Reading mode: Light Dark

Carbon Fiber and Plastics - durability upgrades!

Go to last post
geo444 said:
.

Earth's view : Metals are infinitely recyclable / Composites & Plastics are NOT !

so when you can choose Metal made devices, make no mistake !

www.google.fr/search?q=plastic+oceans&tbm=isch

who will clean all that mess and how ?

;)

--
http://en.astronomike.net/m/6809.html
http://en.astronomike.net/m/134251.html
Click to expand...
Extracting metals from the earth is a dirty business, too.

--
"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
 
Last edited:
ImageAmateur said:
Digetydog said:
I don't have a D750 and don't plan to buy one anytime soon. But, I am amazed at the complaints about the plastic/carbon fiber used in it. Simply put, a carbon fiber composite frame would likely be stiffer, lighter, and more durable than a metal frame.

1) Carbon Fiber is incredibly strong. Because of that strength, the Boeing 787 body and wing were built using it.

2) Carbon fiber/plastics can be incredibly durable. Examples: glock pistols, major components on military rifles, most helmets, bullet-proof vests.
Click to expand...
I don't think that is the issue really. You are quite correct however.

That said, I personally don't like the feel of the D7100 fro example, it feels light and tinny, not that I suspect the body is not made well. Heck, my old D5000 can take a beating, I can tell you. But it just does not 'feel' right. And when I was refitting a lens on my friends, the contacts seem to have not registered and it was not AF'ing (the reseating of lens corrected), the mount felt light compared to my D300.

Call it personal preference,whatever, but the mount should feel solid.

That said, I think the bigger concern is cheaper internal parts for the lower priced production models.

Unfortunately, that can only be tested after use and results (longevity of shutter etc).
Click to expand...
 
MikeyLikesNikon said:
Digetydog said:
I don't have a D750 and don't plan to buy one anytime soon. But, I am amazed at the complaints about the plastic/carbon fiber used in it. Simply put, a carbon fiber composite frame would likely be stiffer, lighter, and more durable than a metal frame.

1) Carbon Fiber is incredibly strong. Because of that strength, the Boeing 787 body and wing were built using it.

2) Carbon fiber/plastics can be incredibly durable. Examples: glock pistols, major components on

military rifles, most helmets, bullet-proof vests.
Click to expand...
I was about to post something similar. Heck I want as much of the body carbon fiber (CF) as engineering (and cost) will allow. It would be stronger than the magnesium and way lighter! They just make things like Indy & F1 tubs out of CF, no camera is going to stress CF remotely close to these cars.

3/4 off the posters here seem to be crying that I cannot carry a DSLR because it it too heavy. Nikon gets wise and lightens up a camera. Now it is too light, lol!
Click to expand...
LOL.. The same posters that buy mirror less because it's supposedly smaller etc.. Check out the new Sony, full frame mirror less... the lens are the same size as the DSLR lens. You still have to carry the camera the same away, around your neck with a strap or in a bag. With that same sized lens on the small body, the ergonomics/handling stink. Esp if you want a 70-200mm lens mounted. But they don't want a bulky big DSLR.. instead they want a nose heavy poor ergonomically made full frame mirror less that still requires them to use an external flash like a Pro DXX series body.
 
mmakay said:
The D750 uses carbon fiber filled plastic (probably polycarbonate or polycarbonate/ABS blend). This material is injection molded just like most other plastic materials. It's the best plastic you can get, but nothing like hand-laid, woven carbon fiber.

I still want a D750. It's OK with me that it's not built like an F1 car! :D
Click to expand...
 
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted. CF is a great material and great strides are being made in manufacturing and finding new applications. But for some applications, metal is likely to be superior.
 
Malikknows said:
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. metals can be very brittle, including the normally used and cheap magnesium alloys (one reason why it is rarely these days used for motor wheels, aircraft bodies and so on). The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800, which had a magnesium chassis, due to that very same brittleness and the design not having taken account of all the likely directions of shock.
 
Antony John said:
mmakay said:
The D750 uses carbon fiber filled plastic (probably polycarbonate or polycarbonate/ABS blend). This material is injection molded just like most other plastic materials. It's the best plastic you can get, but nothing like hand-laid, woven carbon fiber.

I still want a D750. It's OK with me that it's not built like an F1 car! :D
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. metals can be very brittle, including the normally used and cheap magnesium alloys (one reason why it is rarely these days used for motor wheels, aircraft bodies and so on). The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800, which had a magnesium chassis, due to that very same brittleness and the design not having taken account of all the likely directions of shock.
Click to expand...
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
So the benefits of plastic, such as they are, don’t apply to me. What matters very much to me is the overall experience of using the camera. And for that reason, I don’t want a plastic camera, just as I don’t want a plastic wine glass or a plastic chair – even though I’m sure some engineer in the bowels of Teijin is scratching his head over the failure of plastic to take over the wine glass and furniture market.
Click to expand...
If you use Nikon you've always been using a camera which is as plastic in the hand as is the D750. All Nikons have plastic front panels. The only difference with the D700 (and D5300) is that those front panels have become structural, resulting in a simple, smaller and probably stronger assembly.

So, if you weren't aware up to now that your camera has a plastic front panel, your preference for 'metal' rather than 'plastic' can't be based on very much.
 
Malikknows said:
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. metals can be very brittle, including the normally used and cheap magnesium alloys (one reason why it is rarely these days used for motor wheels, aircraft bodies and so on). The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800, which had a magnesium chassis, due to that very same brittleness and the design not having taken account of all the likely directions of shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. metals can be very brittle, including the normally used and cheap magnesium alloys (one reason why it is rarely these days used for motor wheels, aircraft bodies and so on). The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800, which had a magnesium chassis, due to that very same brittleness and the design not having taken account of all the likely directions of shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Malikknows said:
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
bobn2 said:
Malikknows said:
CF is quite strong when designed to meet known stresses from a particular direction, no question. Stresses on aircraft wings and F1 bodies are known and CF can be designed to meet them quite well. But when CF is stressed from directions it was not designed to resist, it can be brittle and weak. Metal is quite strong in all directions which is a great advantage in unique crash or drop situations where the stresses cannot be predicted.
Click to expand...
You're simply wrong. metals can be very brittle, including the normally used and cheap magnesium alloys (one reason why it is rarely these days used for motor wheels, aircraft bodies and so on). The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800, which had a magnesium chassis, due to that very same brittleness and the design not having taken account of all the likely directions of shock.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:
The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800
Click to expand...
That’s a bold claim! What’s it based on?
bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:
If you use Nikon you've always been using a camera which is as plastic in the hand as is the D750. All Nikons have plastic front panels. The only difference with the D700 (and D5300) is that those front panels have become structural, resulting in a simple, smaller and probably stronger assembly.

So, if you weren't aware up to now that your camera has a plastic front panel, your preference for 'metal' rather than 'plastic' can't be based on very much.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that and another thing you omit perhaps too conveniently: until now, the high-end bodies had a die-cast magnesium-alloy structure immediately behind the front cover (which is a small area rarely touched, though it still bothers me that that area and the area around the flash feel so cheap on such expensive cameras). The D4S-class bodies even have a metal handle/grip.

The D750 is perfectly banal to me for a variety of reasons – I see it as emblematic of the whole genre’s failings and Nikon’s increasing tone-deafness – and its plastic construction just adds to my impression that it’s not a fine camera to treasure for years but another bit of consumer electronics destined all too soon for the landfill.

Thankfully for Nikon, many people here seem to want what it offers.

As for other metals: how about brass? The Df, at least, should have been brass. Brass has many excellent properties for cameras. The weight problem could be solved by making cameras less pointlessly large.
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
...[a lot of words] ...

Plastic sends a confused message in a high-quality product. It isn’t natural, elemental, or beautiful. It isn’t cold to the touch, like the durable things we encounter in the natural world. It is environmentally damaging and aesthetically repugnant, surpassed in ugliness only by plastic mimicking metal – as Nikon does with its fake sputtered finish.
Click to expand...
To me a carbon-fibre monocoque design does if anything send a signal about high quality and high design and engineering ambitions. While staying with the run off the mill magnesium alloy shows no forward thinking, no innovation at all.

And being a working photographer who spend hours upon hours shooting in cold conditions I absolutely hate and detest gear which sucks body heat out of my fingers and hands.

And in what way is plastic any less 'natural' then magnesium alloy? Last I checked neither grows anywhere in the nature, and neither is found in any natural deposits. They are both man made materials, and quite recent ones at that.

And how do you figure plastic is any more environmentally damaging then magnesium alloy? If anything I bet it is the other way around. And the biggest environmental factor in cameras is the electronics components anyway, and that by orders of magnitude.

And aesthetics is a matter of personal taste, and saying plastics is more beautiful then metal is just as true.
Samuel Dilworth said:
If you view camera design as a pure mechanical engineering problem you cannot hope to understand these things.
Click to expand...
And as expected, finished with the 'I-am-so-superior-in-taste-no-ordinary-joe-understands-my-arguments' argument :)

Well, I apologize deeply for actually looking at cameras as tools to solve a problem, not as gadgets to satisfy a metal-fetchism, but that's just me ...
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
Samuel Dilworth said:
bobn2 wrote:
The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800
Click to expand...
That’s a bold claim! What’s it based on?
Click to expand...
Thom Hogan's investigations.
Samuel Dilworth said:
Samuel Dilworth said:
bobn2 wrote:
If you use Nikon you've always been using a camera which is as plastic in the hand as is the D750. All Nikons have plastic front panels. The only difference with the D700 (and D5300) is that those front panels have become structural, resulting in a simple, smaller and probably stronger assembly.

So, if you weren't aware up to now that your camera has a plastic front panel, your preference for 'metal' rather than 'plastic' can't be based on very much.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that and another thing you omit perhaps too conveniently: until now, the high-end bodies had a die-cast magnesium-alloy structure immediately behind the front cover (which is a small area rarely touched, though it still bothers me that that area and the area around the flash feel so cheap on such expensive cameras). The D4S-class bodies even have a metal handle/grip.
Click to expand...
The grip is plastic, but it is supported by a metal casting. The chassis of the D40s and D800 is magnesium (I assume D810 is also, but Nikon hasn't said so or released publicity shots). That doesn't guarantee extra strength - see above.
Samuel Dilworth said:
The D750 is perfectly banal to me for a variety of reasons – I see it as emblematic of the whole genre’s failings and Nikon’s increasing tone-deafness – and its plastic construction just adds to my impression that it’s not a fine camera to treasure for years but another bit of consumer electronics destined all too soon for the landfill.
Click to expand...
That's a very loaded judgement. There are plenty of plastic cameras still surviving. I have an original Canon EOS650, all plastic, in perfect condition and working fine after 28 years.
Samuel Dilworth said:
Thankfully for Nikon, many people here seem to want what it offers.

As for other metals: how about brass? The Df, at least, should have been brass. Brass has many excellent properties for cameras. The weight problem could be solved by making cameras less pointlessly large.
Click to expand...
It's not so much about weight, it's about expense.
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
Samuel Dilworth said:
bobn2 wrote:
The most shock vulnerable camera of recent times was the D800
Click to expand...
That’s a bold claim! What’s it based on?
Samuel Dilworth said:
bobn2 wrote:
If you use Nikon you've always been using a camera which is as plastic in the hand as is the D750. All Nikons have plastic front panels. The only difference with the D700 (and D5300) is that those front panels have become structural, resulting in a simple, smaller and probably stronger assembly.

So, if you weren't aware up to now that your camera has a plastic front panel, your preference for 'metal' rather than 'plastic' can't be based on very much.
Click to expand...
I was aware of that and another thing you omit perhaps too conveniently: until now, the high-end bodies had a die-cast magnesium-alloy structure immediately behind the front cover (which is a small area rarely touched, though it still bothers me that that area and the area around the flash feel so cheap on such expensive cameras). The D4S-class bodies even have a metal handle/grip.

The D750 is perfectly banal to me for a variety of reasons – I see it as emblematic of the whole genre’s failings and Nikon’s increasing tone-deafness – and its plastic construction just adds to my impression that it’s not a fine camera to treasure for years but another bit of consumer electronics destined all too soon for the landfill.

Thankfully for Nikon, many people here seem to want what it offers.

As for other metals: how about brass? The Df, at least, should have been brass. Brass has many excellent properties for cameras. The weight problem could be solved by making cameras less pointlessly large.
Click to expand...
Nikon used magnesium alloy for the top an rear of the camera. Judicious use of carbon fiber and plastic is just smart engineering. Add in the fantastic AF module and sensor and it is a fine camera.

If you want a camera that is a brick, then buy a Leica. They are not cutting edge technology, and the electronics likely won't last any longer than a Nikon.

The rest of us here will likely buy from Nikon and we'll enjoy our photos.
 
ImageAmateur said:
That said, I personally don't like the feel of the D7100 fro example, it feels light and tinny, not that I suspect the body is not made well.
Click to expand...
Apart from the actual construction materials used, the D750 feels more "solid" to me than my D7100.

Maybe it's an illusion, possibly due to the deeper and better design of the grip of the D750 compared with the D7100 (in my opinion), which I can hold more easily (even with 3 fingers and the base of my thumb, thus leaving my thumb and forefinger "freer" to press buttons and move the control dials). The D750 grip design also places the function and preview buttons, which I use less often, further away from my fingertips holding the grip -- the D7100 grip feels more cramped to me in that respect. I like the feel of the vertical grip on the optional battery pack for the D7100 much better than the D7100's native grip, despite the control dials on the vertical grip not feeling as well constructed as those on the camera.

But I also think the D750 feels "denser" than the D7100. I haven't seen that anyone has actually measured these cameras' volumes and compared with their weights to confirm that (and I'm certainly not going to submerge mine in water to do so), but it's the sense I get holding each one.

Subjective, yes, but part of the user experience...
 
"Using these new materials, Teijin developed its technology for the press moulding of CFRP within just 60 seconds."

Loading…

www.reinforcedplastics.com

Injection moulding will introduce fibre directionality into the composite along the lines of flow - and hence affect the strength in directions orthogonal to the fibre direction. The surface profile will also suffer (fibre 'print through')

Composites have been used for a long time in the engineering industry but they've mostly been thermoset types (unsaturated polyester or epoxy). Mostly though they've been glass reinforced types (GRP - Glass Reinforced Polyester) in commodity items.
 
Grevture said:
Grevture wrote:
Well, I apologize deeply for actually looking at cameras as tools to solve a problem, not as gadgets to satisfy a metal-fetchism, but that's just me ...
Click to expand...
Don’t apologise. I just happen to think differently, in that I think good design is aesthetic design and everything worth making is worth designing well. The world has quite enough bad design. Beauty inspires me – even the beauty of a high-quality camera.

Most practicing photographers I’ve met in the real world think more or less like me. It’s only on forums like this one that I encounter masses of photographers who seem to despise good industrial design, seemingly believing a camera cannot or even should not be at once beautiful and functional.

The thing that especially bothers me is that a couple of decades ago beautiful objects with good materials and high-quality construction were much more attainable than they are today. For example, my Nikon FM2 was cheap but its design and materials are much better than my hugely expensive D800. In many ways – weight, ergonomics, clarity of purpose, etc. – it’s more enjoyable to use.

But nowadays high-quality design is increasingly the preserve of the very rich. Perhaps because so many people have become alienated from the real world and no longer work with their hands, the average customer is less demanding than ever of the kind of quality that matters to me. Pointless and frequently unusable features are substituted for good design. The D750 seems to take this one step further: it honestly looks and feels like a $100 gadget (I tried it at Photokina), yet it costs an astonishing $2300 – a price seemingly based purely on the length of its feature list and much more than a Leica M6 not very long ago.

In the absence of any competition, Leica has a monopoly on good design and is able to charge prices I cannot afford.

If I sound bitter it’s only because this situation arose because many people like you accepted – nay, flocked to! – cameras like the D750, relieving Nikon of the need to make beautiful and truly functional cameras.
 
Samuel Dilworth said:
Samuel Dilworth said:
Grevture wrote:
Well, I apologize deeply for actually looking at cameras as tools to solve a problem, not as gadgets to satisfy a metal-fetchism, but that's just me ...
Click to expand...
Don’t apologise. I just happen to think differently, in that I think good design is aesthetic design and everything worth making is worth designing well. The world has quite enough bad design. Beauty inspires me – even the beauty of a high-quality camera.

Most practicing photographers I’ve met in the real world think more or less like me. It’s only on forums like this one that I encounter masses of photographers who seem to despise good industrial design, seemingly believing a camera cannot or even should not be at once beautiful and functional.

The thing that especially bothers me is that a couple of decades ago beautiful objects with good materials and high-quality construction were much more attainable than they are today. For example, my Nikon FM2 was cheap but its design and materials are much better than my hugely expensive D800. In many ways – weight, ergonomics, clarity of purpose, etc. – it’s more enjoyable to use.
Click to expand...
Don't forget the Ford Pinto and the Chevrolet Chevette. We tend to remember the good things from the past, and not the crap.
Samuel Dilworth said:
But nowadays high-quality design is increasingly the preserve of the very rich. Perhaps because so many people have become alienated from the real world and no longer work with their hands, the average customer is less demanding than ever of the kind of quality that matters to me. Pointless and frequently unusable features are substituted for good design. The D750 seems to take this one step further: it honestly looks and feels like a $100 gadget (I tried it at Photokina), yet it costs an astonishing $2300 – a price seemingly based purely on the length of its feature list and much more than a Leica M6 not very long ago.
Click to expand...
You need to adjust for inflation when comparing to an M6. Perhaps a comparison to current Leica digital rangefinders, such as the M9, is more appropriate. But now you're looking at $7,000 cameras.
Samuel Dilworth said:
In the absence of any competition, Leica has a monopoly on good design and is able to charge prices I cannot afford.

If I sound bitter it’s only because this situation arose because many people like you accepted – nay, flocked to! – cameras like the D750, relieving Nikon of the need to make beautiful and truly functional cameras.
Click to expand...
Leica isn't exactly cutting edge when it comes to sensor design and electronics. Nikon is. And many people feel that the D750 is an excellent design at a very competitive price. Particularly when you look back a decade in DSLR design and cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top