Sony a6000 Build Quality

Started Apr 29, 2014 | Discussions thread
Son Of Mustang Ford Contributing Member • Posts: 813
Re: Plastic (was) rapidly being confined to cameras under $800

Fcaptura wrote:

Son Of Mustang Ford wrote:

captura wrote:

pixelpushing wrote:

captura wrote:

pixelpushing wrote:

captura wrote:

Dimac wrote:

RichRMA wrote:

If you remember the very first NEX cameras, the 3 and 5, one was metal, the other plastic. The plastic one was more bulky because plastic is weaker than metal and requires thicker castings and things like threaded metal inserts to hold screws.

Actually plastic bodies are more sturdy! No problem at all with it.

Actually do you have any evidence to support your statement?

Do you have any evidence to support metal bodies are more sturdy? Because that's pretty much what started this whole thing.

No, I did not start this threadm nor did I say that metal bodies were more sturdy. And I have maintained all along that I just don't like composite caneras. A personal choice. I prefer the feel of a metal camera, such as my Fuji X10, or even my NEX-5R.

I didn't say you 'started the thread' but you have certainly carried the torch for metal vs. plastics starting at the third comment in this thread. And along with a couple of others, have since stridently and repeatedly maintained that plastic cameras are trash, garbage, junk, cheap, inferior, etc.

Would that you (and the other self-appointed materials police) kept your comments limited to 'I prefer', but you do not. You speak in objective and absolute terms, chiding others for preferring lesser quality products and apologizing for Sony's missteps in this regard. That is what fans the flames of this pointlessness.

Since you have no evidence, I would suggest that under the right conditions, where the designers have followed the best practices, the composite cameras could be far stronger, depending. But if a camera is milled from a single solid aluminum billet such as the new Leica T, then no way.

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:

"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).

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."

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

Come on, this is just ridiculous. Even by your standards. The A6000 is competing with the X-T1 and is of considerably lower cost (The X20 is a vastly different and simpler camera - fixed lens, 12mp sensor. And you know it). So lets do a real price comparison, like for like.

Amazon UK : Fuji X-T1 body only : £1026

Sony A6000 body only £590

That 0.2mm of aluminium doesn't look so reasonably priced now, does it? Yeah - Greedy Sony.

That's crazy. The Fuji XT1 is not competing againt the's double the price. It's a different market altogether. Fuji X buyers would not consider the A6000 because of it's cheaper construction. A6000 buyers are getting a nice bargain considering the Sony's great performance. But if you live in a posh condominium you wouldn't want to move to a slum, would you?

Less crazy than comparing the A6000 and the X20

Functionally the A6000 is much closer to the X-T1 than it is to the X20. Interchangeable lens, APS-C sensor (OK the Sony is much newer and has 50% more MP), EVF, Very fast auto-focus. Yes the Fuji is aimed at a much smaller niche market and so not-remotely-greedy have put a premium on the price. I get that this means they are not directly competing (after all when you are in the market for a Ferrari, a R8 Audi just won't do it - even the V10) but you were comparing the 6000 with the very different X20 and comparing prices to illustrate Sony's greed. I'm not accusing Fuji of 'corporate greed'- I understand that niche market suppliers HAVE to charge a premium in order to survive and therefore supply next years product, But the A6000 seems to me to be extremely good value for money, and so does not demonstrate greed on Sony's part.

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