Why not a titanium body ?

tinetz wrote:

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

Oiche wrote:

bob5050 wrote:

Oiche wrote:

You're always going on about this but you don't have any premium lenses.

I don't currently own any * or Limiteds, no. How that affects durability escapes me.

* lenses have the highest build quality with the best weather sealing and the Limiteds also have higher build quality and made of metal (compare this to your beginner DA35 plastic fantastic for example. However I will go on to explain this does not mean you can drop them.

Why do you insist on metal bodies and use a lens with toy build quality? Now the plastic fantastic is known as a lens which does not last, it even has a plastic mount.

My K-70 with these lenses makes a better imaging machine than your equipment.

No doubt. I don't believe I've ever dissed the K-70's IQ. It's much newer than my K-3 and incorporates later technology. Again, however, that's unrelated to durability.

I expect that the k-new will cost somewhere between 1,600-2,000 USD. Knocking a camera off a table that costs that much is a different proposition than dropping a $500 camera. So higher end cameras get sturdier construction. That, in itself, adds weight but does not necessarily impact IQ. Two different issues.

bob5050

You're completely not understanding durability and only focussing on the outside case bit. The rubber covers etc. rot after years on cameras like K5 but this depends upon exposure.

If you drop cameras from heights a mag-alloy body with do nothing to protect the internals from G-Shock than any other body. My friend dropped his Nikon recently, no damage to the body but the internals went hay-wire.

Go ahead and drop your K-new a few times and see how it works.

You are completely misunderstanding how tough a polycarbonate body is and if you did manage to smash it the force would be be so much that the internals would be wrecked just like a metal body.

When you consider where the camera is going to fail if you have a larger lens attached to the body it is more than likely the lens mount that is going to suffer the very same fate regardless if is has a metal shell or a plastic shell.

And when you take a look at this vital connection between the lens and the camera body it is plastic for all pentax camera (excluding the 645 series) so the outer shell will not protect any stresses to the plastic underlying chassis in the camera.

All these cameras are disposable anyhow and most people want to upgrade every 5 years or so as the technology advances significantly, hence why I spent more money on the lenses.

I know this is one of your favourite stories, I stumbled upon some posts of you from 2017 where you already posted the same. But, in the meantime, with your high awareness to the construction, did you run into any failure of this construction?

Yes my K5 did have a failure at the lens mount but the camera was well used as a beater.

I bring it up when we have threads about the structure in how the cameras are put together. In this thread people are discussing what would happen if pentax started using titanium body instead of what many think of what make the camera heavy and the steel chassis only comes in at 65gram so there is really not much to lighten up.

I have said this many time before that its the plastic mirror is there to supply much of the structure to the camera. When this is brought up we will then see a image like this one as a testament that there is no plastic

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64292506

With some nod to how it is a all metal construction body and that there is no plastic. But if i was to show the internal components from the competitor both with the roughly the same construction of a plastic mirror box and some exterior panels made of metal most would not be able to tell the difference but somehow the pentax camera is better because of this steel chassis and that it does not contain a underlying plastic chassis.

https://youtu.be/fXHivouUVYg

Here is what happens when one of the anchoring screws are removed from the plastic chassis that is holding the steel chassis to it.

I really don't have a problem with using plastic when it is done correctly, heck the last camera I purchased at $2700 uses a plastic mirror box and I have no issues.

There is a PLASTIC snobbery that happens here that some feel that because pentax states that it uses a steel chassis that its better than what other are doing. but like I stated most brands are doing the same thing with a plastic sub chassis with metal shells

Pentax however does have a camera model with a all metal sub chassis and that's the 645 series cameras, and as the cost of the camera goes up you start to see this.

Take the D850 that has a metal sub chassis

Is there a reason as to why they decided to go this way? Probably .

Is it better than using this? If we are to listen to the plastic snobbish we see here then one would tend to believe that the top one is better than the bottom, but just don't tell fellow Pentaxians that the above is a plastic mirror box as Pentax would never sell such a camera    because pentax flagship cameras are built with steel chassis

A magnesium alloy/polycarbonate construction is obviously chosen on purpose. Engineers have probably calculated the stress on parts. Tests have probably been done with the construction. I would assume a decoupling of components is done on purpose? What do you assume that happens if a camera with a heavy lens falls on the lens? Could a bent metal case/chassis ever be repaired? For reasonable cost? How is the absorption characteristic of such a construction in case of an impact/accident? How would coupling of the mount to a metal chassis impact internal shake characteristics? How would it handle mirror slap or shutter shake?

Now, do you really know of any failure of the mount from regular use? I think, in the end it is that what counts and I would give the engineers constructing this the benefit of that they probably know what they are doing. As far as I know the sturdiness of any Pentax DSLR with this construction was really never a point of concern.