So you buy a camera for;
a) how it feels
Yes, one of the criteria I have before I buy a camera is how it feels. Is that odd? I have to use it, might as well be comfortable to hold. Magnesium alloy is better than plastic, it is stronger and the weight of the body helps the overall balance.
Ah sorry, it has been proven time and time again that magnesium alloy is NOT stronger than glass filled polycarbonate, especially in the are that is most critical to camera users - impact resistance.
Can you please point me to some testing that proves this? Especially tests with the type of plastic that Canon uses in their bodies and lenses.
Right back at you...Can you point to a test that proves the mag alloy has greater impact resistance than glass filled polycarbonate?
The answer is you can't. So why do you assert that metal is better as if it were a fact?
I can point out this
http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00X/00XHNe-280431584.jpg
and this
http://www.sabbymonster.com/uploads/2009/12/20091217-canon-rebel-xt.jpg
Both have cracked bodies but one fell from hand height (1-2 meters), the other fell from 1,000 meters. But even so, there are so many other variables involved that it is impossible to make a clear judgement.
I'm not asserting plastic is better, simply that it is no worse.
That is why you don't see safety equipment such as body armor and helmets made from mag alloy.
Weight is probably a big factor why plastic is used in helmets. Cost may be another reason or comfort-ability etc. Besides what makes you think that the type of plastic used in photography equipment is the same as in military equipment?
Who mentioned military equipment? Besides which, when considering safety equipment that is preventing injury or death, it seems reasonable that cost should not be an issue. Yet we still don't see mag alloy being used.
A crack in a silly little camera is far less important than in something that is going to potentially save you life IMHO.
My camera bag slipped off of my shoulder one day and fell about 3 feet to the ground. In my bag was my 70-200 f4 IS attached to my 7D with a bottle under it between 2 foam inserts. The impact did this.....
The topic of conversation is camera bodies, not lenses.
One could easily argue that if the lens were attached to a lighter weight camera, then less strain would have been placed upon it in the first place.
The metal under the plastic is fine.
Actually it is not. In your photo I can clearly see the metal has been permanently distorted by the impact. Maybe the distortion added pressure to the plastic causing the fracture. Full plastic may have fared better. Again, there is no clear way of knowing.
I doubt that camera body plastic is stronger than lens plastic.
Yes, you doubt but you don't know for a fact. This is the problem with the mag-alloy vs plasic argument. No-one knows for sure and yet a lot of very intelligent people have got sucked into the marketing hype.
We see a lot of discussion on this forum about product differentiation. When the important specs can't be used anymore to split up the product range then the marketing guys can come to the rescue by saying, "yes sir, this one is better because it has a mag alloy body, and that will be another $500 please".
.
