Could use a stronger micro 4/3rds body

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by RichA, Nov 20, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    All the m4/3rds bodies now are plastic. Some are "skinnned" in sheet
    aluminum, but structurally, they are plastic. Even if you support
    larger lenses by the lens, there comes a time when you'll want the
    camera to support them, at least for a short time. Plastic does work
    better when the body panels are small than if they are large (less
    flexture), and small bodies are a 4/3rds characteristic, but for
    larger lenses, it would be good to have a metal body. Sony has done
    it with the NEX, so the m4/3rds people should be able to as well.
     
    RichA, Nov 20, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Why? Even with APS-C and full frame DSLRs, it makes sense to support
    larger lenses and clip the camera body onto the bayonet at the back.
    If using heavy lenses, the same would make sense with micro 4/3rds.


    No point. See above.


    The NEX-3 and C3 are plastic. The NEX-5 and 5N are plastic with a
    metal skin. I don't know about the NEX-7, but I guess that it follows
    the same construction as the NEX-5 and 5N.


    No point. See above.
     
    Bruce, Nov 20, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    Rich Guest

    Didn't quite get your point about bayonetting. Attaching the lens??
    Most people when carrying cameras let them hang, by the body, from a
    strap. This is not advisible with even moderately heavy lenses and a
    m4/3rd body.


    The Sony NEX-5/n are magnesium alloy. Not a skin of aluminum. I don't
    know if the entire body is magnesium, or only some of it. But it's the
    reason they were able to make the NEX 5 smaller than the 3, because the
    3's body is all plastic.


    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/page2.asp
     
    Rich, Nov 21, 2011
    #3
  4. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    If the metal skin is bonded to the plastic, the two materials work
    together. The metal is much more rigid than the plastic and will
    therefore carry the majority of any applied load. This means that in
    normal use the user is handling a camera substantially as rigid as if
    it were metal. This only changes when the metal delaminates from the
    plastic, usually from being subject to excessive force.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 21, 2011
    #4
  5. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    That's because most people use lightweight lenses, such as the Olympus
    M.Zuiko 40-200mm and the Panasonic 45-200mm. Even the Panasonic
    100-300mm is a fairly light lens. That's just one benefit of plastic.


    It's fine with the lenses stated above, which are probably the longest
    lenses used by 99% of m4/3 users. Anything longer, or heavier, and
    you should support the lens, not the camera.
     
    Bruce, Nov 21, 2011
    #5
  6. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Or temperature changes where the plastic expands and contracts a lot
    more than the metal.
     
    RichA, Nov 21, 2011
    #6
  7. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    Or, more likely, temperature changes where the plastic expands and
    contracts a lot *LESS* than the metal.
     
    Bruce, Nov 21, 2011
    #7
  8. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Kind of awkward, if you do it for a long time. My most comfortable
    DSLR when used with any lens was the Olympus E-1, which allowed you to
    (thanks to the deep grip) dangle it from the tips of your fingers if
    you wanted. Usually, with a normal sized DSLR (say a D300) you could
    use all but the heaviest lenses by simply leveraging with the grip
    (especially if you had an optional battery grip attached). A 24-70mm
    f2.8 was supportable in this way. Beyond that, you need to support
    the lens too.
    However, the big difference when it comes to lens support is how much
    weight are you taking? With a m4/3rds body and a larger lens, you are
    supporting almost all the lens and some of the camera weight when you
    support the lens. You actually are applying and upward pressure to
    the lens (usually the focus ring) and this is somewhat questionable as
    focusing rings are not meant to have unequal pressure applied to
    them. With a grippable DSLR, you can pull backwards on the DSLR grip
    thereby taking some of the lens weight off the hand supporting it,
    which usually means zooming or focusing manually is easier.
    The heaviest thing I had on a Panasonic G1 was a Nikon Q series 135mm
    f2.8. One of the strap eyelets unscrewed itself (though not when that
    lens was on the camera) but that is a known flaw with the G1/GH1.
     
    RichA, Nov 21, 2011
    #8
  9. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    People buy m4/3 for its lightness and compactness. If you want to
    start carrying around heavy lenses, you should perhaps re-evaluate
    whether m4/3 is the right system for you.

    I don't know of any m4/3 lenses that are heavy enough to cause any
    concern about the strength of the lens mount on the camera. If you
    are using long and/or heavy legacy lenses, you should primarily
    support the lens and treat the m4/3 camera body as a relatively
    lightweight attachment to the rear of that lens.

    I realise I am repeating myself, but that's because there isn't any
    more to say. You are arguing about a non-problem.
     
    Bruce, Nov 21, 2011
    #9
  10. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Who says? Apart from you, that is.
    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 21, 2011
    #10
  11. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    If the plastic is firmly attached to the metal it is the expansion of
    the metal which governs.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 21, 2011
    #11
  12. RichA

    Rich Guest

    The fact they don't turn as smoothly when you allow the weight of a lens
    to press down pretty much proves it. But feel free to experiment.
     
    Rich, Nov 22, 2011
    #12
  13. RichA

    Eric Stevens Guest

    It doesn't prove that "focusing rings are not meant to have unequal
    pressure applied to them". All it does is prove that frictional forces
    increase when you increase the forces applied to the focusing ring;
    but I would expect that. It says nothing at all about whether or not
    the focusing ring is designed to withstand any particular system of
    forces.

    Regards,

    Eric Stevens
     
    Eric Stevens, Nov 22, 2011
    #13
  14. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    Eric, I'm sure you realize you are contradicting the opinion of the
    world's pre=eminent optical design engineer. It can tell you what's
    wrong with any product, just by looking at a photo, or someone else's
    description.
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #14
  15. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    So now you're imagining a lens that is heavy enough to distort the
    lens mount of a m4/3 camera body. but whose focusing ring is so flimsy
    that it bends.

    It's pure fantasy.
     
    Bruce, Nov 22, 2011
    #15
  16. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Withstand? As in fail or not fail? I said nothing of the kind. How
    well the zoom or focus ring work depends on even or uneven pressure on
    them.
     
    RichA, Nov 22, 2011
    #16
  17. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Optical engineering is different than mechanical engineering.
     
    RichA, Nov 22, 2011
    #17
  18. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Doesn't have to bend. Just has to have enough unequal pressure
    applied to make it work less smoothly. This results in more
    difficulty achieving fine focus. High-end telescopes actually have
    adjustment mechanism designed to compensate for when things like heavy
    cameras are attached to the focusers, so they don't bind. Camera
    lenses do not have these adjustments. The problem is made worse still
    by using fast lenses that are not only heavier, but require more
    delicate manual focusing because of shallow DOF.
     
    RichA, Nov 22, 2011
    #18
  19. RichA

    Bruce Guest


    If it doesn't bend, it cannot work less smoothly.

    As I said, this is pure fantasy. You are making the whole thing up.
     
    Bruce, Nov 22, 2011
    #19
  20. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    And camels are mammals.
    You have never described your qualifications in mechanical engineering;

    marketing;

    corporate management.

    You have expressed unsupported opinions on all the above. Yet, you have
    NEVER given a direct answer to questions about your qualifications.
    Any normal person who receives the amount of ridicule you do would have
    crawled back into his shell, or mommy's basement.
    Here is your chance for redemption.
     
    PeterN, Nov 22, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.