[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I suppose you are joking, but my experience with flagship Pentax cameras

No joking, has any of the flagship pentax bodies ever had any issues with the plastic mirror box failing starting from the K10d to the K3Ii and K1 II. As far as I can see that it really is a non-issue just as it is a non-issue with other manufactures that also use plastic mirror box. I bring this up as many think that pentax has superior mirror box as they are not plastic, but the only Pentax line of cameras that use full metal subframe are pre digital and the 645d and 645Z. If we look at the price range of camera that use a full metal subframe usually run $1000 more than ones that don't. If we look at these cameras D700 D300 D800 D850 D3 D4 D5 there is a reason as to why they include a higher cost of manufacturing over a molded plastic.

Now what is of interest is that other manufactures are now using carbon reinforced plastics even in their entry level cameras like the D3400 and D5300 , Sigma has started using CRFP in their lenses also. Now Looking at the k1II and the K3II I don't think used CRFP looking at the mirror box and the feel does not appear to use CRFP, I don't know about the K3III but anyone using such processes usually advertise their use.

[Rondec]

No joking, has any of the flagship pentax bodies ever had any issues with the plastic mirror box failing starting from the K10d to the K3Ii and K1 II. As far as I can see that it really is a non-issue just as it is a non-issue with other manufactures that also use plastic mirror box. I bring this up as many think that pentax has superior mirror box as they are not plastic, but the only Pentax line of cameras that use full metal subframe are pre digital and the 645d and 645Z. If we look at the price range of camera that use a full metal subframe usually run $1000 more than ones that don't. If we look at these cameras D700 D300 D800 D850 D3 D4 D5 there is a reason as to why they include a higher cost of manufacturing over a molded plastic.

Now what is of interest is that other manufactures are now using carbon reinforced plastics even in their entry level cameras like the D3400 and D5300 , Sigma has started using CRFP in their lenses also. Now Looking at the k1II and the K3II I don't think used CRFP looking at the mirror box and the feel does not appear to use CRFP, I don't know about the K3III but anyone using such processes usually advertise their use.

Does anyone make a D3400 or D5300 any more? Seems like those cameras have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

Does anyone make a D3400 or D5300 any more? Seems like those cameras have one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.

Same CFRP as also used in the D780 D500 and the D7500.

Now much of Nikon ML use the main body panel that is all metal and with everything including the lens mount that is directly attached to this metal subframe
This construction even be found in the Z50
Fuji also uses a similar construction

[Rondec]

Same CFRP as also used in the D780 D500 and the D7500.

Now much of Nikon ML use the main body panel that is all metal and with everything including the lens mount that is directly attached to this metal subframe
This construction even be found in the Z50
Fuji also uses a similar construction

Sure. I don't know that this particular thread is about Nikon though, is it? I thought it had to do with Canon discontinuing some entry level models that were priced fairly cheaply and probably didn't have carbon reinforcement.

I do think that cameras like the Canon T5i didn't feel particularly sturdy, but I suppose everyone differs in their feelings about this sort of thing.

[RobA_Oz]

Not all plastic is created equal at the same expense

That’s the real point here. Plastics can be surprisingly strong and durable to those who are unfamiliar with the wide range of plastics now manufactured, but some can also be flimsy and friable, especially over time. It all depends on what the designer intends, based on use. However, the common impression that many people have is with the latter, probably because plastics are associated with throw-away consumerism.

At the start of the digital camera era, in spite of having had Pentax SLRs for a long time, I bought a canon Digital Ixus that had the small size I wanted at the time, but which also felt substantial in my hands. I seriously looked at a Canon DSLR, which felt the complete opposite, which is why I chose the *istD instead, in spite of its use of plastics.

When people use the word “plastic” as a negative, it is that lack of a feel of substantiality that they’re referring to. Let’s not get caught up arguing about descriptive words for tactile impression as compared with words that describe engineering qualities.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

I do think that cameras like the Canon T5i didn't feel particularly sturdy, but I suppose everyone differs in their feelings about this sort of thing.

Most cameras these day can survive a wide range of abuse When you brought up the T5i it reminded me of Digital Rev Tv abusing both the Canon 550D and Nikon D70

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

Most damage done to a camera is done to AF calibration and sensor alignment more than any damage done the robustness of the camera

[Serkevan]

That’s the real point here. Plastics can be surprisingly strong and durable to those who are unfamiliar with the wide range of plastics now manufactured, but some can also be flimsy and friable, especially over time. It all depends on what the designer intends, based on use. However, the common impression that many people have is with the latter, probably because plastics are associated with throw-away consumerism.

Yeah, basically. Some of my current materials testing involves hot-melt-gluing the samples to a holder. Said glue *is* a plastic. And let me tell you, that thing holds after you've applied a couple tons of force to ensure it's squeezed tightly .

[jersey]

Yup. There are plastics involved in engine, airplane etc constructions. And they last. I would not mind high-level plastic K-3 Mk III instead of magnesium alloy for example.

[bobore]

A plastic lens mount on the camera body is a total deal breaker for me. Going back to AF film days, I've bought many Pentax camera bodies for my daughter over the years. The first & only I one ever gave her with a plastic lens mount ended up broken, just outside of the warranty period. Don't recall the exact details, but she didn't drop it. Rather, it knocked into something while she had it slung around her neck. The sight of that broken body mount is burned into my memory!

[Jonathan Mac]

This really isn't news. I like how the article makes it sound like it was Canon's plan after all rather than them being at the mercy of the market along with everyone else.

Low-end items need to sell in high volumes in order to be profitable as the profit on each unit is very small. Those high numbers are now gone, with most using their mobile phones or being content with an older camera they feel no need to replace.

Everyone else has done this, including Pentax, whose "entry-level" DSLR, the K70, has morphed into the KF, which is essentially the same camera at a higher price point. This is bad news for anyone who wants a proper camera but doesn't have the money even for a modest one, they will be forced into used items. Still, the used market is large and the cameras from the last six years or more are still very capable.

[normhead]

I always thought the big advantage to plastic in barrels is not as much expansion and contraction in heat and cold.

[Serkevan]

I always thought the big advantage to plastic in barrels is not as much expansion and contraction in heat and cold.

Several plastics have slightly lower expansion coefficients compared to aluminum, but it's not by that much. The main counterpoint here is that plastics are typically more susceptible to becoming brittle with heating/cooling, compared to metals. But, again, that depends on the plastic used and, in any case, the expected operating range for cameras would likely be problematic for electronics much earlier than for the construction.

Where one can always be thankful for plastic is when handling the camera in the cold - the K-1 feels like holding a chunk of ice!

[normhead]

Several plastics have slightly lower expansion coefficients compared to aluminum, but it's not by that much. The main counterpoint here is that plastics are typically more susceptible to becoming brittle with heating/cooling, compared to metals. But, again, that depends on the plastic used and, in any case, the expected operating range for cameras would likely be problematic for electronics much earlier than for the construction.

Where one can always be thankful for plastic is when handling the camera in the cold - the K-1 feels like holding a chunk of ice!

My solution, a pair of ultra-thin ladies style, tight fitting Merino wool gloves, worn under my mitts or lined gloves. That way if theres' condensation on your K-1, your finger won't stick to the shutter release button.

[reh321]

A plastic lens mount on the camera body is a total deal breaker for me. Going back to AF film days, I've bought many Pentax camera bodies for my daughter over the years. The first & only I one ever gave her with a plastic lens mount ended up broken, just outside of the warranty period. Don't recall the exact details, but she didn't drop it. Rather, it knocked into something while she had it slung around her neck. The sight of that broken body mount is burned into my memory!

I’ve never seen a plastic lens mount on a camera body, and don’t expect to.

Accidents can happen - strength requires both thickness and ‘good’ materials. Our older daughter broke the latch that kept her film camera closed, a handoff to a friend went wrong; she tried to ‘fix’ the problem with a hair tie. I told her “those things happen” and purchased a new one. The flash on my Pentax KP was broken in my camera bag - I must have bumped it, but I ‘stabilized’ it with “Gorilla Glue” and continued.

[jersey]

I suppose we could have plastic lens mounts if manufacturers really wanted and they could be better then metal ones. The only thing that keeps metal in camera mount is the same that keeps glass in cellphones - perceived "prestige" of material. Even if you get most resilient plastic that will be better then metal customer will see it as "cheap", cause plastic.

Sad, but true.