Canon reveals EOS 60D

[Gricer]

I must admit I prefer the feel of the (up till now) xxD cameras to that of the xxxD ones - they just seem to feel more solid and nicer to hold, but perhaps that could be as much to do with the size of them.

Perhaps it's some sort of equipment snobbery - "the top of the range cameras all have magnesium bodies, therefore I couldn't possibly be seen with a 'plastic' bodied one".

But then I suppose there must be a good reason why the manufactures DO make the top of the range models from the more expensive materials that they do. If 'plastic' was as good yet cheaper to produce then surely that's what they would use.

[El_Sid]

It's that "give" in plastics which makes me suspect the dimensional stability - aircraft structures have to flex, on the contrary we do not want flexure between the optical components and the focal plane in a camera.

Some parts are required to flex, others are most certainly not. The trick is to select the appropriate polymer/reinforcement combination. Low density polyethylene flexes easily while a 50-60% carbon or glass reinforced epoxide matrix will barely flex at all.

When you consider the internal dimensions of a camera the likely spans over which flexure can therfore occur the potential for significant movement is not as great as you might imagine. If the right engineering plastic system is coupled with intelligent design which takes into full account the properties of the selected system the end result can be made just as dimensionally stable as if it were metal

[daft_biker]

Like the new 100mm macro? Haven't heard much grumling about it being cased in plastic but plenty praise for how well it works.

[El_Sid]

But then I suppose there must be a good reason why the manufactures DO make the top of the range models from the more expensive materials that they do. If 'plastic' was as good yet cheaper to produce then surely that's what they would use.

Long term durability and resistance to impact - particularly point impact - may be a factor here.

Many of the plastic materials used for the external casings of cameras are more prone to point impact damage and failure than the metal alloys traditionally or currently used. This issue is greatly increased as temperature is reduced and can also be enhanced if the camera is used in places where it may come into contact with solvents, greases and even some generally innocuous chemicals which can adversely affect the molecular structure of the polymer.

As professional cameras have a greater potential to be used in extreme environments the manufacturers are more inclined to utilise materials with a proven track record under such conditions. As enthusiast and consumer models are far less likely to enounter such conditions with any regularity it's less likely that such durability is needed and materials that offer a more favourable performance/cost balance are likely to be more than satisfactory.

[RogerMac]

Might I suggest a compromise? A plastic body covered in metal - that seems to preserve all the advantages of plastic while feeling like metal. As it happens I bought such a camera two months ago but I hardly like to mention its name in a canon discussion.

[GeoffR]

But then I suppose there must be a good reason why the manufactures DO make the top of the range models from the more expensive materials that they do. If 'plastic' was as good yet cheaper to produce then surely that's what they would use.

Long term durability and resistance to impact - particularly point impact - may be a factor here.

Many of the plastic materials used for the external casings of cameras are more prone to point impact damage and failure than the metal alloys traditionally or currently used. This issue is greatly increased as temperature is reduced and can also be enhanced if the camera is used in places where it may come into contact with solvents, greases and even some generally innocuous chemicals which can adversely affect the molecular structure of the polymer.

As professional cameras have a greater potential to be used in extreme environments the manufacturers are more inclined to utilise materials with a proven track record under such conditions. As enthusiast and consumer models are far less likely to encounter such conditions with any regularity it's less likely that such durability is needed and materials that offer a more favourable performance/cost balance are likely to be more than satisfactory.

Of course the horizontal stab of an A320 doesn't get exposed to extreme temperatures does it, -70 to +40 being pretty common and birds at 150 mph are pretty good impact sources.

The reason top SLRs aren't made of engineering composites is inertia, in the form of the people who buy in quantity.

[dangie]

My first "proper" camera was a Russian Zenit, made I think from eighth inch tank metal. Give me a lightweight Nikon D3 or Canon 1Ds anyday [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Vlad_Soare]

So what you're saying is that manufacturers should dumb down because of your ignorance on the matter?

No, I'm saying that if manufacturers want my money, they should give me what I want. It's not me who should want what they offer. It's them who should offer what I want.
Of course, if they all stop offering what I want, then I'll have no choice but to try to make do with what they offer.

Why should they listen to you if you're plain wrong?

What do you mean by "wrong"? I only said that I personally like metal cameras more. Are you saying that this statement is incorrect? Do I actually like plastic more? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Why should they listen? Because they want my money. If I spend a lot of money, then I want to be sure I get what I want, and not what the manufacturer thinks I should want.

I'm not saying plastic cameras are bad. If the great majority of the customers want plastic, so be it. Let them have it. All I'm saying is that I personally would choose a metal one if I were given a choice. You may approve of my choice or not, but that's a different story.

plastics are almost certainly a better material for cameras than metals, as they actually provide better protection to the delicate electronics inside because of their superior shock absorbing characteristics and the fact that they deform elastically, rather than plastically as metals do. Proper engineering plastics are far better suited to cameras than metals are, and so if you really care about cameras, you should indeed take heed of aircraft designers and all the others who actually know more about the subject than you do, rather than let ill-informed prejudice attempt to dictate to manufacturers that we should make do with second-best.

That may be so, but it doesn't change the way I feel, which is a <u>subjective</u> matter.
You could as easily make a strong case for dumping film and going digital. Let's see:

"Digital is almost certainly a better medium than film, as it actually provides better image quality, better performance in low light, variable light sensitivity, variable white balance, not to mention zero film/processing costs. Properly engineered sensors are far better suited to cameras than films are, and so if you really care about cameras, you should indeed take heed of sports and news photographers and all the others, who only use digital cameras now, and who actually know more about the subject than you do, rather than let ill-informed prejudice attempt to dictate to manufacturers that we should make do with second-best (film, that is)."

How does that sound?
Will this make me dump my film cameras and go fully digital? I don't think so.

[GeoffR]

So what you're saying is that manufacturers should dumb down because of your ignorance on the matter?

No, I'm saying that if manufacturers want my money, they should give me what I want. It's not me who should want what they offer. It's them who should offer what I want.

Why should they listen to you if you're plain wrong?

What do you mean by "wrong"? I only said that I personally like metal cameras more. Are you saying that this statement is incorrect? Do I actually like plastic more? [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Why should they listen? Because they want my money. If I spend a lot of money, then I want to be sure I get what I want, and not what the manufacturer thinks I should want.

I'm not saying plastic cameras are bad. If the great majority of the customers want plastic, so be it. Let them have it. All I'm saying is that I personally would choose a metal one if I were given a choice. You may approve of my choice or not, but that's a different story.

plastics are almost certainly a better material for cameras than metals, as they actually provide better protection to the delicate electronics inside because of their superior shock absorbing characteristics and the fact that they deform elastically, rather than plastically as metals do. Proper engineering plastics are far better suited to cameras than metals are, and so if you really care about cameras, you should indeed take heed of aircraft designers and all the others who actually know more about the subject than you do, rather than let ill-informed prejudice attempt to dictate to manufacturers that we should make do with second-best.

That may be so, but it doesn't change the way I feel, which is a <u>subjective</u> matter.
You could as easily make a strong case for dumping film and going digital. Let's see:

"Digital is almost certainly a better medium than film, as it actually provides better image quality, better performance in low light, variable light sensitivity, variable white balance, not to mention zero film/processing costs. Properly engineered sensors are far better suited to cameras than films are, and so if you really care about cameras, you should indeed take heed of sports and news photographers and all the others, who only use digital cameras now, and who actually know more about the subject than you do, rather than let ill-informed prejudice attempt to dictate to manufacturers that we should make do with second-best (film, that is)."

How does that sound?
Will this make me dump my film cameras and go fully digital? I don't think so.

Clearly the manufacturers are listening to you, almost all have stopped making film cameras, but those that are doing so are making them from metal.

I suggest that if the next top Nikon or Canon were to have a Carbon fibre reinforced body clad with alloy top and bottom plates and a stainless steel lens mount you would neither know or care based on the feel of the camera. Unless you look at the spec sheets when buying the actual details of the construction are irrelevant.

Yes your preference is subjective, but that doesn't mean that it isn't leading you down a wrong path. Many people have chosen a path for subjective reasons and come to regret the consequences. Personally if the Nikon D4 were to have a CRP chassis and metal top and bottom plates I would buy one, assuming I could afford it, because I know that it would be more durable than any metal body.

[Vlad_Soare]

I suggest that if the next top Nikon or Canon were to have a Carbon fibre reinforced body clad with alloy top and bottom plates and a stainless steel lens mount you would neither know or care based on the feel of the camera. Unless you look at the spec sheets when buying the actual details of the construction are irrelevant.

I agree. If there were no way I could perceive any difference by feel, then I wouldn't care what the camera were made of (as long as it had metal in the right places, like the lens mount for instance).

However, I think it would be difficult not to perceive any difference, because (though this may not necessarily be a strict rule) cameras made of modern materials have a tendency to be just a bit too lightweight for their volume. Metal cameras can give a feeling of solidity (maybe not real solidity, but just an impression) because of their increased weight. A small and heavy camera feels (even if it actually isn't) more sturdy than a big and lightweight one.

My current 4x5" camera, a Chamonix, is made mainly of wood and carbon fiber. Even lensboards are made of carbon fiber. And I love it. I wouldn't replace it with an all-metal camera.
On the other hand, I love my RB67 precisely because it's all-metal. Most people complain about the weight of these cameras, but I love mine precisely for its weight (yes, I know, I'm odd )
As I said, it's a subjective matter.

Many people have chosen a path for subjective reasons and come to regret the consequences.

I know. I'm one of them. But I just never learn.

[Benchista]

The point is that blind ignorance is depriving us of better materials - Canon quite happily used plastics in all their top-end cameras, but utter fools kept banging on about how build quality wasn't as good as Nikon. It simply wasn't true - you just didn't get smashed EOS 1 series cameras any more than the equivalent Nikon, but no, prejudice insisted that cameras had to be metal, regardless of if it was actually inferior. For me, that's dangerously stupid - the manufacturers do indeed know better than the vast majority of users, and I'm really cross that those idiot users prevent the rest of us from having the best by their ridiculous ignorance and prejudice. It's not subjective at all - the properties of materials aren't. It's simply madness.

[dangie]

Without wishing to start another argument (well ok I am really), I don't really care what the camera is made from (papier mache excluded) as long as it ain't BLACK (Pentax excepted).

[Vlad_Soare]

It simply wasn't true - you just didn't get smashed EOS 1 series cameras any more than the equivalent Nikon,

Oh, but EOS 1 was metal. So were 1N and 1V. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
If I'm not mistaken, EOS 5 was the first EOS plastic camera, and, while I haven't owned one, I know people who have. In the case of a strong shock the inner components were indeed very well protected due to the plastic's elasticity, but the body itself would crack. Besides, shock resistance is only one side of the story. EOS 5's start and mode selection knob was known to break because it was made of a low quality plastic.

For me, that's dangerously stupid - the manufacturers do indeed know better than the vast majority of users, and I'm really cross that those idiot users prevent the rest of us from having the best by their ridiculous ignorance and prejudice.

I see your point, though calling users whose preferences are different from yours idiots seems a bit out of place to me. Nobody is preventing you from having the latest materials. There are plenty of plastic cameras to choose from. In fact, it's the metal ones that are slowly disappearing. The future is plastic, whether I like it or not. So don't worry - you'll have all the plastic you want.

It's not subjective at all - the properties of materials aren't.

The properties of materials aren't subjective.
The feeling they give the user is.

[Benchista]

It simply wasn't true - you just didn't get smashed EOS 1 series cameras any more than the equivalent Nikon,

Oh, but EOS 1 was metal. So were 1N and 1V. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Nope. The 1V was, but the 1 and 1N were not.

If I'm not mistaken, EOS 5 was the first EOS plastic camera,

You are indeed mistaken.

and, while I haven't owned one, I know people who have. In the case of a strong shock the inner components were indeed very well protected due to the plastic's elasticity, but the body itself would crack. Besides, shock resistance is only one side of the story. EOS 5's start and mode selection knob was known to break because it was made of a low quality plastic.

I would agree. The 5 isn't made of very good materials, and does feel cheap and plasticky. The body does indeed crack, I've seen one with such damage. It's the wrong choice of materials, and aesthetically and in tactile terms horrible. That said, mine is still undamaged beyond a few scratches and scuffs (including mode dial) and fully functional, despite years of use and abuse. In fact the most worn-looking part of it is made of metal, the hotshoe. But Canon learned that lesson - pick up a 3, for instance.
I was going to buy an (earlier than the 5) 1000 for my wife, but there was too much flex in the front panels, so I got her the same (earlier than the 5) 100 as me - and both those cameras survived an enormous amount of punishment and still work nearly 20 years later. Punishment that would've caused much more severe problems for metal cameras - when my wife dropped hers running across a stone bridge, the camera went cartwheeling for about 10 metres. There's a graze or two (ditto mine, bashed on mountains and dropped on streets), but the only repair needed was to the mode dial - the click stops stopped working. Oh, and incidentally, I've got a couple of 1000s now that still work fine, so I was wrong on that one!

For me, that's dangerously stupid - the manufacturers do indeed know better than the vast majority of users, and I'm really cross that those idiot users prevent the rest of us from having the best by their ridiculous ignorance and prejudice.

I see your point, though calling users whose preferences are different from yours idiots seems a bit out of place to me. Nobody is preventing you from having the latest materials.

[/QUOTE]

But that's exactly the point, you (and others) are, with this insistence on metal at all costs. And as it's prejudice based on lack of knowledge that then steamrollers manufacturers into making decisions they shouldn't, then I think the idiots are getting away very lightly with my description of them - I could think of quite a few more choice terms that would apply.

There are plenty of plastic cameras to choose from. In fact, it's the metal ones that are slowly disappearing. The future is plastic, whether I like it or not. So don't worry - you'll have all the plastic you want.

Simply not true. The proportion of metal bodies is probably higher now than at any time since the early 1970s. I can't choose a camera at the level I want made out of the best materials, there just isn't one.

It's not subjective at all - the properties of materials aren't.

The properties of materials aren't subjective.
The feeling they give the user is.

Indeed, and that's why it's so stupid to use as a base for the construction of cameras.

In tactile terms, there are many ways to change the feel of a camera, and the same goes for the aesthetics of finish. My wife now uses a 450D, and that feels very much better than the 1000D simply because of the use of some body covering. It actually also feels surprisingly solid. And if you check out all the online forums, there just aren't masses of cases of broken plastic-bodied cameras.

[Vlad_Soare]

Oh, but EOS 1 was metal. So were 1N and 1V.

Nope. The 1V was, but the 1 and 1N were not.

I believe the 1 and 1N were aluminum covered in plastic. Weren't they?

[AndyTake2]

There's nothing wrong with 'plastic' but it really depends on how it's constructed.
It's possible to make some plastics feel really tough, and are able to take knocks and drops, yet some feel creaky and brittle - if you tap them it sounds as if they'll fall apart at the first knock.

A good example is the Nikon Wireless transmitter system for the D700 - over £500 and it feels like it was made in a toy shop. I've no doubt it is a great bit of kit, but as soon as I got one it went straight back - I was scared of dropping it.

I don't feel everything needs to be magnesium (though the 700 feels great) and I use my D60 sometimes - but I still have doubts about it's ability to take knocks.
The D90 is a different kettle of fish - it feels solid, if not as solid as the 300/700, but I wouldn't hesitate using it (if I could afford one now!) without thinking about knocks.

[Pogbellies]

Indeed, and that's why it's so stupid to use as a base for the construction of cameras.

In tactile terms, there are many ways to change the feel of a camera, and the same goes for the aesthetics of finish. My wife now uses a 450D, and that feels very much better than the 1000D simply because of the use of some body covering. It actually also feels surprisingly solid. And if you check out all the online forums, there just aren't masses of cases of broken plastic-bodied cameras.

I think this is the point, if Canon can make a plastic bodied camera feel "right" it should sell even in the pro marketplace.

I had a long play with a 550D before I bought the 7 and for me, despite its fantastic value and technology, it just didn't feel how I wanted such a camera to, daft I know but there you are. I know that it is a totally different design and it is this similarity on the 60D that troubles me. I liked design of the xxD range. That said, it is quite unfair to be negative without handling one, a privilege I have yet to have.

[alanS]

While in town today I asked the guy in my local camera shop when the 60D would be in and he said "next week." So, I'll look forward to finding out if it really is the plastic downgrade that many are saying that it is.

He also said that the "ticket price" is wrong and that it's £899 and not £999. I think that's what he said but I was confused as I thought that he meant that what I'd just bought was wrongly priced... anyway... we'll know the price soon enough.