Another plastic body bites the dust

On Sep 16, 12:20 am, Savageduck
wrote:
> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>
> > The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>
> Does that mean you might actually buy one?

I don't know. I have a D300. It would have to be a substantial step-
up.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

Savageduck wrote:
>On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>
>> The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>
>Does that mean you might actually buy one?


No, but he might stop whining about that particular DSLR.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

>The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.

Only the top and bottom plates. The rest is plastic.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

RichA wrote:
>On Sep 16, 12:20 am, Savageduck
>wrote:
>> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>>
>> > The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>
>> Does that mean you might actually buy one?
>
>I don't know. I have a D300. It would have to be a substantial step-
>up.


It is, but a D300 replacement is coming, as is a D700 replacement.
Perhaps not in 2010, but certainly within a year from now. In the
meantime, the D7000 is a step up from the D300 only in resolution
(16.2 MP versus 12.3 MP) and in video capability (1080P versus none).
I suspect video isn't all that important to you if you use a D300, so
there is only the resolution, and that might be complicated by greater
noise. The D300 has particularly low noise for an APS-C sensor so we
will have to see whether the D7000 has taken a step backwards due to
cramming almost 4 million more pixels into the same area.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

"Savageduck" wrote in message

> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>
>> The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>
> Does that mean you might actually buy one?
>

There is a better chance of me winning the New York Marathon

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:30:49 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:

>"Savageduck" wrote in message
>
>> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>>
>>> The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>
>> Does that mean you might actually buy one?
>>
>
>There is a better chance of me winning the New York Marathon

I have entered several New York Marathons. All built by the Checker
Motors Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:07:32 -0400, Bowser wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
> wrote:
>
>>The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>
> Only the top and bottom plates. The rest is plastic.

Doesn't look like that here:

From the dpreview preview:
http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1009/nikond7000/D7000_Mgbody_2_l.jpg

--
Andrew
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

"tony cooper" wrote in message

> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:30:49 -0400, "Peter"
> wrote:
>
>>"Savageduck" wrote in message
>>
>>> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>>>
>>>> The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>>
>>> Does that mean you might actually buy one?
>>>
>>
>>There is a better chance of me winning the New York Marathon
>
> I have entered several New York Marathons. All built by the Checker
> Motors Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan.


<G>

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On 17/09/2010 3:55 a.m., Bruce wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> On Sep 16, 12:20 am, Savageduck
>> wrote:
>>> On 2010-09-15 20:53:59 -0700, RichA said:
>>>
>>>> The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>>
>>> Does that mean you might actually buy one?
>>
>> I don't know. I have a D300. It would have to be a substantial step-
>> up.
>
>
> It is, but a D300 replacement is coming, as is a D700 replacement.
> Perhaps not in 2010, but certainly within a year from now. In the
> meantime, the D7000 is a step up from the D300 only in resolution
> (16.2 MP versus 12.3 MP) and in video capability (1080P versus none).
> I suspect video isn't all that important to you if you use a D300, so
> there is only the resolution, and that might be complicated by greater
> noise. The D300 has particularly low noise for an APS-C sensor so we
> will have to see whether the D7000 has taken a step backwards due to
> cramming almost 4 million more pixels into the same area.
>
It appears that latest Nikon sensors may not involve Sony at all - geeks
looking at the chips can't identify things which identified the
D90/300/s sensors as Sony production, even if Nikon design.
I doubt this sensor will be a step backwards in any way, and especially
in read noise / base ISO DR, where Nikon have been excelling -
particularly kicking Canon's butt on pattern noise.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

Andrew Reilly wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:07:32 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>
>> Only the top and bottom plates. The rest is plastic.
>
>Doesn't look like that here:
>
>From the dpreview preview:
>http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1009/nikond7000/D7000_Mgbody_2_l.jpg


Either way, it is a thin skin of magnesium/aluminum alloy over a
polycarbonate body structure.

It is to give people like RichA the illusion that they have a
metal-bodied camera, when the trust is that they have a plastic-bodied
camera with a thin metal shell glued to it.

These magnesium alloy-shelled plastic-bodied cameras are a very long
way from the metal body/metal chassis SLRs of the 1960s and 70s. But
it is possible to fool some people all the time ... just cover up the
plastic with some thin metal, and some people think you have a modern
version of the Pentax Spotmatic or Nikon F.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:50:58 +0100, Bruce wrote:

>Andrew Reilly wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 10:07:32 -0400, Bowser wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53:59 -0700 (PDT), RichA
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The Nikon D90 becomes the D7000, body goes from plastic to metal.
>>>
>>> Only the top and bottom plates. The rest is plastic.
>>
>>Doesn't look like that here:
>>
>>From the dpreview preview:
>>http://a.img-dpreview.com/news/1009/nikond7000/D7000_Mgbody_2_l.jpg
>
>
>Either way, it is a thin skin of magnesium/aluminum alloy over a
>polycarbonate body structure.
>
>It is to give people like RichA the illusion that they have a
>metal-bodied camera, when the trust is that they have a plastic-bodied
>camera with a thin metal shell glued to it.
>
>These magnesium alloy-shelled plastic-bodied cameras are a very long
>way from the metal body/metal chassis SLRs of the 1960s and 70s. But
>it is possible to fool some people all the time ... just cover up the
>plastic with some thin metal, and some people think you have a modern
>version of the Pentax Spotmatic or Nikon F.
>
>

Yet structurally the combination might surpass the performance of both
materials when used independently. This is why some car bodies and other
items are constructed with a metal layer over plastics, and vice-versa, to
make them nearly dent-proof with greater structural integrity. You all just
love to assume so much about things with which you have no experience
whatsoever. Then others equally ignorant mindlessly parrot it like they are
some kind of now well-known facts. There should be a new word to define
this behavior. Perhaps something like "blignorance". For the bliss attained
while in a state of ignorance by psychotically assuming one is correct.
These newsgroups are crawling wall-to-wall with people displaying this
behavior.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

Superzooms Still Win wrote:
>On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:50:58 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>
>>Either way, it is a thin skin of magnesium/aluminum alloy over a
>>polycarbonate body structure.
>>
>>It is to give people like RichA the illusion that they have a
>>metal-bodied camera, when the trust is that they have a plastic-bodied
>>camera with a thin metal shell glued to it.
>>
>>These magnesium alloy-shelled plastic-bodied cameras are a very long
>>way from the metal body/metal chassis SLRs of the 1960s and 70s. But
>>it is possible to fool some people all the time ... just cover up the
>>plastic with some thin metal, and some people think you have a modern
>>version of the Pentax Spotmatic or Nikon F.
>>
>>
>
>Yet structurally the combination might surpass the performance of both
>materials when used independently. This is why some car bodies and other
>items are constructed with a metal layer over plastics, and vice-versa, to
>make them nearly dent-proof with greater structural integrity.


Agree 100%. I was just pointing out RichA's ridiculous assertions of
the alleged superiority of all-metal construction, when it is in fact
a very thin alloy skin over plastic.


>You all just
>love to assume so much about things with which you have no experience
>whatsoever. Then others equally ignorant mindlessly parrot it like they are
>some kind of now well-known facts. There should be a new word to define
>this behavior. Perhaps something like "blignorance". For the bliss attained
>while in a state of ignorance by psychotically assuming one is correct.
>These newsgroups are crawling wall-to-wall with people displaying this
>behavior.


Why do you - repeatedly - have to spoil what could have been an
intelligent and well-reasoned contribution to a discussion by
obsessive personal attacks and insults that are so often misdirected?
Perhaps you are equally as afraid of people agreeing with you as
arguing with you.

Either way, your gratuitous insults devalue (to zero) what once had a
chance of being a genuinely useful contribution to these photo
newsgroups.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust 

On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 14:35:14 +0100, Bruce wrote:

>Superzooms Still Win wrote:
>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 13:50:58 +0100, Bruce wrote:
>>>
>>>Either way, it is a thin skin of magnesium/aluminum alloy over a
>>>polycarbonate body structure.
>>>
>>>It is to give people like RichA the illusion that they have a
>>>metal-bodied camera, when the trust is that they have a plastic-bodied
>>>camera with a thin metal shell glued to it.
>>>
>>>These magnesium alloy-shelled plastic-bodied cameras are a very long
>>>way from the metal body/metal chassis SLRs of the 1960s and 70s. But
>>>it is possible to fool some people all the time ... just cover up the
>>>plastic with some thin metal, and some people think you have a modern
>>>version of the Pentax Spotmatic or Nikon F.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Yet structurally the combination might surpass the performance of both
>>materials when used independently. This is why some car bodies and other
>>items are constructed with a metal layer over plastics, and vice-versa, to
>>make them nearly dent-proof with greater structural integrity.
>
>
>Agree 100%. I was just pointing out RichA's ridiculous assertions of
>the alleged superiority of all-metal construction, when it is in fact
>a very thin alloy skin over plastic.
>
>
>>You all just
>>love to assume so much about things with which you have no experience
>>whatsoever. Then others equally ignorant mindlessly parrot it like they are
>>some kind of now well-known facts. There should be a new word to define
>>this behavior. Perhaps something like "blignorance". For the bliss attained
>>while in a state of ignorance by psychotically assuming one is correct.
>>These newsgroups are crawling wall-to-wall with people displaying this
>>behavior.
>
>
>Why do you - repeatedly - have to spoil what could have been an
>intelligent and well-reasoned contribution to a discussion by
>obsessive personal attacks and insults that are so often misdirected?
>Perhaps you are equally as afraid of people agreeing with you as
>arguing with you.

Not misdirected. The "you" in my above comment is being directed to all in
these newsgroups. Hence, the "You all ..." opener.

Worse than having someone disagree with you is having them agree with you.
I neither want nor need anyone agreeing with me in life. There's nothing
worse in the world than encouraging people into becoming just more mindless
followers. I never assume something to be true just because people agree.
This is precisely how I found out what total idiots write up the reviews at
dpreview. Not to mention the supreme folly of "dslr superiority". By doing
my own independent tests and not becoming just another mindless follower
parroting the biased stupidity and ignorance of others--no matter how much
of an "x-spurt" that they themselves or others might claim them to be. They
could have twenty sheepskins on their wall and they still might be complete
morons. I've met people like that during my travels in life. Only when I
have removed all doubt, on my own, independently of all others, can I be
99% certain of what I claim. I welcome the person who might have the
missing 1% to prove me wrong, so I am then forced to reconsider my
near-certain assessment with further research. People with the intellect
and experience capable of providing that missing 1% of information that
could make me reconsider what I have discovered on my own are far and few
between, nearly non-existent.

"Belief is not the beginning but the end of all knowledge." - Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe

I, for one, refuse to give up on knowledge by just assuming a belief that
all others agree on, because it's so much more convenient for them that
way. Their bliss of self-induced ignorance borne of lazy minds and spirits.
 >> Stay informed about: Another plastic body bites the dust