[Kunzite]

I'm not a metallurgy expert, but until we find one I'll offer two guesses:
- it's easy to work with
- it's light
Of course, "aluminium" is way too generic - aluminium alloys can have very different properties. Just like there isn't a single "plastic".

[RonHendriks1966]

I've always found that to be quite an odd choice. It's so soft and malleable, not properties I'd think would be good for the barrel of a lens. Any metallurgy experts out there able to explain the possible rationale?

I think the key to this is......Don't drop lenses....

[photoptimist]

I'm not a metallurgy expert, but until we find one I'll offer two guesses:
- it's easy to work with
- it's light
Of course, "aluminium" is way too generic - aluminium alloys can have very different properties. Just like there isn't a single "plastic".

Yes, aluminum is light and easy to work with. But one of it's biggest advantages for lenses and aircraft is that it does not rust, corrode, or tarnish under a wide range of conditions.

As a chemical element, aluminum is more susceptible to oxidation than iron/steel, copper, silver, etc. When aluminum is cut or scratched, it does oxidize rapidly. But that oxide forms an extremely hard layer -- it's basically sapphire -- which then protects the bulk metal underneath.

[reh321]

I think the key to this is......Don't drop lenses....

.... nor camera bodies.

[Larrymc]

I think the key to this is......Don't drop lenses....

Way too much logic.........

[phoebus]

I've always found that to be quite an odd choice. It's so soft and malleable, not properties I'd think would be good for the barrel of a lens. Any metallurgy experts out there able to explain the possible rationale?

Not a metallurgy expert..

Pure aluminium is soft and malleable[ish]. Aircraft wings made of it would just bend for a while, then fall off with fatigue cracks...

However, aluminium alloyed with the required small quantities of other elements becomes the stuff you do make aircraft from... ...and it's pretty good for other uses too. Fibre reinforced plastic will do the job too. It's not what something is made from, but how well that material is suited for the product. Strong, light and resistant to various environmental hazards ticks many boxes for both aircraft structures and camera bodies.

[Mark Ransom]

I think the key to this is......Don't drop lenses....

I've done that, twice. I can verify that you don't want to do this.

[xandos]

Yes, aluminum is light and easy to work with. But one of it's biggest advantages for lenses and aircraft is that it does not rust, corrode, or tarnish under a wide range of conditions.

As a chemical element, aluminum is more susceptible to oxidation than iron/steel, copper, silver, etc. When aluminum is cut or scratched, it does oxidize rapidly. But that oxide forms an extremely hard layer -- it's basically sapphire -- which then protects the bulk metal underneath.

At the risk at nitpicking or even being wrong: before aluminium is cut it will already be covered by a thin oxide layer. A cut will expose 'bare' aluminium that will then oxidize. The good thing is that the type of oxide aluminium forms is only on the surface, and will not penetrate and degrade the material below it. In that sense its quite different from iron oxidizing. I do think that the ease of machining and weight also play an important role in the decision to use it for lenses. Otherwise, stainless steel could be a good alternative, which would be less damage-prone. I have no clue if other things such as thermal expansion coefficients etc. come into play when making these decisions.

[Ian Stuart Forsyth]

As a chemical element, aluminum is more susceptible to oxidation than iron/steel, copper, silver, etc. When aluminum is cut or scratched, it does oxidize rapidly. But that oxide forms an extremely hard layer -- it's basically sapphire -- which then protects the bulk metal underneath.

Yup aluminum oxide just a little softer than silicon carbide.


I also have done a lot of anodizing for a lot of the aluminum parts that I have fabricated over the years. Never did perfect color anodizing yet.

Just don't leave a copper penny in the bottom of your aluminum boat and go sailing on the ocean

[reh321]

I've done that, twice. I can verify that you don't want to do this.

My daughter managed to ruin a camera by carrying it in her book-bag - turns out that the electronics is the most fragile part ... shock will destroy electronics {especially LCD} even if the case is intact.

[reh321]

I think the key to this is......Don't drop lenses....

While walking this afternoon I remembered a Samsung P&S I had in the early 1990's. Of course, the case was all plastic - I know there was some metal inside, but I don't know how much. In 1995 my wife was team-teaching a low-level chemistry course, and she asked to borrow that camera so they could document some of the work they were doing; that evening she told me that they had dropped it on a 'hand off'. There was no external damage evident - but it never focused accurately again {of course, AF was the only focus available on a camera like that} ..... apparently the plastic shell had handled the fall better than the internal parts had.

[xmeda]

hmm.. still no camera.. or more likely no other new product this year than 50/1.4 and finished K1

sad.. others are able to deliver 5+ lenses and several bodies each year..

[reh321]

hmm.. still no camera.. or more likely no other new product this year than 50/1.4 and finished K1

sad.. others are able to deliver 5+ lenses and several bodies each year..

Still not end of Photokina.
Sad that you give up so easily.
Photokina, Ricoh has Confirmed - PentaxForums.com

[BigMackCam]

hmm.. still no camera.. or more likely no other new product this year than 50/1.4 and finished K1

sad.. others are able to deliver 5+ lenses and several bodies each year..

Alas, I think you're comparing directly to other brands in the ILC market, instead of acknowledging the limited size of the Pentax team or division within Ricoh Imaging.

You're going to be continually disappointed in Pentax if you keep up with that comparison. The pace of development and release is going to be relatively slow, and result in fewer products to market, than the big boys such as Nikon, Canon and Sony. Smaller budget, fewer employees and - I think we can safely assume - lower revenue and profit targets (combined with lower business risk). That's not going to change any time soon, if ever.

If Pentax doesn't provide what you need or want, or move at a pace that you can live with, the sensible choice is to go with another brand. I think we'd all like things to be moving a little quicker at Pentax, but consider that for many of us, we're still pretty happy with the way things are going, and can see reasons why Ricoh is limiting investment and managing business risk accordingly...

[Kunzite]

Still not end of Photokina.
Sad that you give up so easily.
Photokina, Ricoh has Confirmed - PentaxForums.com

Where is Sony's Photokina announcement? Where is Olympus'? Panasonic's?
Maybe all those companies closed shop and we didn't notice