70D and 7Dmk2 is coming what to expect?

Started Feb 28, 2013 | Discussions
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 60,483
Re: May I?
2

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I love how when you don't like something you just point the blame at people for not knowing things,

I only point blame at people for their actions. It is not a sin not to know things, and I never criticise for ignorance. What I do is correct people who are putting out false knowledge. We all do that at times, and if just from ignorance then being given the correct information is a service. Howver sometimes we have cases of wilful ignorance, that is people who have an agenda to put out false information, and will fight for their right to be right even when they are wrong.

Still, if you think I am wrong about my account of how I behave, maybe you could give me a concrete example of where I have ever 'pointed the blame at people for not knowing things'. I don't think you will find a single example.

I have a philosophy minor, I'm pretty sure I know how it's used.

Well, your post indicated that in fact you didn't. 'Argumentum ad hominem' has a specific meaning, it is not simply the same as an insult, it is a logical fallacy. If you go back through the discussion, at no point have I tried to counter anyone's on-topic discussion arguments on the topics under discussion (the relative specs of the 7D and D300 and the construction of the 7D) with anything but evidence. What I have down, after those people responded to my factual evidence with argumentum ad hominem is make observations about the rhetorical devices that they use.

Though I'm sure now that you can attack me with the assumption that you know more than everybody about everything....have fun with yourself there.

I'm sure that you can take the above as an 'attack', because I have denied your claim that you know how the term 'argumentum ad hominem'. However, the situation I would put to you is that you have come at me with a combative and argumentative post, expecting to elicit a response that you can use as evidence of my perfidy.

argumentum ad hominem, to the person or to the man. Instead of arguing the semantic merits of whether or not the skin is included as a part of the chassis

I have argued that at length, and those I was arguing chose instead to argue against the man. Firstly, I reject your assertion that this is merely a semantic argument. It is actuallly a germane and technical argument. The question is which is the structural component, and it is clear from the construction oif this camera that it is the mirrorbox or 'chassis', since the lens mount is attached to that, and is not at all attached to the skin, which itself is not attached to the chassis in any why that it is load bearing (in engineering terms it is not a monocoque structure). This is easily seen in the various tear downs where the camera remains structurally sound with the skin taken off. The people I was discussing with could, if they wished have disputed those facts. They would have been on a losing run, since all those facts are clearly correct, instead they decided first to try and dismiss it as simply a 'semantic' argument' then with this classic 'argumentum ad hominem':

I have no idea why Bob needs to pretend otherwise, everybody knows the 7D is magnesium alloy. I'm beginning to suspect there might be ulterior motives at play.

Essentially, putting forward that I am being dishonest (pretend otherwise) when all I am saying is the demonstrable truth, and then accusing me of having 'ulterior motives' (for telling the truth).So, in the end this is the use of the ad hominem fallacy to present the truth as a pretence and thereby establish a falsehood as the truth. I wonder what your philosophy professor would have made of that.

you are dismissing the point by labeling those with whom you are arguing as "fanboy", that is a classic use of the fallacy.

I'm not dismissing any genuinely made technical argument as 'fanboy', what I am dismissing as 'fanboy' is the resort to argumentum ad hominem, the topic having rather moved off the hard facts of the matter (because they are pretty much self evident) to the nature of the rhetoric that the opponents of the self evident truth employ to deny it.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Keith Z Leonard Veteran Member • Posts: 6,124
Re: May I?
1

bobn2 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I love how when you don't like something you just point the blame at people for not knowing things,

I only point blame at people for their actions. It is not a sin not to know things, and I never criticise for ignorance. What I do is correct people who are putting out false knowledge. We all do that at times, and if just from ignorance then being given the correct information is a service. Howver sometimes we have cases of wilful ignorance, that is people who have an agenda to put out false information, and will fight for their right to be right even when they are wrong.

Still, if you think I am wrong about my account of how I behave, maybe you could give me a concrete example of where I have ever 'pointed the blame at people for not knowing things'. I don't think you will find a single example.

I have a philosophy minor, I'm pretty sure I know how it's used.

Well, your post indicated that in fact you didn't. 'Argumentum ad hominem' has a specific meaning, it is not simply the same as an insult, it is a logical fallacy. If you go back through the discussion, at no point have I tried to counter anyone's on-topic discussion arguments on the topics under discussion (the relative specs of the 7D and D300 and the construction of the 7D) with anything but evidence. What I have down, after those people responded to my factual evidence with argumentum ad hominem is make observations about the rhetorical devices that they use.

Which I addressed.

Though I'm sure now that you can attack me with the assumption that you know more than everybody about everything....have fun with yourself there.

I'm sure that you can take the above as an 'attack', because I have denied your claim that you know how the term 'argumentum ad hominem'. However, the situation I would put to you is that you have come at me with a combative and argumentative post, expecting to elicit a response that you can use as evidence of my perfidy.

argumentum ad hominem, to the person or to the man. Instead of arguing the semantic merits of whether or not the skin is included as a part of the chassis

I have argued that at length, and those I was arguing chose instead to argue against the man. Firstly, I reject your assertion that this is merely a semantic argument.

Do you think semantic means pointless here?  Semantics are very important, it's the study of meaning, and yes that's exactly what is being discussed here, the meaning of the term "chassis" as it pertains to photography equipment.  Semantic discussions are OFTEN very technical, as there are technical terms that have meanings.  The fact that someone here might have implied that a semantic argument is unimportant is something with which I whole heartedly disagree, semantics are important.  The issue here is whether or not you or they are correct, which has something to do with the fact that you believe you are an authority on this point.  I don't pretend to be an authority on it, and certainly would not from looking at internet teardown videos.  The sum of the camera does make a difference, even if it isn't the primary load bearing structure.  Like a 1/4" plywood back panel on a cabinet back, which this bit doesn't carry the load, it's imperative for the structure to reach it's full weight bearing potential. (by preventing racking)  I would think it more useful to stress the cameras as built up to the point of breaking to assess the differences in build quality.  I don't know if anyone has done that, but it would be interesting.

It is actuallly a germane and technical argument. The question is which is the structural component, and it is clear from the construction oif this camera that it is the mirrorbox or 'chassis', since the lens mount is attached to that, and is not at all attached to the skin, which itself is not attached to the chassis in any why that it is load bearing (in engineering terms it is not a monocoque structure). This is easily seen in the various tear downs where the camera remains structurally sound with the skin taken off. The people I was discussing with could, if they wished have disputed those facts. They would have been on a losing run, since all those facts are clearly correct, instead they decided first to try and dismiss it as simply a 'semantic' argument' then with this classic 'argumentum ad hominem':

I have no idea why Bob needs to pretend otherwise, everybody knows the 7D is magnesium alloy. I'm beginning to suspect there might be ulterior motives at play.

Essentially, putting forward that I am being dishonest (pretend otherwise) when all I am saying is the demonstrable truth, and then accusing me of having 'ulterior motives' (for telling the truth).So, in the end this is the use of the ad hominem fallacy to present the truth as a pretence and thereby establish a falsehood as the truth. I wonder what your philosophy professor would have made of that.

you are dismissing the point by labeling those with whom you are arguing as "fanboy", that is a classic use of the fallacy.

I'm not dismissing any genuinely made technical argument as 'fanboy', what I am dismissing as 'fanboy' is the resort to argumentum ad hominem, the topic having rather moved off the hard facts of the matter (because they are pretty much self evident) to the nature of the rhetoric that the opponents of the self evident truth employ to deny it.

You have classified multiple responses into an "ilk" or "fanboy"s, by lumping together people who might agree on 1 point (if even that) you are implying that any further or future argument by those people are unsound on their face due to the proclivities, which falls under the fallacy's umbrella in my opinion.  It's really just an unnecessary insult.

You can lump me into the group of people here who think you might be correct, but that you'd be better served communicating those things in a way that avoids the audience's ire.  btw, does Canon claim a "full metal chassis"?  Or do they say something like "metal body construction" because those are semantically different as well.  Given that you've made a similar post in the tread about the 7D and t4i, a thread that was intentionally lighthearted and you seem to want to steer into a copy of this thread makes me think you are angry at Canon for some sort of deception here.

-- hide signature --

Bob

 Keith Z Leonard's gear list:Keith Z Leonard's gear list
Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG HSM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM Canon EOS 400D +16 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 60,483
Re: May I?
2

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I love how when you don't like something you just point the blame at people for not knowing things,

I only point blame at people for their actions. It is not a sin not to know things, and I never criticise for ignorance. What I do is correct people who are putting out false knowledge. We all do that at times, and if just from ignorance then being given the correct information is a service. Howver sometimes we have cases of wilful ignorance, that is people who have an agenda to put out false information, and will fight for their right to be right even when they are wrong.

Still, if you think I am wrong about my account of how I behave, maybe you could give me a concrete example of where I have ever 'pointed the blame at people for not knowing things'. I don't think you will find a single example.

I have a philosophy minor, I'm pretty sure I know how it's used.

Well, your post indicated that in fact you didn't. 'Argumentum ad hominem' has a specific meaning, it is not simply the same as an insult, it is a logical fallacy. If you go back through the discussion, at no point have I tried to counter anyone's on-topic discussion arguments on the topics under discussion (the relative specs of the 7D and D300 and the construction of the 7D) with anything but evidence. What I have down, after those people responded to my factual evidence with argumentum ad hominem is make observations about the rhetorical devices that they use.

Which I addressed.

Though I'm sure now that you can attack me with the assumption that you know more than everybody about everything....have fun with yourself there.

I'm sure that you can take the above as an 'attack', because I have denied your claim that you know how the term 'argumentum ad hominem'. However, the situation I would put to you is that you have come at me with a combative and argumentative post, expecting to elicit a response that you can use as evidence of my perfidy.

argumentum ad hominem, to the person or to the man. Instead of arguing the semantic merits of whether or not the skin is included as a part of the chassis

I have argued that at length, and those I was arguing chose instead to argue against the man. Firstly, I reject your assertion that this is merely a semantic argument.

Do you think semantic means pointless here? Semantics are very important, it's the study of meaning, and yes that's exactly what is being discussed here, the meaning of the term "chassis" as it pertains to photography equipment. Semantic discussions are OFTEN very technical, as there are technical terms that have meanings. The fact that someone here might have implied that a semantic argument is unimportant is something with which I whole heartedly disagree, semantics are important. The issue here is whether or not you or they are correct, which has something to do with the fact that you believe you are an authority on this point. I don't pretend to be an authority on it, and certainly would not from looking at internet teardown videos. The sum of the camera does make a difference, even if it isn't the primary load bearing structure. Like a 1/4" plywood back panel on a cabinet back, which this bit doesn't carry the load, it's imperative for the structure to reach it's full weight bearing potential. (by preventing racking) I would think it more useful to stress the cameras as built up to the point of breaking to assess the differences in build quality. I don't know if anyone has done that, but it would be interesting.

It is actuallly a germane and technical argument. The question is which is the structural component, and it is clear from the construction oif this camera that it is the mirrorbox or 'chassis', since the lens mount is attached to that, and is not at all attached to the skin, which itself is not attached to the chassis in any why that it is load bearing (in engineering terms it is not a monocoque structure). This is easily seen in the various tear downs where the camera remains structurally sound with the skin taken off. The people I was discussing with could, if they wished have disputed those facts. They would have been on a losing run, since all those facts are clearly correct, instead they decided first to try and dismiss it as simply a 'semantic' argument' then with this classic 'argumentum ad hominem':

I have no idea why Bob needs to pretend otherwise, everybody knows the 7D is magnesium alloy. I'm beginning to suspect there might be ulterior motives at play.

Essentially, putting forward that I am being dishonest (pretend otherwise) when all I am saying is the demonstrable truth, and then accusing me of having 'ulterior motives' (for telling the truth).So, in the end this is the use of the ad hominem fallacy to present the truth as a pretence and thereby establish a falsehood as the truth. I wonder what your philosophy professor would have made of that.

you are dismissing the point by labeling those with whom you are arguing as "fanboy", that is a classic use of the fallacy.

I'm not dismissing any genuinely made technical argument as 'fanboy', what I am dismissing as 'fanboy' is the resort to argumentum ad hominem, the topic having rather moved off the hard facts of the matter (because they are pretty much self evident) to the nature of the rhetoric that the opponents of the self evident truth employ to deny it.

You have classified multiple responses into an "ilk" or "fanboy"s, by lumping together people who might agree on 1 point (if even that) you are implying that any further or future argument by those people are unsound on their face due to the proclivities, which falls under the fallacy's umbrella in my opinion. It's really just an unnecessary insult.

You can lump me into the group of people here who think you might be correct, but that you'd be better served communicating those things in a way that avoids the audience's ire. btw, does Canon claim a "full metal chassis"? Or do they say something like "metal body construction" because those are semantically different as well. Given that you've made a similar post in the tread about the 7D and t4i, a thread that was intentionally lighthearted and you seem to want to steer into a copy of this thread makes me think you are angry at Canon for some sort of deception here.

Frankly, I've ceased to be at all interested in these self-serving and argumentative posts, not addressing any of the technical issues that I raised but seeking to justify the actions of the various folk who seek to put their position other than addressing the point at hand. You all might agree that I'm a jolly bad egg, but the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis, I said it and various others chose to deny, obfuscate or evade the issue.

I don't believe there are significant downsides to a plastic chassis, but if someone for whatever reason decides the must have a metal chassis in their camera, the 7D is not the one for them, and it is right that they be properly informed. End of story.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Limburger
Limburger Veteran Member • Posts: 7,840
Re: May I?
1

bobn2 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Keith Z Leonard wrote:

I love how when you don't like something you just point the blame at people for not knowing things,

I only point blame at people for their actions. It is not a sin not to know things, and I never criticise for ignorance. What I do is correct people who are putting out false knowledge. We all do that at times, and if just from ignorance then being given the correct information is a service. Howver sometimes we have cases of wilful ignorance, that is people who have an agenda to put out false information, and will fight for their right to be right even when they are wrong.

Still, if you think I am wrong about my account of how I behave, maybe you could give me a concrete example of where I have ever 'pointed the blame at people for not knowing things'. I don't think you will find a single example.

I have a philosophy minor, I'm pretty sure I know how it's used.

Well, your post indicated that in fact you didn't. 'Argumentum ad hominem' has a specific meaning, it is not simply the same as an insult, it is a logical fallacy. If you go back through the discussion, at no point have I tried to counter anyone's on-topic discussion arguments on the topics under discussion (the relative specs of the 7D and D300 and the construction of the 7D) with anything but evidence. What I have down, after those people responded to my factual evidence with argumentum ad hominem is make observations about the rhetorical devices that they use.

Which I addressed.

Though I'm sure now that you can attack me with the assumption that you know more than everybody about everything....have fun with yourself there.

I'm sure that you can take the above as an 'attack', because I have denied your claim that you know how the term 'argumentum ad hominem'. However, the situation I would put to you is that you have come at me with a combative and argumentative post, expecting to elicit a response that you can use as evidence of my perfidy.

argumentum ad hominem, to the person or to the man. Instead of arguing the semantic merits of whether or not the skin is included as a part of the chassis

I have argued that at length, and those I was arguing chose instead to argue against the man. Firstly, I reject your assertion that this is merely a semantic argument.

Do you think semantic means pointless here? Semantics are very important, it's the study of meaning, and yes that's exactly what is being discussed here, the meaning of the term "chassis" as it pertains to photography equipment. Semantic discussions are OFTEN very technical, as there are technical terms that have meanings. The fact that someone here might have implied that a semantic argument is unimportant is something with which I whole heartedly disagree, semantics are important. The issue here is whether or not you or they are correct, which has something to do with the fact that you believe you are an authority on this point. I don't pretend to be an authority on it, and certainly would not from looking at internet teardown videos. The sum of the camera does make a difference, even if it isn't the primary load bearing structure. Like a 1/4" plywood back panel on a cabinet back, which this bit doesn't carry the load, it's imperative for the structure to reach it's full weight bearing potential. (by preventing racking) I would think it more useful to stress the cameras as built up to the point of breaking to assess the differences in build quality. I don't know if anyone has done that, but it would be interesting.

It is actuallly a germane and technical argument. The question is which is the structural component, and it is clear from the construction oif this camera that it is the mirrorbox or 'chassis', since the lens mount is attached to that, and is not at all attached to the skin, which itself is not attached to the chassis in any why that it is load bearing (in engineering terms it is not a monocoque structure). This is easily seen in the various tear downs where the camera remains structurally sound with the skin taken off. The people I was discussing with could, if they wished have disputed those facts. They would have been on a losing run, since all those facts are clearly correct, instead they decided first to try and dismiss it as simply a 'semantic' argument' then with this classic 'argumentum ad hominem':

I have no idea why Bob needs to pretend otherwise, everybody knows the 7D is magnesium alloy. I'm beginning to suspect there might be ulterior motives at play.

Essentially, putting forward that I am being dishonest (pretend otherwise) when all I am saying is the demonstrable truth, and then accusing me of having 'ulterior motives' (for telling the truth).So, in the end this is the use of the ad hominem fallacy to present the truth as a pretence and thereby establish a falsehood as the truth. I wonder what your philosophy professor would have made of that.

you are dismissing the point by labeling those with whom you are arguing as "fanboy", that is a classic use of the fallacy.

I'm not dismissing any genuinely made technical argument as 'fanboy', what I am dismissing as 'fanboy' is the resort to argumentum ad hominem, the topic having rather moved off the hard facts of the matter (because they are pretty much self evident) to the nature of the rhetoric that the opponents of the self evident truth employ to deny it.

You have classified multiple responses into an "ilk" or "fanboy"s, by lumping together people who might agree on 1 point (if even that) you are implying that any further or future argument by those people are unsound on their face due to the proclivities, which falls under the fallacy's umbrella in my opinion. It's really just an unnecessary insult.

You can lump me into the group of people here who think you might be correct, but that you'd be better served communicating those things in a way that avoids the audience's ire. btw, does Canon claim a "full metal chassis"? Or do they say something like "metal body construction" because those are semantically different as well. Given that you've made a similar post in the tread about the 7D and t4i, a thread that was intentionally lighthearted and you seem to want to steer into a copy of this thread makes me think you are angry at Canon for some sort of deception here.

Frankly, I've ceased to be at all interested in these self-serving and argumentative posts, not addressing any of the technical issues that I raised but seeking to justify the actions of the various folk who seek to put their position other than addressing the point at hand. You all might agree that I'm a jolly bad egg, but the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis, I said it and various others chose to deny, obfuscate or evade the issue.

I don't believe there are significant downsides to a plastic chassis, but if someone for whatever reason decides the must have a metal chassis in their camera, the 7D is not the one for them, and it is right that they be properly informed. End of story.

Same goes for the denial of having zero peopleskills. You blame people for their rhetoric, while it's you that is doing the very thing you accuse people of.

-- hide signature --

Cheers Mike

 Limburger's gear list:Limburger's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix X100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a7 Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +3 more
MOD Dale Buhanan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,278
Re: May I?

bobn2 wrote:.

I don't believe there are significant downsides to a plastic chassis, but if someone for whatever reason decides the must have a metal chassis in their camera, the 7D is not the one for them, and it is right that they be properly informed. End of story.

Hi Bob,

I looked at the pictures you posted of the 7D DSLR cutaway with interest.  It looks obvious that from the lens mount through the mirror box and to the sensor mount and pentaprism housing that there is some sort of plastic material as the main construction material alright  I have been thinking through the ramifications for Canon doing that.

Pros:  It is weighs less and is very likely less expensive to manufacture, easy to cast and form and would be very repeatable.  Net result... camera is less heavy and less expensive.

Cons:  It would likely not have the same strength for lens mount screw threads, and the fiber filled Polycarbonate plastics have very nearly double the thermal expansion coefficient of stainless steel.  This would make lens to sensor spacing more susceptible to change with ambient temperature.  I don't know if this is sufficient to cause a problem or not, but they use metal on the 1-series... so Canon did that for a reason.

Whatever the reason, it seems to work adequately well for the XXD series and 7D.  But it may not be as strong with a long heavy lens as the 1 series cameras I would think.  I have never removed the lens mount screws, so I don't know how long they are for thread bite, or if they go all the way through and have a nut on the back... Which would of course make the lens mount considerably stronger.

Do you have a feeling for the lens mount screws?

-- hide signature --

kind regards
Dale

 Dale Buhanan's gear list:Dale Buhanan's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon G1 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon PowerShot SD500 Canon PowerShot G5 +35 more
WilbaW
WilbaW Forum Pro • Posts: 11,594
Structural Load Bearing Parts
3

bobn2 wrote:

the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis

For that to be accepted you'd have to prove that there are no metal components amongst the "structural load bearing parts" of the 7D. I can see two large metal load bearing part in the image you posted back on page 2, so how do we make sense of that?


IOW, either the lens mount and the tripod socket are plastic, or they are not "structural load bearing parts". Which is it?

 WilbaW's gear list:WilbaW's gear list
Canon EOS 60D Canon EOS 7D Mark II
MOD Dale Buhanan Veteran Member • Posts: 4,278
Re: Structural Load Bearing Parts
1

WilbaW wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis

For that to be accepted you'd have to prove that there are no metal components amongst the "structural load bearing parts" of the 7D. I can see two large metal load bearing part in the image you posted back on page 2, so how do we make sense of that?


IOW, either the lens mount and the tripod socket are plastic, or they are not "structural load bearing parts". Which is it?

Hi Wilbaw,

I guess Bobn2 is in bed now.  In England it is night time.

Anyway, I found another couple of pics that shed some light on this.  This is a post by mailman88 who just crashed his 50D with an attached 100-400 on it.  The lens mount broke off the camera, and in one pic you can see the camera minus the lens mount and where the screw holes are.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50921761

On his other pic you can see the lens with the broken off lens mount from the camera still attached to it, and a piece of the camera came off with the mount!  That piece certainly looks like it is made of carbon fiber filled Polycarbonate, or some similar type of resin/plastic material.

There is no evidence of metal load bearing parts to the lens mount.  I do not know about the 7D.  But for the 50D, I think Bobn2 is correct.   If the 7D is siimlar construction, then it is a tough plastic, as it looks to be in the picture.

On mailman88's post you can also see the magnesium alloy shell which ends prior to the lens mount screws.  It appears not to be part of the lens mount strength at all.  It looks like a shell.

-- hide signature --

kind regards
Dale

 Dale Buhanan's gear list:Dale Buhanan's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX50 HS Canon G1 X II Canon EOS 70D Canon PowerShot SD500 Canon PowerShot G5 +35 more
TTMartin
TTMartin Veteran Member • Posts: 7,304
Re: Structural Load Bearing Parts
1

Dale Buhanan wrote:

WilbaW wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis

For that to be accepted you'd have to prove that there are no metal components amongst the "structural load bearing parts" of the 7D. I can see two large metal load bearing part in the image you posted back on page 2, so how do we make sense of that?


IOW, either the lens mount and the tripod socket are plastic, or they are not "structural load bearing parts". Which is it?

Hi Wilbaw,

I guess Bobn2 is in bed now. In England it is night time.

Anyway, I found another couple of pics that shed some light on this. This is a post by mailman88 who just crashed his 50D with an attached 100-400 on it. The lens mount broke off the camera, and in one pic you can see the camera minus the lens mount and where the screw holes are.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/post/50921761

On his other pic you can see the lens with the broken off lens mount from the camera still attached to it, and a piece of the camera came off with the mount! That piece certainly looks like it is made of carbon fiber filled Polycarbonate, or some similar type of resin/plastic material.

There is no evidence of metal load bearing parts to the lens mount. I do not know about the 7D. But for the 50D, I think Bobn2 is correct. If the 7D is siimlar construction, then it is a tough plastic, as it looks to be in the picture.

On mailman88's post you can also see the magnesium alloy shell which ends prior to the lens mount screws. It appears not to be part of the lens mount strength at all. It looks like a shell.

The statement being made was NOT just that the mirror box was engineering plastic, or that the lens mount was just attached to the mirror box, but, was expanded to say that the magnesium shell has no structural roll in the camera.

The contention was that the engineering plastic mirror box was the chassis of the camera. This is false. The magnesium body does play a structural role, and the back and the front of the mirror box are supported by metal that is attached from the magnesium body. The view presented is similar to that of a 1940s mechanic looking at a modern unibody car, and not understanding that loads can be born by other than a full steel car frame.

 TTMartin's gear list:TTMartin's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot SD1000 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 400D +26 more
TTMartin
TTMartin Veteran Member • Posts: 7,304
Re: Structural Load Bearing Parts
1

WilbaW wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

the fact remains that the 7D has a plastic chassis

For that to be accepted you'd have to prove that there are no metal components amongst the "structural load bearing parts" of the 7D. I can see two large metal load bearing part in the image you posted back on page 2, so how do we make sense of that?


IOW, either the lens mount and the tripod socket are plastic, or they are not "structural load bearing parts". Which is it?

All of these statements about how the 7D has a plastic chassis, seem to be related to the fact that Nikon has gone to just a magnesium back and the mirror boxes and fronts of the camera are now made entirely of plastic. Rather than admit that a Canon product might be slightly more durable that a Nikon, instead the fantasy is presented that the magnesium body of cameras like the 7D, plays no structural role. It's just pitiful the number of posts wasted in this backdoor attempt to defend Nikon.

http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/d7000pix/mild_CU_of_D7000_lens_mount-P1430092.jpg

The D7000 above looks very similar to the dropped Canon 50D where the lens mount was also torn off.

What has Nikon been smoking?!?

 TTMartin's gear list:TTMartin's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot SD1000 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 400D +26 more
TTMartin
TTMartin Veteran Member • Posts: 7,304
Re: May I?
1

WilbaW wrote:

Failed attempt at feeding the troll guys.

 TTMartin's gear list:TTMartin's gear list
Canon PowerShot S100 (2000) Canon PowerShot SD1000 Canon PowerShot G1 X Canon EOS 40D Canon EOS 400D +26 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads