Sony a6000 Build Quality

Started Apr 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
pixelpushing Veteran Member • Posts: 3,229
Re: Plastic (was) rapidly being confined to cameras under $800

captura wrote:

Stipulating for a moment that solid aluminum would be 'stronger' (if not ding and dent resistant), the object of a camera body is not simply to be the strongest material, but to be reasonably light and at least somewhat shockproof. Aluminum may be better than magnesium alloy, but for the umpteenth comparison: Does an aluminum case for your metal and glass smartphone provide inherently better protection against damage from being dropped than thermoplastic? I think not.

For many people, a metallic-feeling camera is a lot nicer. But here's what Fuji says about their reason for using metallic construction of one of their cameras, the X-10:

Who cares?

"Rigidity is a deciding factor for the feel of the hold. The X10 has a 1mm aluminum sheet on the front and back panels of the body that is thicker than those of ordinary cameras (0.8 mm).

A 1mm aluminum sheet doesn't give one whit more protection, quality or anything else. The internals and how they respond to the shock of impacts or crushing force is barely (if at all) affected by a 1mm sheet, unless it's titanium or diamond.

Rigidity is measured by the cube of the thickness, which means the X10 is nearly twice as rigid as ordinary cameras [1³ / 0.8³ = approx. 2]. This is one of our efforts for making sure users can enjoy the camera for years to come."

This is relative to aluminum, not a statement about the impact resistance or quality of any number of composites.

So now we have evidence that a quality metal body can be stronger than composite plastics, but can be sold for a competitive price.

Er, nothing whatsoever in that link mentions plastics or composites in any way. It is not evidence of anything other than the basic physics of a 1mm sheet vs. a .8mm sheet. That's it.

The Fuji X10/X20 models came in at about $500. If Sony had chosen to make the A6000 more appealing by giving it a better NEX-7-like body they could have done so. By not doing so, is that not perhaps an example of corporate greed?

Why do you even post here? Seriously, if you despise Sony's greed, why do you buy products from them?

One more time: Aluminum isn't an all-encompassing superior material vs. a good thermoplastic composite polymer type material. Period. It isn't more efficient. It may be more 'rigid', but rigidity is not always the best trait for a delicate electronic device to have.

There's also the fact that metal scratches and paint comes off, while plastic is molded in one color, so your scratched-up plastic camera won't show bare metal underneath. Plastic has a higher yield point and will withstand torsional stress better without cracking or chipping, which is why 'RIGIDITY' is not always optimal for the entire body of something like a camera.

Of course, I'm talking to a wall, here. You (along with a couple of others here) have zero interest in listening to reason, facts or comparative data on this subject. You want your metal camera and if you don't get it, you throw a hissy fit for all to see.

And for the last time, the A6000 is no more a NEX-7 replacement than the A3000 was a replacement for the NEX-3.

 pixelpushing's gear list:pixelpushing's gear list
Sigma DP3 Merrill Sony a7 II Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Samsung Galaxy Note 4 Apple iPad Air
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow