 11), he also gave me a book of photographs by Kertesz. I spent hours going through that book trying to figure out how to make photographs that looked as good. Not that I got there, but I got to where I am a lot faster than if I had spent my time thinking about camera materials. It was a brilliant move on his part.

"Kodak used plastic lenses in viewfinders in the 1960's. The freebie 120 box cameras of the 1950's I got were mostly all plastic. Earlier cameras were bakelite. The WW2 era Argus 35mm was plastic; the Kodak 35mm RF camera of the 1940's was plastic. PLastics have been used in cameras for well over 60 years. At some time one has to let go; and realize that is ok to use plastics.

 

Here I have a Schneider 12cm F6.8 wide angle lens from the mid 1930's. It has plastic diaphrame blades as the iris.

 

Plastics have been around since the Civil War.

 

The Olypmus OM-1 has cables; and plastic pulleys inside.

 

Plastic is used as an insulating bushing on most cameras with flash; is ASA or PC sockets.

 

The film even has a plastic base.

 

To avoid plastics; one would require a glass plate camera; and maybe a lens with no plastic iris blades; a camera prior to 1930 might be required."

 

...Or I can just buy pretty much any camera from the 60s to 70s since they obviously have a much more substantial and well made feel to them (and you know I'm right)

 

I can even buy the F5, or even some of the new digital ones. There are still modern cameras with metal constructions.

 

I didn't say I must avoid plastic 100%. All I'm saying is that the general trend is obviously much more plastic than metal. And you knew that's what I meant.

I have an EOS 650 and an Elan II - and they NEVER get thrown around in a gym bag. Someone who doesn't take care of their equipment won't take any better care of a metal camera.

Guess it was a mistake to assume an interest in photography.

Paul; consider what my Nikkormat Ftn and 50mm F1.4 Nikkor SC cost in 1973 new; it cost 301 dollars; at a low priced Olden camera; by mail order. Gasolie was about 30 cents a gallon when I bought the camera; thus the camera cost the same as 1000 gallons of gasoline.<BR><BR>Today gas is about 1.80 here; so the camera might cost 1800 bucks today<BR><BR>Imagine the huge market for a 35mm slr; with manual focus; no flash shoe; no hot shoe; no automation; for 1800 dollars today. <BR><BR>Folks want value; and a plastic body body rules the roast for starter cameras. <BR><BR>This year I bought a used Nikkormat Ftn; with 50mm F2; for 75 dollars off of ebay. Cameras are mostly not items that drop in value; grow obsolete. Plastics are the answer.<BR><BR>Glass filled Plastics have been used in lens mounts for several decades. They allow a lighter lens mount. <BR><BR>both plastic and Metal cameras will break if dropped. Younger folks often think a heavy metal camera as a slug; if it adds no extra value.<BR><BR>Even the Kodak Ektra has a cloth shutter; and some plastics used.

"Here's some advice from someone who isn't. Every minute you spend thinking and writing about what a camera is made from is a minute that you could spend learning how to take photographs. "

 

I am a beginner, but not my parents. And one of the key reason I love those metal cameras is because that's what they used so it brings back nostalgic memories.

 

And also, I'm a perfectionist so I need both: quality photographs AND quality equipment. Why must we choose one over the other?

 

And the issue isn't just limited to cameras, but to pretty much every electronic device out there- walkman, clocks, music instruments.... all plastic now.

 

I've bought at least 10 plastic walkmans in the past 3 years which is why I'm wary of plastic devices.

Let me know when you're taking quality photographs. It will be far more interesting than a discussion of manufacturing of equipment.

If you want metal - I have a Spotmatic I'll sell you. Oh - and I have a Spotmatic II. Oh - and I have an H3.

 

The Spotmatic and the Spotmatic II have light meters, but battery coroded and froze the cover - so the meters don't work. The Spotmatic II even has a flash shoe on it.

 

Since you find metal superior to plastic from an engineering perspective, they should be worth more to ya. $800 for whichever one you want (body only). They are metal, not the cheap new plastic crap - so that's a real bargain. They take real metal lenses too!

The Olympus M-1; ie the Olympus OM-1 brought a new wave of lighter and smaller cameras. Nikon in the later 1970's brought out lighter and smaller cameras in their marketing line up. The GIANT diameter EOS mount allowed for plastic lens flanges and lens bayonets; the weight of slrs has dropped alot. Even glass prisms in slr's have been abandoned by many; to dropt he weight.<BR><BR>Old metal cameras probably would suit well; to those younger; who have mostly used a light weight camera

<i>The GIANT diameter EOS mount allowed for plastic lens flanges and lens bayonets; the weight of slrs has dropped alot.</i>

<br> <br>

While true - the good Canon lenses generally have a metal mount - even light lenses like the EF 35/2.<br> <br>

The 50/1.8mkII is plastic - but other than that, plastic mount is generally sign of a cheap consumer lens with inferior optics. And the 50/1.8mkII is cheap - but its optics aren't bad (though not as good as the metal mount EF 50/1.4 USM)

<br> <br>

As far as bodies go - I think most of the rebel line also have plastic mounts - but again, those are cheap consumer grade. My EOS 650 has metal mount on the body - as does my Elan II. I *think* it is only Rebel series eos (and the IX aps) that has/had plastic mount for lens on the body.

<< Cameras used to earn respect and only the real man of the house can touch them. >>

 

So you're an elitist /and/ a chauvinist. Wonderful.

 

<< In case no one has noticed, >>

 

I have, and I don't care how other people treat their equipment. Why you care is beyond me.

 

<< especially those digital pocket toys that even 6th graders have >>

 

Oh no! Not children with cameras?! Whatever will we do!

At the other end of the slr mount size is the ancient Exakta/Topcon bayonet. A bayonet of out plastic would be a disaster for a small mount; and a big heavy lens. The larger EOS mount allows less force on the mount; that a dinky mount does. Canon has marketed low end starter EOS cameras to the masses. There is a huge amount of plastic lens mount lenses is usage now.

Thanks for the responses.

 

Now, I have 2 final questions. Very straightward.

 

1) Can you guys honestly say plastic is equal to metal in EVERYWAY?

 

2) Other than ruggedness, robustness, metal cameras has a special kind of beauty, just like a good old watch. How can you guys be photographers when you don't even have the aesthetic taste to appreciate the shinniess, smoothness, and the timeless look of a fine finished metal object?

 

Don't mean to offend, just curious.

Give it up Paul. They aren't going to concede. This has been brought up too many times and people have gotten defensive. :)

 

I agree with you for the most part, I still have some of my older cameras & they certainly *feel* better to me. I love the extra heft in a smaller SLR from the 60's, 70's, & even 80's. Even the low end Pentax Spotmatics & K100s feel better than most modern cameras. Sadly, new pro cameras don't really have that feel either.

 

But I shoot with my newer cameras because they are easier to operate, are more accurate/precise, and offer features I want. It would be nice to have the old feel & visual quality with newer cameras, but they would not be cost competitive, and I would probably not be able to afford them. Leica rangefinders are a good example of this. Also, I like the lighter weight when packing them around.

1) They certainly are not equal. But in many ways plastic is the superior material. Most plastic bodied SLRs have proven themselves to be as durable as the equivilent metal SLRs made a few years back. Also, plastic is lighter & usually costs less to manufacture. Both of those features can be an improvement over metal. Metal parts are usually stronger, but may not wear as well, and the extra weight sometimes places extra stress on them.

 

2) As I previously stated I generally like the look and feel of metal bodied cameras better than plastic bodied cameras. But since i can only afford the plastic ones, that's what I shoot with.

I'm an engineer and as most engineers know, use the right material according to its use and expected time in service. Saying that, I do prefer metal cameras (Leica/Hassy) and steel (not alloy, not polymer) guns made to a high standard. Precision is more important for an accurate gun than a "sharp" lens and hand adjusted camere, IMHO. I appreciate the care and precision that went into my Leica and Hassy, and paid for it, and it technically beat the results from my metal F2 era Nikon gear.

<i>How can you guys be photographers when you don't even have the aesthetic taste to appreciate the shinniess, smoothness, and the timeless look of a fine finished metal object?</i>

<br> <br>

We take pictures. Try it sometime.