Originally posted by reh321 
Here we go on plastic again. Plastic, is a modern material. They make airplanes out of plastic, good airplanes. They make bullet-proof "glass" out of polycarbonate (plastic)! There is nothing wrong with making a camera (like a Q7) out of plastic!!
Originally posted by Docrwm How about "twisty" or even "cheap"!?!
In 1979, I bought my first SLR camera, a Pentax ME, built using traditional metal construction, very similar to the picture in my signature. In 1981 I had that camera with me when we went to Niagara Falls; the camera got damp, but not really wet, but a few days later it quit. I sent it in for repairs, but it was never the same, and eventually I replaced it by the Super Program in my signature.
In 1995, I bought a Canon EOS, built using that plastic construction which you have no respect for. In 2001 I had that camera with me when we went to Disney World. Rain started during the parade, but there was no way that my daughters were going to leave then, so I put my raincoat over my camera bag to protect it. After the rain had ended, I discovered that my (protected) camera bag was mostly empty ... my camera had been hanging from my neck the entire time, and it was
drenched!! When we got back to our motel, I toweled it off the best I could, and our vacation continued. Despite its drenching, that camera continued to give me good reliable service for another five or six years until I was ready to move to digital.
So you can say what you will about this construction, but my experience is that it is at least as reliable as anything else I have used. Whether a camera is "cheaply built" depends mostly on what effort the manufacturer puts into it, not what specific materials he uses. There is no reason to disrespect a camera made of modern materials. I have every reason to expect my (plastic) Pentax Q7 to give at least as good service as any other camera I have owned.
Post #504 by asahi man
Similar Threads 
