PRO 1 Plastic Body Worries

[malford]

Why is it that the PRO 1 is a plastic bodied and all the other 8 mg prosumer cameras are of a magnesium construction, eg; Olympus 8080 and Sony F828.

Considering the price of the PRO 1 I would have thought that the best materials available would have been used.

I just worry if I drop the PRO 1 what sort of protection will the plastic case will give me?

I understand that Canon have considered weight advantages of using plastic but £800-£1000 for a plastic camera concerns me.

I know the Olympus 8080 looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp, but the magnesium body does it for me on the build quality stakes.

I look forward to Phil’s review of all the Prosumer cameras and maybe even a head to head comparison.

 

[GraphikEdition]

Im sure i read in the pdf brochure that the pro-1 was all metal in construction. oh well. Plastic absorbes a good amount of shock probably more than metal, im just guessing though!

I am hoping that the pro-1 is going to be a bit more of a photographers camera. I have a G5 but need something with a real viewfinder (EVF will do) and a manual focus/zoom ring. The pro-1 looks close enough for now unless a new digital EOS comes out with about 10-12 mp sensor so i can use the lenses i already own. Sorry got side tracked a bit.

Anyone know what parts are metal or plastic on the new pro-1?

 

[bolts]

That's not the only thing that bothers. The lens aperture is 2.4 verses 2.0 on the G5. And the AF assist light is missing in the Pro 1. I wonder how to manage in low-light conditions? Also the video mode is still 15fps.

The Digic processor in the Pro 1 is not the Digic II processor as well. Suspect Canon is crippling features and saving them for the Pro 2. And they don't want to cannabalise sales on the 300D by making the Pro 1 too good.

Sony F828 already has got 2.0 lens and 30fps video.

Why is it that the PRO 1 is a plastic bodied and all the other 8 mg
prosumer cameras are of a magnesium construction, eg; Olympus 8080
and Sony F828.

Considering the price of the PRO 1 I would have thought that the
best materials available would have been used.

I just worry if I drop the PRO 1 what sort of protection will the
plastic case will give me?

I understand that Canon have considered weight advantages of using
plastic but £800-£1000 for a plastic camera concerns me.

I know the Olympus 8080 looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp, but
the magnesium body does it for me on the build quality stakes.

I look forward to Phil’s review of all the Prosumer cameras and
maybe even a head to head comparison.

--
Regards.

 

[malford]

I should have looked more closer at the DPreview of the PRO 1 , it actually says body construction : Magnesium alloy / Plastic.

I have Pre-ordered the PRO 1 and when i looked at the product details on http://www.parkcameras.com it actually says Body Materials: Plastic

Checked out http://www.powershot.com and it didnt mention what is was made of either, unless i missed it?

 

[Marco Nero]

The body is magnesium alloy with impact resin panels. These panels will not stick to your face in cold weather nor will they easily scratch. Condensation is less likely to form on the outer surface and there's a degree of flexibility in the resin plates. The Pro 1 is not aimed at the general broad sweep of photographing public. Whilst it's affordable enough compared to say the 1D, it's aimed at a completely different demographic. It appears to be very much a "working camera" more than just a hobby cam. If you're just looking for a point-and-shoot but with near-SLR control, the new S1 is a nice alternative to the older G~series. Remeber that the D30 when it came out, was purchased by many professionals yet it was and is still, classified as a Non-Professional DSLR.

That's not the only thing that bothers. The lens aperture is 2.4
verses 2.0 on the G5. And the AF assist light is missing in the Pro
1. I wonder how to manage in low-light conditions? Also the video
mode is still 15fps.

Video mode needs to be at 24 frames per second to be viewed as "normal" although 15 fps will come closer to natural movement than 30 because at 30 fps, the movement of subject matter can become over-emphasized in action shots. No digital still camera can capture footage as natural as a typical camcorder can. Bottom line is still: If you want to make serious videos, buy a video camera. High end SLRs and DSLR cameras do not offer video at all (from memory). F2.0 was not suitable for this multi range lens (on the Pro 1) but it is necessary to cut back to f2.4 if you want to reduce CA in an acceptable level in an 8MP chip. This is why the Sony and even the G5 (though not so bad) have problems with CA. They're both f2.0.

The Digic processor in the Pro 1 is not the Digic II processor as
well.
Suspect Canon is crippling features and saving them for the
Pro 2. And they don't want to cannabalise sales on the 300D by
making the Pro 1 too good.

DiGiC MK2 is a modified version designed to sit on the top level Professional DSLR range from Canon.

Don't expect to see a replacement to the Pro 1 for at least a year, if even that. In order to regenerate the cost of development , it will be necessary to saturate the market with the first model for a minimum of 12-14 months. Canon have actually come forward recently and claimed they didn't include an Image Stabiliser because they wanted to keep the body size small and realised with the lens they were using, that a professional or an enthusiast wouldn't really need it. IS is only useful for certain types of shots, not very-lowlight (where the shutter may stay open longer) and not bright light (where the flash or the daylight speeds up the shutter).

Sony F828 already has got 2.0 lens and 30fps video.

Already, preliminary tests have shown that the f2.4 Flourite and Ultra Dispersion lenses are matching the poor performance of the Sony-Zeiss optics on the F828 which seem to perform a few stops higher than they ought to. The new L-Canon lens on the Pro 1 gives more accurate light transmission (thanks to the Flourite elements) with a tendancy to produce a more accurate colour spectrum that competitors lenses. The terrible Chromatic Aberration on the Sony F828 has been corrected with a combination of the L series lens and the DiGiC processor. The UD lens elements ( I believe there are 11) on the Pro 1 combat and reduce the CA from the 8MP Sony-Bayer chip to acceptable levels.

Why is it that the PRO 1 is a plastic bodied and all the other 8 mg
prosumer cameras are of a magnesium construction, eg; Olympus 8080
and Sony F828.

I really like the Sony F828... it feels very sturdy in the hands. But you will find that the new Pro 1 is still very heavy due to the lenses and the Magnesium Alloy interior. The Impact Resin panels on the outside are thick enough to impart a sense of strength and to withstand a great deal of abuse.

Considering the price of the PRO 1 I would have thought that the
best materials available would have been used.

They were. Except Titanium. That stuff's expensive and hard to cut. Metal lens barrels for example tend to shatter the lens elements when knocked.

I just worry if I drop the PRO 1 what sort of protection will the
plastic case will give me?

More than metal. But I can almost guarrentee you would regret dropping it.

I understand that Canon have considered weight advantages of using
plastic but £800-£1000 for a plastic camera concerns me.

It's only plastic on the outside. Like the equally expensive 300D/Rebel. There's a little metal on the body but the outer shell is plastic. Another thing to note is that if you place screws though plastic before anchoring them to a metal interior, they are far less likely to unscrew over time from vibration.

I know the Olympus 8080 looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp, but
the magnesium body does it for me on the build quality stakes.

It's heavy too. i probably wouldn't complain if the pro was was bigger and made of metal. But his camera is quite advanced for it's day and was designed for a serious photographer. I think you should try one out in the store in April and see what you think of the feel. The heavier Olympus 8080 will have an excellent lens and construction but I would question the quality and reliability of the electronics over some other brands.

I look forward to Phil’s review of all the Prosumer cameras and
maybe even a head to head comparison.

I do too. I think Phil's in depth reviews are particularly brutal and I'd be inclined to take his advice myself (I check his reviews whenever i'm contemplating a new camera or checking for somebody else who is.)... Can't wait to hear how he finds the Pro 1 and what kind of Pros and Cons he'll have listed. I'm aslso curious to see more photographic samples at other ISOs.

Regards,

--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design

 

[Mike Hunt]

The body is magnesium alloy with impact resin panels. ...resin plates.

"Resin" is marketing double-speak for "plastic". Let's call ot what it is - plastic. Personally, I don't care that the camera have some plastic, as I think it is better capable of absorbing shock and resisting scratches and dents. But it depends on the grade and quality of plastic used. The G-series used some very cheap looking/feeling plastic. If they're going to use plastic, let it be the sort of plastic you'd use to make firearms, not the plastic used to make toys.

Video mode needs to be at 24 frames per second to be viewed as
"normal" although 15 fps will come closer to natural movement than
30 because at 30 fps, the movement of subject matter can become
over-emphasized in action shots.

Huh? Where did you come up with that? Television is 24 fps and film is about 29.97 fps due to long established standards - not due to any inherent desirability of a slower frame rate. 15 fps is woefully inadequate for anything but the slowest motion. The whole point of video is motion.

No digital still camera can
capture footage as natural as a typical camcorder can. Bottom line
is still: If you want to make serious videos, buy a video camera.

That's not the point, and I wish apologists would stop using that argument. The issue is not whether a still image camera can or should replace a real video camera. The issue is that having semi-decent video capabilities is a useful and popular secondary feature, and other still-image camera makers have been offering streaming video and higher resolutions and frame rates for quite a while now. If they can do it and people want it, then there's no reason Canon can't offer it, except to reduce their costs and maximize profits at out expense.

High end SLRs and DSLR cameras do not offer video at all (from
memory).

They also don't offer a live, articulated LCD monitor. Does that mean you'd happily give up the Powershot's swiveling LCD?

F2.0 was not suitable for this multi range lens (on the
Pro 1) but it is necessary to cut back to f2.4 if you want to
reduce CA in an acceptable level in an 8MP chip. This is why the
Sony and even the G5 (though not so bad) have problems with CA.
They're both f2.0.

That is both incorrect and illogical. The problem with the F828 is not that it delivers high levels of CA at f2, but rather that in cases where CA is evident, it can not be eliminated EVEN at smaller aperture settings. Under the right conditions the G3 will display CA at its widest aperture, but stopping down to f3.5 or f4 virtually eliminates it. I still appreciate having f2 on the camera, because in most situations CA is not evident at all, and the wider opening allows me to shoot at light levels where a slower lens would be useless.

Canon used a slower lens to cut back expenses and size/weight on a lens already made considerably larger by its more complex construction and extended focal range. While I welcome the higher quality construction, I do not appreciate giving up a faster lens in exchange for greater focal range. I will miss a lot more photo opportunitiews due to the slower lens than I will gain from the extra wide angle or telephoto.

Don't expect to see a replacement to the Pro 1 for at least a year,
if even that.

I expect to see a "new" model within 6-8 months, as evidenced by Canon's track record. Don't expect any major improvements though.

Already, preliminary tests have shown that the f2.4 Flourite and
Ultra Dispersion lenses are matching the poor performance of the
Sony-Zeiss optics on the F828 which seem to perform a few stops
higher than they ought to.

Huh? What tests are those? What performance are you referring to? Performing a few stops higher? I think you are a little confused on your terminology...

Canon cameras tend to have higher sensitivities than their ISO ratings indicate. This has nothing to do with the lens. F2.0 is f2.0 no matter what. The new L lens is "supposed" to reduce CA. This has yet to be confirmed by ANY published tests. Regardless, we still have a slower lens, which is quite worrisome especially considering the lack of an OVF or an AF assist lamp. I fear this camera will be significantly LESS capable than its predecessors in a variety of shooting situations, particularly where low light is concerned.

 

[malford]

Thank you Marco Nero for your information.

 

[jpmalohesr]

... I have a Honda lawnmower that has a body totally made of plastic. It is at least 8 years old and the only thing that has broken was the metal transmission. I also have a 1995 Saturn with plastic body parts.... got sideswiped by a deer that I know would have dented metal doors but not so much as a scratch..

I think is is safe to say that today's plastics can be constructed to perform the design task very well.

Jim

http://www.hiddenvalleysoftware.com/east_malone/gallery.asp?caption=

http://www.hiddenvalleysoftware.com/

======================================

Why is it that the PRO 1 is a plastic bodied and all the other 8 mg
prosumer cameras are of a magnesium construction, eg; Olympus 8080
and Sony F828.

Considering the price of the PRO 1 I would have thought that the
best materials available would have been used.

I just worry if I drop the PRO 1 what sort of protection will the
plastic case will give me?

I understand that Canon have considered weight advantages of using
plastic but £800-£1000 for a plastic camera concerns me.

I know the Olympus 8080 looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp, but
the magnesium body does it for me on the build quality stakes.

I look forward to Phil’s review of all the Prosumer cameras and
maybe even a head to head comparison.

 

[NNS]

Just think of the times you've dropped a plastic device compared to the times you've dropped a metal device like a digicam.

I'll guarantee you that the metal camera will dent and the plastic composit camera will not.

I just don't see it as a major issue.

Now, is the "Pro 1" worth the asking price? Only you can decide that. I personally don't think so.

 

[Peter Foiles]

The issue is that having

semi-decent video capabilities is a useful and popular secondary
feature, and other still-image camera makers have been offering
streaming video and higher resolutions and frame rates for quite a while now.

I am not an apologist just a still photographer who prefers his still photo tools not to be cluttered up with useless frills. But I seem to be in the minority on this.

I will miss a lot more photo

opportunitiews due to the slower lens than I will gain from the
extra wide angle or telephoto.

Well I can compensate for a half stop speed loss easier than lack of a true wide angle.

I expect to see a "new" model within 6-8 months, as evidenced by
Canon's track record.

For the higher end models like the G series I think 9-12 is more accurate reflection of the track record.

==PeterF==

 

[ANAYV]

Canon cameras tend to have higher sensitivities than their ISO
ratings indicate. This has nothing to do with the lens. F2.0 is
f2.0 no matter what. The new L lens is "supposed" to reduce CA.
This has yet to be confirmed by ANY published tests. Regardless, we
still have a slower lens, which is quite worrisome especially
considering the lack of an OVF or an AF assist lamp. I fear this
camera will be significantly LESS capable than its predecessors in
a variety of shooting situations, particularly where low light is
concerned.

Dude,you wording is way too strong ,here.You voice your opinion,like it's the majority.

The slower lens is 'quite worrysome' ?

'..Fear that it will be significantly LESS capable...in a variety of shooting conditions ..'

Your situation sounds extreme,and not the average photographer who will be looking to buy this camera.

SLR and D-SLR users,who need to change lenses all the time,and whose images are their 'bread and butter' might be those needing the fastest lens posssible,but then again,there's a market for that already,and the 300D has made it more affordable than ever. (long sentance,or what :> )

Besides,what lens is the sharpest at full open aperture?

Phils tests shows many lenses (costing in the $1,000) are much sharper at f5.6,8,or even f11,than at full wide open aperture.

Shooting at f2.0 all the time(as opposed to the dreaded,slow 2.4 of the Pro 1,as you feel) would not produce the sharpest images,IMHO.
Nor will you get the blurr needed for Portraits,as one would on a D-SLR.
DOF will still be very shallow,on this camera.

those taking landscapes,nature,and macro photography ,will not consider this lens too slow,and will welcome the high quality lens,and decent focal lengths.Composing with the LCD would be a great plus,too.

Sounds like you need a special camera,made just for those always needing the fastest shutter speeds(my guess),and more usability in low light.

Still,a D-SLR is your best bet,not a prosumer,fixed lens system

ANAYV

 

[KRDV]

Build quality should be pretty good. I think someone said metal on the front and top and "plastic" on the bottom and rear (similar to the G3/G5).The Pro1 looks to be a similar if not more solid build than the G3 (which by my standards is pretty good despite the "plastic"). And yes, I have unfortunately, dropped my G3 and it survived just fine. Of course, it might be more tramatic given the price tag

 

[malford]

Build quality should be pretty good. I think someone said metal on
the front and top and "plastic" on the bottom and rear (similar to
the G3/G5).The Pro1 looks to be a similar if not more solid build
than the G3 (which by my standards is pretty good despite the
"plastic"). And yes, I have unfortunately, dropped my G3 and it
survived just fine. Of course, it might be more tramatic given the
price tag

Thanks for the info

I will try and not drop it...or better still get extra insurance for it...thanks to everyone who has contributed to my question.

Malcolm

 

[Marco Nero]

"Resin" is marketing double-speak for "plastic". Let's call ot what
it is - plastic.

Sure: Plastic is petroleum based. Resin comes from trees. Plastic Splits, Resin is less prose to shattering when processed. It includes some of the elements of plastic but that's just nit picking.

But it depends on the grade and
quality of plastic used. The G-series used some very cheap
looking/feeling plastic.

Guess all that plastic on the Pro DSLRs like the 1D means they're cheap and nasty.

If they're going to use plastic, let it be
the sort of plastic you'd use to make firearms, not the plastic
used to make toys.

Firearms are made from metal. Since I used to modify pistols for Law Enforcement, I know this for a certainty. The Slide is always made from termpered steel. The Grips and sometimes the "frame"(below the slide) is made from Neoprene. But once again, I digress...

Video mode needs to be at 24 frames per second to be viewed as
"normal" although 15 fps will come closer to natural movement than
30 because at 30 fps, the movement of subject matter can become
over-emphasized in action shots.

Huh? Where did you come up with that? Television is 24 fps and film
is about 29.97 fps due to long established standards - not due to
any inherent desirability of a slower frame rate. 15 fps is
woefully inadequate for anything but the slowest motion. The whole
point of video is motion.

Guess you should buy a video camera then, hmmm? I work in the film industry now and have done so for nearly ten years. Since television is closer to digital footage on a camera than film, I am wondering why this has come up. You yourself said that television is 25 frames per second. Unless we're talking about traditional animation in which case the same frame is photographed twice.

The issue is not whether a still image camera can or
should replace a real video camera. The issue is that having
semi-decent video capabilities is a useful and popular secondary
feature, and other still-image camera makers have been offering
streaming video and higher resolutions and frame rates for quite a
while now. If they can do it and people want it, then there's no
reason Canon can't offer it, except to reduce their costs and
maximize profits at out expense.

And just what do you think the Frame Rate of streaming video is? If you don't like Canon, then don't buy their cameras. Nikon is equal to Canon in quality. I'm sure they must offer something better in the video department then.

High end SLRs and DSLR cameras do not offer video at all (from
memory).

They also don't offer a live, articulated LCD monitor. Does that
mean you'd happily give up the Powershot's swiveling LCD?

Of course not. But the closer you get to a professional DSLR, the further you go from high rate video. Canon is trying to tell you something. What do you suppose it is?

F2.0 was not suitable for this multi range lens (on the
Pro 1) but it is necessary to cut back to f2.4 if you want to
reduce CA in an acceptable level in an 8MP chip. This is why the
Sony and even the G5 (though not so bad) have problems with CA.
They're both f2.0.

That is both incorrect and illogical.

You might want to talk to the Canon techies on that one. Thay're the one's who made this statement. And it's been verified by others in the optical elements industry. Since the UD lens elements are instrumental in reducing the CA, I am concerned that you have overlooked this important fact. That would make your statement incorrect.

Canon used a slower lens to cut back expenses and size/weight on a
lens already made considerably larger by its more complex
construction and extended focal range. While I welcome the higher
quality construction,

Didn't you just say that the construction was made from cheap plastic, not up to the same quality of the plastic used in firearms? I believe you said they should not use the "plastic used to make toys".

I do not appreciate giving up a faster lens
in exchange for greater focal range. I will miss a lot more photo
opportunitiews due to the slower lens than I will gain from the
extra wide angle or telephoto.

The Pro 1 camera is aimed squarely at professionals. It's stated on the Official Canon Pro 1 webpage. If you find you are unable to use it because the lens ratio is not to your tastes... well....

Don't expect to see a replacement to the Pro 1 for at least a year,
if even that.

I expect to see a "new" model within 6-8 months, as evidenced by
Canon's track record. Don't expect any major improvements though.

You should take a closer look at Canon's track record then. I stand by my earlier statement.

I think you are a little confused on
your terminology...

I think we both are. A lot of professionals have handled the Pro 1 and have passed the same judgment. I am not one of them and I am only passing on what has been stated elsewhere.

The new L lens is "supposed" to reduce CA.
This has yet to be confirmed by ANY published tests.

That's fine, you might want to sue Canon for false advertising since their webpage for the Pro 1 claims that "Canon's addition of Fluorite crystal and UD glass to the lens construction reduces the level of anomalous dispersion — chromatic aberration in photo parlance — compared to conventional optical glass, while the aspherical elements correct spherical aberration and allow the overall size and weight of the lens to be reduced."

Regards,
--
Marco Nero.
http://www.pbase.com/nero_design

 

[Steve110587]

in all tests i've seen on the net... CA is minimized at f4 and smaller in most cameras. this is not incorrect or illogical. its a fact.

That is both incorrect and illogical. The problem with the F828 is
not that it delivers high levels of CA at f2, but rather that in
cases where CA is evident, it can not be eliminated EVEN at smaller
aperture settings. Under the right conditions the G3 will display
CA at its widest aperture, but stopping down to f3.5 or f4
virtually eliminates it. I still appreciate having f2 on the
camera, because in most situations CA is not evident at all, and
the wider opening allows me to shoot at light levels where a slower
lens would be useless.

 

[Mike Hunt]

I am not an apologist just a still photographer who prefers his
still photo tools not to be cluttered up with useless frills. But I
seem to be in the minority on this.

If you don't have any use for the video capability, that's fine. But many of us do find it useful and convenient. So long as the video capability isn't degrading the features most important to you, there's no reason they should bother you.

I will miss a lot more photo

opportunitiews due to the slower lens than I will gain from the
extra wide angle or telephoto.

Well I can compensate for a half stop speed loss easier than lack
of a true wide angle.

In any indoor natural light situation, even f2 is inadequate at ISO 50/100. ANything lower makes it that much more difficult if not impossible to focus and shoot indoors. I;m not asking for anything so special. Both Sony and Olympus offer faster lenses.

I expect to see a "new" model within 6-8 months, as evidenced by
Canon's track record.

For the higher end models like the G series I think 9-12 is more
accurate reflection of the track record.

Look up the release dates for the G1, G2, G2 black, G3, and G5.

 

[Mike Hunt]

Dude,you wording is way too strong ,here.You voice your
opinion,like it's the majority.

Point taken. Sorry. Wasn't my intent...

The slower lens is 'quite worrysome' ?

To me and many others, yes. Specially combined with the expected high noise levels and lack of AF assist lamp.

'..Fear that it will be significantly LESS capable...in a variety
of shooting conditions ..'

Your situation sounds extreme,and not the average photographer who
will be looking to buy this camera.

As defined by whom? The G-series cameras have always attracted demanding photographers, not people looking for easy compromises. That's what Nikons are for.

SLR and D-SLR users,who need to change lenses all the time,and
whose images are their 'bread and butter' might be those needing
the fastest lens posssible

No, anyone shooting indoors or in low light can use a faster lens. A compact camera may not be the ideal tool for this work, but the faster the lens, the more versatile the camera.

but then again,there's a market for that
already,and the 300D has made it more affordable than ever. (long
sentance,or what :> )

An SLR is WAY too big for my needs, and that of others. If I wanted such a large camera, I'd have bought a 10D long ago. I want the best possible features and versatility in a compact package.

Besides,what lens is the sharpest at full open aperture?
Phils tests shows many lenses (costing in the $1,000) are much
sharper at f5.6,8,or even f11,than at full wide open aperture.

That's irrelevant. The issue is not what aperture produces the sharpest pics, but what aperture range will provide the ability to shoot under the widest set of circumstances. If I have plenty of light, I will aim for f5.6. If it's too dark, that's just not an option, now is it?

Shooting at f2.0 all the time(as opposed to the dreaded,slow 2.4 of
the Pro 1,as you feel) would not produce the sharpest images,IMHO.

Where did you get the idea that I intended to shoot at max aperture all the time?

Nor will you get the blurr needed for Portraits,as one would on a
D-SLR.

Shallow DOF is not the reason why I want a fast lens.

DOF will still be very shallow,on this camera.

I think you mean "deep."

those taking landscapes,nature,and macro photography ,will not
consider this lens too slow,and will welcome the high quality
lens,and decent focal lengths.

Same people who might have liked Nikon cameras. But for those who want to shoot action, candids, and low light, it's a big disappointment.

Composing with the LCD would be a
great plus,too.

Huh?

Sounds like you need a special camera,made just for those always
needing the fastest shutter speeds(my guess),and more usability in
low light.

I want what the G-series has always offered - a great combination of features and strengths under the widest possible conditions.

Still,a D-SLR is your best bet,not a prosumer,fixed lens system

Way too big and heavy. I have no use for a DSLR. I've owned film SLRs since I was a kid and I have shot more digital pictures in the last 5 years than film in the last 20. I need a moderately compact camera.

 

[Mike Hunt]

Sure: Plastic is petroleum based. Resin comes from trees.

From Merriam-Webster:

resin 1 a : any of various solid or semisolid amorphous fusible flammable natural organic substances ... formed especially in plant secretions, ...used chiefly in varnishes, printing inks, plastics...

2 a : any of a large class of SYNTHETIC products that have some of the physical properties of natural resins but are different chemically and are used chiefly in plastics b : any various products made from a natural resin or a natural polymer

I can almost guarantee that the plastic used in these cameras didn't come from plant material, unless you count the plants that turned to oil millions of years ago.

Guess all that plastic on the Pro DSLRs like the 1D means they're
cheap and nasty.

Time to work on your reading comprehension. When did I say that all plastic is cheap or that all cameras with plastic materials are cheap? I said that if you're going to use plastic, use high quality plastic. The 1Ds, by the way, has a solid magnesium alloy body.

Firearms are made from metal. Since I used to modify pistols for
Law Enforcement, I know this for a certainty. The Slide is always
made from termpered steel.

I wasn't referring to the slide or barrel of a handgun but to the high grade plastics used in the manufacture of grips and stocks for various modern firearms. If you constructed a Glock handgun frame out of the plastic used in the body of the G2, it wouldn't last a year without cracking.

Guess you should buy a video camera then, hmmm?

I aleady own one. Use it rarely because it's too big and heavy to carry around all the time, and it's too inconvenient to trnsfer digital video to my PC and compress to a reasonable size. I like shooting occassional video clips with my G3. This is not award winning video, but simply video clips of events to preserve memories and share with friends.

I work in the film
industry now and have done so for nearly ten years.

Wow, so far you're an expert in organic chemistry specializing in resins and polymers, a former weapons modification specialist working for law enforcement, AND you're also a film industry veteran proficient in video technology...

And just what do you think the Frame Rate of streaming video is?

I wasn't referring to streaming video on the internet, but streaming video capture - aka digital cameras capable of capturing video limited only by the amount of storage space available.

If you don't like Canon, then don't buy their cameras.

If I didn't like Canon, I wouldn't be wasting my time here. I don't subscribe to the philosophy that one must loyally defend a product or brand and cover up its faults.

Nikon is
equal to Canon in quality

Not in my book they're not. Not even remotely. I'd never buy a Nikon.

I'm sure they must offer something
better in the video department then.

Nikon digital cameras suck in my opinion.

Canon is trying to tell you
something. What do you suppose it is?

They're telling me that they want to cut down the costs of this camera so they can line their pockets with more cash. My response may very well be to skip over the Pro1 just like I skipped over the G5, but not before I share my observations with other potential buyers..

That is both incorrect and illogical.

You might want to talk to the Canon techies on that one. Thay're
the one's who made this statement. And it's been verified by
others in the optical elements industry. Since the UD lens
elements are instrumental in reducing the CA, I am concerned that
you have overlooked this important fact. That would make your
statement incorrect.

The L-lens' better construction may result in less CA than non L construction, all else being equal. But it remains to be seen if the Pro 1, with its L lens, will have CA levels comparable to the G3 or even the G5 (and the G5's CA levels were pretty bad at that.)

Sony did plenty of hyping of their F828's Carl Zeiss T* lens, yet that camera has unacceptable CA levels across a wide range of aperture settings.

Canon used a slower lens to cut back expenses and size/weight on a
lens already made considerably larger by its more complex
construction and extended focal range. While I welcome the higher
quality construction,

Didn't you just say that the construction was made from cheap
plastic, not up to the same quality of the plastic used in
firearms?

Are you incapable of reading things in context? In this last statement, I was obviously referring to the LENS contruciton, not the camera bodyy construction. And besides, I have not said that the Pro1 has cheap body materials - only that the prior G-series did, and that I hope that any plastic used in the new model is of a higher grade material.

I do not appreciate giving up a faster lens
in exchange for greater focal range. I will miss a lot more photo
opportunitiews due to the slower lens than I will gain from the
extra wide angle or telephoto.

The Pro 1 camera is aimed squarely at professionals. It's stated
on the Official Canon Pro 1 webpage.

No professional would tolerate the G-series' terrible autofocus and unresponsive and imprecise manual focus and zoom control. You are confusing marketing with reality. This is a pro-sumer product.

If you find you are unable to

use it because the lens ratio is not to your tastes... well....

...Then that is my prerogative now isn't it?

I think you are a little confused on
your terminology...

I think we both are. A lot of professionals have handled the Pro 1
and have passed the same judgment. I am not one of them and I am
only passing on what has been stated elsewhere.

Name one such professional and refer me to his statements.

 

[Mike Hunt]

in all tests i've seen on the net... CA is minimized at f4 and
smaller in most cameras. this is not incorrect or illogical. its a
fact.

On the G3, any CA disappears at f3.5 to f4. In the G5, it can persisst even at f5.6 and beyond.

 

[Man-Fai Wong]

I wouldn't worry about the camera body too much. Plastic can be very tough and resilient. Heck, the new Nikon D70 DSLR is supposed to be all plastic(!). If you're worried about drops, you should worry about the telescoping lens instead. That's the most likely thing to break me thinks. It's certainly part of the reason why many G-series owners use a lens adapter on a permanent basis -- besides protecting the lens w/ UV filter.

Man

Why is it that the PRO 1 is a plastic bodied and all the other 8 mg
prosumer cameras are of a magnesium construction, eg; Olympus 8080
and Sony F828.

Considering the price of the PRO 1 I would have thought that the
best materials available would have been used.

I just worry if I drop the PRO 1 what sort of protection will the
plastic case will give me?

I understand that Canon have considered weight advantages of using
plastic but £800-£1000 for a plastic camera concerns me.

I know the Olympus 8080 looks like a bulldog chewing a wasp, but
the magnesium body does it for me on the build quality stakes.

I look forward to Phil’s review of all the Prosumer cameras and
maybe even a head to head comparison.

--
Just another amateur -- see profile for more + some basic photog resources.
As usual, YMMV + caveat emptor.
Contact me at [email protected]
Indulge my fancies at http://www.pbase.com/mandnwong