Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-15-2013, 06:59 AM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Iowa
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,269
QuoteOriginally posted by southlander Quote
While the K-x may not give the same solid feel as the K-5 and later camera, it still feels like a rock compared to Canikon stuff of the same broad price point, particularly the lower level Canon gear.
Boy, ain't that the truth! A co-worker had a Canon Rebel something-or-other that she wanted me to show her how to use. I was stunned by how cheap and plasticky everything on it felt. It felt very much like a poorly made toy that could break at any moment. The K-x is a MUCH better built camera. No comparison.

I have played around with a K-5, and it's a beautifully built machine. When I was a film guy, the Nikon F2 was my favorite camera. I have a strong preference for tough-built cameras that inspire confidence. Even though some of the Pentax cameras have a plastic body, they still feel like a well built, durable camera.

11-15-2013, 07:09 AM   #32
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Maine
Posts: 331
QuoteOriginally posted by hcarvalhoalves Quote
The K-50 build quality might be amazing then, since I already find the K-x very well built. Nothing jiggles on the camera to this day.
The build quality on the K30 and K50 are very good especially at their price point. I recently touched some of the other Canon/Nikons while killing time in Best Buy, and some of them feel like garbage. The Rebel T3i/T4i's feel mediocre at best, the T3 feels like a kids toy. The D5100 / D3200 feel ok but I don't think they feel as solid as the K30/K50.
11-15-2013, 07:27 AM   #33
Pentaxian
Clavius's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: De Klundert
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,122
I don't see why we want our cameras to be that durable when we replace them every two years as soon as the next upgrade is available. Such durable magnesium alloy construction is more in its place with higher end cameras with much longer product cycles.
11-15-2013, 07:37 AM   #34
Site Supporter
altopiet's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: The Great Karoo, South Africa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,927
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I don't see why we want our cameras to be that durable when we replace them every two years as soon as the next upgrade is available. Such durable magnesium alloy construction is more in its place with higher end cameras with much longer product cycles.
That is the problem, I think the "we" might be a minority of DSLR users It would be interesting to find out what percentage we're talking about...

11-15-2013, 07:50 AM   #35
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,826
There are lot's of plastic cameras, why do you want Pentax to be one of them? Fer god's sake, if you don't want to pay the extra 10 bucks or whatever it is for the mag-alloy frame.. don't!!! You have that choice.. is this some kind of movement to have every camera brand be the same, all plastic? Exactly what is the problem with Pentax offering mag-aloy to their customers? You want to limit choice? What's wrong with you people? You make is sound like Pentax is denying you the right to buy plastic cameras.
11-15-2013, 07:59 AM   #36
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
is this some kind of movement to have every camera brand be the same, all plastic? Exactly what is the problem with Pentax offering mag-aloy to their customers? You want to limit choice? What's wrong with you people? You make is sound like Pentax is denying you the right to buy plastic cameras.
Because they know better than we do what is the right choice for us to make?

I mean, why should evil Ricoh make cameras that are unnecessarily durable and long-lasting, and then charge more than is absolutely necessary for a photon-capturing tool - and market useless spec.'s as a positive premium to our lizard brains - all in the false name of more profit to the shareholders?

I mean really, they don't take better pictures, do they?
11-15-2013, 03:51 PM   #37
Pentaxian
carrrlangas's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Joensuu (Finland)
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,750
I really like Pentax SLR system because of itīs PDAF, ergonomics, UI, OVF and low weight and size for itīs class. However, I was comparing to the K-50 to the Canon SL1. 650grs vs 400grs and nticeable size reduction because of virtually no grip.
BUT what happens when you mount some lenses on both cameras? Apart from the 40mm STM and classic 50/1.8 canon hasnīt anything else small and light to mount on that tiny camera. While DA21 F28 DA40 DA50 DA70 are reaall small. So the 200grams are worst for when the camera is hanging over your your shoulder but better when up to your eye, specially paired up with really light lenses..
camerasize comparison: Compare camera dimensions side by side

perhaps a little off topic, but I originally thought of this comparing the plastic SL1 to the magnesium K-5 at 750grams
11-16-2013, 11:27 AM   #38
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,424
QuoteOriginally posted by Clavius Quote
I don't see why we want our cameras to be that durable when we replace them every two years as soon as the next upgrade is available.
Durability of body material generally not an age-related concern. It is not time to failure, rather is is unit of force to failure and how it fails. My K10D was made in 2007 and the poly body looks as good now as on the day it was purchased and I don't baby my gear. That being said, I do have a realistic fear that a moderate impact may crack the housing. That would be my main interest in the mag shell.


Steve

11-16-2013, 03:58 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
What I consider most important is the chassis rather than the body. The chassis needs stiffness not just to resist breakage but more importantly to maintain accuracy.
Maintaining the exact geometry of the optical components to within microns is essential in getting good image quality. Even very small displacements can make a difference, such for instance as if one side of the sensor ends up slightly further back than the other end. A plastic

Metals are generally much more rigid than most engineering plastics commonly in use (even allowing for the inevitably thicker construction resorted to when using plastics). However there is an even better (affordable) alternative - carbon. Carbon composites can have higher rigidity and thermal stability than any metal (though not as tough) and while they are more expensive to manufacture they are not that much more expensive.

I'm not sure why we hear so little of carbon in photography, except for things such as tripods and occasionally lenses. Its probably
a matter of market research indicating that people who are into photography are more likely to be enticed by magnesium, steel or titanium than carbon. Carbon has gained a reputation in various fields of being 'better' than metal but in photography it seems we are still not at that point.

Now that I mentioned titanium, when will we be getting a K-3 Titanium edition ? That would be something, provided the external parts are really Titanium unlike the silver edition's various silver painted plastic parts (flash cover, battery cover, part of the front cover)
11-16-2013, 04:11 PM   #40
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
I'm not certain carbon fiber could be formed into the precise shape and thinness of the stainless steel chassis.
11-16-2013, 04:24 PM   #41
Site Supporter
Eric Auer's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 861
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I'm not certain carbon fiber could be formed into the precise shape and thinness of the stainless steel chassis.
You can machine Carbon Fiber.
11-16-2013, 05:38 PM   #42
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kirkwood (St. Louis) MO
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 20,423
QuoteOriginally posted by Corto-PA Quote
You can machine Carbon Fiber.
Huh. Never heard of billet carbon fiber, but I guess you'd end up with a mil.spec. camera chassis then.

[EDIT: Indeed, I've learned graphite, carbon and carbon composites can be CNC machined into just about any shape. I was only thinking of carbon fiber sheets.].

Actually I always thought carbon fiber composite sheets were laid up on a mold like fiberglass into more longitudinal shapes such as automobile hoods or around a mandrel for golf club and fishing rod shafts. I thought the fibers thrown into the air by cutting and machining were highly toxic and hard to control, making the manufacturing process extremely expensive.

You learn something every day.

Last edited by monochrome; 11-16-2013 at 05:53 PM.
11-17-2013, 06:06 AM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by lister6520 Quote
What I consider most important is the chassis rather than the body. The chassis needs stiffness not just to resist breakage but more importantly to maintain accuracy.
Maintaining the exact geometry of the optical components to within microns is essential in getting good image quality. Even very small displacements can make a difference, such for instance as if one side of the sensor ends up slightly further back than the other end. A plastic

Metals are generally much more rigid than most engineering plastics commonly in use (even allowing for the inevitably thicker construction resorted to when using plastics). However there is an even better (affordable) alternative - carbon. Carbon composites can have higher rigidity and thermal stability than any metal (though not as tough) and while they are more expensive to manufacture they are not that much more expensive.

I'm not sure why we hear so little of carbon in photography, except for things such as tripods and occasionally lenses. Its probably
a matter of market research indicating that people who are into photography are more likely to be enticed by magnesium, steel or titanium than carbon. Carbon has gained a reputation in various fields of being 'better' than metal but in photography it seems we are still not at that point.

Now that I mentioned titanium, when will we be getting a K-3 Titanium edition ? That would be something, provided the external parts are really Titanium unlike the silver edition's various silver painted plastic parts (flash cover, battery cover, part of the front cover)
Engineering plastics can be made extraordinarily rigid but you can't do that and maintain extremely high impact resistance at the same time. That's the advantage of special metal alloys... maintaining the impact resistance along with the stiffness. The only penalty is weight and cost but cameras are small and pricey items anyway so it's not a significant disadvantage by any means.
11-17-2013, 06:37 AM   #44
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 698
QuoteOriginally posted by IchabodCrane Quote
Engineering plastics can be made extraordinarily rigid but you can't do that and maintain extremely high impact resistance at the same time. That's the advantage of special metal alloys... maintaining the impact resistance along with the stiffness. The only penalty is weight and cost but cameras are small and pricey items anyway so it's not a significant disadvantage by any means.
Not so sure about the rigidity of engineering plastics approaching that of metals. Unless of course you are including carbon composites under the definition of engineering plastics. While not strictly correct I have seem the term used that way quite often.

As far as I know there exists no polymer which approaches the rigidity of common metals, not by a far stretch, unless composited with the likes of carbon fibre. The 'plastic' in such a product is actually only a binder, the actual 'material' being the carbon. The carbon takes the strain while the 'plastic' serves just to keep the carbon strands in place.
11-17-2013, 10:57 AM   #45
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Northern Wisconsin
Posts: 703
The body/frame of the K7 through K3 bodies are premium products. I don't know all the design requirements for the internals of the body but certainly strength and rigidity of the connection of the body to the lens is right up there. There may also be electrical shielding issues. In any event, magnesium has a high strength to weight ratio compared to other materials including many metals. A good example are magnesium alloy wheels for race cars. Strong, light and very expensive. In the case of our cameras, very little magnesium is actually used so the cost of the material isn't that great. Granted, plastic would be cheaper but not stronger. (Yes, there are some pretty bizarre polymer/synthetic fabric combinations used in aviation that are simply amazing but they are VERY expensive and not always suited to high speed production.) The bodies of our cameras are not machined from a block of magnesium as there would almost certainly be a big hot fire real quick. They are injection molded much like plastic parts are. The initial cost of machining precision molds, testing and refining is very high but once sorted out provides a fast, high quality production process and product. The stainless steel parts (like the K mount ring) are most likely put in place inside the mold and then the magnesium is cast around them firmly holding them in the body. Once the injection molded bodies come out of the mold there is some cleaning and fine machining but that's it. As for the use of titanium (or often referred to as "unobtainium"), the cost would be higher and probably structurally unnecessary. As for me, I'm glad Ricoh decided to build the camera strong as I plan on using it a long time.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
alloy, body, camera, dslr, mag, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do I really need A lenses for my K-O1.... cpceter Pentax Mirrorless Cameras 13 06-17-2013 05:49 PM
Do i really need a FF DSLR simple mick Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 12-26-2012 07:02 PM
Do we really need bigger sensors? pentaxinator Pentax DSLR Discussion 30 06-20-2012 09:28 PM
A question on body materials (magnesium alloy, polycarbonate, etc) uchinakuri Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 10-11-2010 03:38 PM
Do I really need a weather resistant body? justtakingpics Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 13 05-10-2010 06:52 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top