Panasonic ditches plastic in its new G-body

The G5. Apparently, the body is aluminum. According to this
article. They mistakenly call it the G3 though.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/538941/panasonic-lumix-g5-dslm-claims-new-benchmark

 

Seems only the "front plate" is aluminum.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-g5/

 

It hardly matters what the front panel (Panasonic G5) or whole body
shell (Olympus OM-D E-M5) is made of when in both cameras the key
components requiring - and providing - dimensional accuracy are made
of plastic. I refer to the chassis that carry both the sensor and the
lens mount.

The outer shell is purely that, a shell. If it is made of metal, all
it does is conceal the plastic from view. It plays absolutely no part
in the structural rigidity and dimensional stability of the only bits
that matter.

 

Hi,

This reminds me of when the Olympus OM-4Ti first appeared with much
advertising about the new titanium body. It turns out that the body was
identical to the old OM-4, and only a very thin top plate was titanium.
Does it really matter, except for marketing? No.

Mort Linder

 

Metal bodies can be made even more compact owing to thinner dimensions.
The Sony NEX 3N versus 5N as examples. Plus, small parts made of plastic
in cameras are ticking time-bombs waiting to break. Nikon DSLR flash
hold-downs being a case in point. Metal hook, plastic tab, plastic tab
breaks, fix costs more than the body is worth after a couple years.

 

Course it matters. It effects camera size, and most weather-sealed bodies
are metal. All semi-pro and pro bodies are metal, for strength and
tolerance control.

 

I think the bottom plate was as well, because they both show finish
wear. I had one.

 

g5-dslm-claims-new-benchmark

Wish I could understand the blanket condemnation so many folks have for
everything 'plastic'. Modern 'plastics' come in a wide variety of
formulations which can have quite a variety of physical properties
depending on the intended use. And it is my understanding that at least
some 'plastics' are more stable than many metals - which do, in fact,
expand and contract with temperature. Carbon fibre and kevlar are good
examples - kevlar is used extensively in 'bulletproof' vests and is much
stronger than steel - not only pound for pound but also in lines (ropes)
diameter for diameter.

 

Not to put too fine a point on it, but scrap polycarbonate is neither
carbon fiber or kevlar.

 

Whether scrap or not, polycarbonate is an extremely strong and tough
material. See and

 

It's not as good as metal. It's not as strong, it expands and
contracts more with temperature change (which makes any weather-
sealing questionable) and it cannot be made as accurately when it
comes to machining. Also, it requires strengthening with metal at key
points or premature wear will occur. In addition, it requires thicker
walls when making products because of flexture. One good thing about
it, for cheap cameras, a finish can be pre-molded or "built-in" to the
plastic, unlike metal.

 

Incompetent product designers may well see all those things as
"problems"; excellent designers, not so much.

Isaac

 

It would seem that if polycarbonate is good enough for the cockpit canopy
of the F-22 fighter and used for motorcycle, small plane and helicopter
windscreens, and bulletproof windows, it might be good enough for the
case of a camera.

 

The problem you have when you make these criticisms is that you don't
think like a designer.

"It's not as good as metal" is a value judgement for which you give no
real justification.

"It's not as strong" is open ended criticism which ignores the fact
that properly designed objects have the right amount of material in
the right place to enable their physical properties to carry the loads
applied.

"It expands and contracts more with temperature change (which makes
any weather-sealing questionable)" is a nonsense claim. Headlights on
cars are weather sealed. There are no problems arising from
temperature change with the very common acrylic lenses used in
eyeglasses. Its all a question of designing for the properties of the
material you are using.

"It cannot be made as accurately when it comes to machining." is
nonsense. In most cases machining is not required: the component is
molded to the finished shape and is as accurate as is the (metal)
mold.

"It requires strengthening with metal at key points or premature wear
will occur". You are not talking about strength. You mean wear
resistance. Few metals have really good wear resistance either, unless
they lubricated in some way. If you are not able to lubricate the
bearing a plastic such as HMW polyethelene is the best choice.

"In addition, it requires thicker walls when making products because
of flexture." So what? It is always important to choose a suitable
wall thickness when flexure is a problem.


A plastic camera is not just a metal camera with plastic substituted
for metal. It should be a completely new design. Even though it ends
up looking much the same, for the reasons that concern you, I would
expect it to be completely different in detail.

 

I justified what I said with a slew of examples of physical
characteristics of plastic, and you can make anything stong. How would
you be with a cardboard body an inch thick for a camera?

 

Slew? Six at my count,, virtually al of them demonstrating a lack of
understanding of the problem. How do you explain the fact that if even
one of your criticisms was correct you wouldn't find polycarbonate
being used for underwater camera housings; See
http://store.aikotradingstore.com/canon-underwater-camera-housing/

 

On 20/07/2012 13:22, RichA wrote:

(...)

That has changed recently, company called Liquidmetal has patented a
process that allows pre-molding metal.

Apple have bagged an exclusive licence to use the stuff in consumer
electronics.

 

The material has a long way to go yet. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidmetal

 

It's just RichA, and he's got the idea that plastic lives and
tries to strangle him at night or something.

-Wolfgang

 

Uhhh, do you know of any transparent metals?