Degrading quality in NEX system

Started Sep 7, 2012 | Discussions thread
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,144
Re: Degrading quality across all consumer goods

Dennis wrote:

My A700 felt (slightly) cheaper than my KM 7D. My Nikon D7000 feels a bit cheaper than my A700. I checked out a number of cameras at Photoplus Expo last month. I looked at the Panasonic G5 which seems like a nice bargain for anyone looking for a camera with an EVF. It felt pretty cheaply made. I saw the $400-500 Samsung EX-2 digicam and it looked and felt cheap for such a high priced camera. (It looked especially cheap in white). The Sony 16-50 PZ lens seemed pretty cheap. The NEX lenses in general seem cheaper than they look (except the 18-200). But then when I switched to Nikon, I was surprised at how cheap the 35/1.8 and even the finish on the 16-85 feel. Comparing other systems, the basic zooms from Oly and Panny felt like cheap junk. (Fuji was a rare standout ... their lenses honestly felt like they're making them like they used to ... they're also priced out of contention for the average consumer, but I guess you can't have it both ways).

Consumer demand more and more for less and less; Walmart badgers companies into delivering the same product at a cheaper price year after year. Something has to give, and it's quality. It's getting harder and harder in this world to find well made anything. But on the flip side, the technology that gets put into even a $150 digicam, and the capabilities it gives the consumer for picture taking is pretty incredible.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --

I don't want to be rude but for me, the "look" and "feel" of products has almost zero correlation with how likely camera products will hold up.  I have both Nikon D (the old mostly metal design) and G (the newer mostly "plastic" design) lenses.  Using these lenses together, I notice little difference in their durability.  However, others have told me that prime and upscale lenses in the G range actually are more likely to avoid damage when dropped because the "plastic" is more likely to give the metal construction of D lenses.

The Sony 16-50 is an inexpensively built kit lens that will sell for ~$350 alone in January. It's not suppose to have a lot of metal.  However, I have a bit more confidence in its durability than in other kit lenses, which are significantly bigger and heavier.  My Nikon 18-105mm failed possibly due to the cheap plastic mount that didn't hold up to the rigors of heavy use. However, that lens was much bigger and heavier than the 16-50mm.  Putting (more) metal into it would make it heavier and possibly bigger, traits that I don't want.

So, I welcome the plastic. It saves weight and--depending on how deployed--can be more durable. However, if there is evidence that Nex cameras as a rule just don't hold up when used heavily, then I want to hear about that.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow