What is Duratect?

[Truman Prevatt]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

Loading…

fujifilm-x.com

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

 

[Threaded]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

 

[notchy]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

Yeah, I wrote hastily and carelessly. I know it's the underlying metal and not the coating that oxidizes. The pertinent result of the Google search was not the lack of results complaining about the Pro2's coating, it was the complete lack of complaints about oxidization of its magnesium alloy. In other words, there seems to be little indication that any such problem existed, hence my comment about a solution in search of a problem.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/x-pro3-stories-3-aged-or-damaged/

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

I accept that the titanium without the coating is more scratch-prone, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that Fuji appear to have fixed a problem the existence of which no evidence can be found and in fixing that non-existent problem have introduced a real problem (i.e. the scratch prone titanium) which they are now effectively charging buyers to remedy (i.e. the Duratect coating)?

If I'm misunderstanding anything here, please put me straight.

 

[notchy]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

 

[biza43]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

Well, science says that aluminum is less resistant to oxidation than titanium. Which means that the XPRO3 can be used with more confidence in conditions where the camera comes in contact with water, or salty water. Of course the XPRO2 is also a robust camera, and the perhaps the majority of users will not use the camera under oxidation prone conditions.

But for those who do, the XPRO3 will be a better choice.

 

[biza43]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

 

[Threaded]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

Well, science says that aluminum is less resistant to oxidation than titanium. Which means that the XPRO3 can be used with more confidence in conditions where the camera comes in contact with water, or salty water. Of course the XPRO2 is also a robust camera, and the perhaps the majority of users will not use the camera under oxidation prone conditions.

But for those who do, the XPRO3 will be a better choice.

You’re aware that very substantial parts of the X-Pro3 - perhaps even most of it - still are made with mag alloy, and therefore still are prone to this great peril of oxidisation we’re expected to believe is such a major issue?

I used an X-Pro2 for two years, I didn’t “baby” it, never so much as carried it in a bag, it was always on a strap on my shoulder ready to shoot. I got it wet, I took it out to sea more than once. Guess what, no oxidisation, and the few rubs, marks and scratches in the paintwork were nothing more than a bit of character. The idea that titanium would have faired any better or brought any benefit at all is a complete fiction.

 

[notchy]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

Is that so? Haven't you got a camera to be professionally oxidizing, biza43, or are you just going to hang around here all evening being obtuse?

 

[Truman Prevatt]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

Yeah, I wrote hastily and carelessly. I know it's the underlying metal and not the coating that oxidizes. The pertinent result of the Google search was not the lack of results complaining about the Pro2's coating, it was the complete lack of complaints about oxidization of its magnesium alloy. In other words, there seems to be little indication that any such problem existed, hence my comment about a solution in search of a problem.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/x-pro3-stories-3-aged-or-damaged/

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

I accept that the titanium without the coating is more scratch-prone, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that Fuji appear to have fixed a problem the existence of which no evidence can be found and in fixing that non-existent problem have introduced a real problem (i.e. the scratch prone titanium) which they are now effectively charging buyers to remedy (i.e. the Duratect coating)?

If I'm misunderstanding anything here, please put me straight.

I do not know for sure but I suspect there reason Fuji used Titanium is a reason a lot of parts are now made of Titanium - flexibility in design because of 3D printing. Magnesium alloy is easy to mill since it is relatively soft. Titanium cannot be milled easily because it is very hard. When Kelly Johnson and his team at the Lockheed Sunk Works at Lockheed designed the A12 Oxcart - the fore runner single seat version of the SR71 Blackbird - for the CIA titanium was the only metal that could be used for the aircraft skin. It was light weight but stronger than stainless steel. More importantly it could take the extreme heat build up flying at 2400 mph. Because of the heat - aluminum could not be used. The skin of the aircraft would literally glow at about 600 deg F.

But in order to build the first Oxcart, Johnson's team had to develop the necessary tools to machine Titanium. In fact one of the major accomplishments of the Oxcart program was the development of technology to mill and machine titanium.

Loading…

www.paperlessarchives.com

However, today most titanium parts are printed using 3D printer technology. I expect (but of course do not know) that because of the ease of printing Titanium that the top and bottom planets of the XPro3 are actually printed. So my guess is by using Titanium treated with Duratect they have parts that are significantly harder than still, even quartz, for about the same price as Mg Allow. The sides and end of the camera protected by a rubberized covering. The tops and bottoms are not so the Duratect made sense since it is commonly used with Titanium. Given all they would need to do is deliver the drawings and specifications to a speciality shop that prints Titanium, it probably was a better choice.

Companies often change out parts or use new processes for parts even if there are no detected problems with the old parts with the consumer. Of course when Fuji does that they leave themselves open to Monday morning armchair engineering from the forums.

 

[Jazz1]

It is a special coating specifically formulated to attract fingerprints.

And also attract wry comments. Thanks for the smile!

 

[Threaded]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

Yeah, I wrote hastily and carelessly. I know it's the underlying metal and not the coating that oxidizes. The pertinent result of the Google search was not the lack of results complaining about the Pro2's coating, it was the complete lack of complaints about oxidization of its magnesium alloy. In other words, there seems to be little indication that any such problem existed, hence my comment about a solution in search of a problem.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/x-pro3-stories-3-aged-or-damaged/

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

I accept that the titanium without the coating is more scratch-prone, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that Fuji appear to have fixed a problem the existence of which no evidence can be found and in fixing that non-existent problem have introduced a real problem (i.e. the scratch prone titanium) which they are now effectively charging buyers to remedy (i.e. the Duratect coating)?

If I'm misunderstanding anything here, please put me straight.

I do not know for sure but I suspect there reason Fuji used Titanium is a reason a lot of parts are now made of Titanium - flexibility in design because of 3D printing. Magnesium alloy is easy to mill since it is relatively soft. Titanium cannot be milled easily because it is very hard. When Kelly Johnson and his team at the Lockheed Sunk Works at Lockheed designed the A12 Oxcart - the fore runner single seat version of the SR71 Blackbird - for the CIA titanium was the only metal that could be used for the aircraft skin. It was light weight but stronger than stainless steel. More importantly it could take the extreme heat build up flying at 2400 mph. Because of the heat - aluminum could not be used. The skin of the aircraft would literally glow at about 600 deg F.

But in order to build the first Oxcart, Johnson's team had to develop the necessary tools to machine Titanium. In fact one of the major accomplishments of the Oxcart program was the development of technology to mill and machine titanium.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html

However, today most titanium parts are printed using 3D printer technology. I expect (but of course do not know) that because of the ease of printing Titanium that the top and bottom planets of the XPro3 are actually printed. So my guess is by using Titanium treated with Duratect they have parts that are significantly harder than still, even quartz, for about the same price as Mg Allow. The sides and end of the camera protected by a rubberized covering. The tops and bottoms are not so the Duratect made sense since it is commonly used with Titanium. Given all they would need to do is deliver the drawings and specifications to a speciality shop that prints Titanium, it probably was a better choice.

Companies often change out parts or use new processes for parts even if there are no detected problems with the old parts with the consumer. Of course when Fuji does that they leave themselves open to Monday morning armchair engineering from the forums.

Truman, Fuji have made a massive deal of the use of Titanium on the top and bottom plates (and note, only the top and bottom plates) and even etched the word on the base of the camera, next to “Made in Japan”. Make no mistake, this is about marketing, not metallurgy, although I’ve no doubt that it’s now cheaper for them to manufacture than many assume.

 

[Truman Prevatt]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

Yeah, I wrote hastily and carelessly. I know it's the underlying metal and not the coating that oxidizes. The pertinent result of the Google search was not the lack of results complaining about the Pro2's coating, it was the complete lack of complaints about oxidization of its magnesium alloy. In other words, there seems to be little indication that any such problem existed, hence my comment about a solution in search of a problem.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/x-pro3-stories-3-aged-or-damaged/

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

I accept that the titanium without the coating is more scratch-prone, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that Fuji appear to have fixed a problem the existence of which no evidence can be found and in fixing that non-existent problem have introduced a real problem (i.e. the scratch prone titanium) which they are now effectively charging buyers to remedy (i.e. the Duratect coating)?

If I'm misunderstanding anything here, please put me straight.

I do not know for sure but I suspect there reason Fuji used Titanium is a reason a lot of parts are now made of Titanium - flexibility in design because of 3D printing. Magnesium alloy is easy to mill since it is relatively soft. Titanium cannot be milled easily because it is very hard. When Kelly Johnson and his team at the Lockheed Sunk Works at Lockheed designed the A12 Oxcart - the fore runner single seat version of the SR71 Blackbird - for the CIA titanium was the only metal that could be used for the aircraft skin. It was light weight but stronger than stainless steel. More importantly it could take the extreme heat build up flying at 2400 mph. Because of the heat - aluminum could not be used. The skin of the aircraft would literally glow at about 600 deg F.

But in order to build the first Oxcart, Johnson's team had to develop the necessary tools to machine Titanium. In fact one of the major accomplishments of the Oxcart program was the development of technology to mill and machine titanium.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html

However, today most titanium parts are printed using 3D printer technology. I expect (but of course do not know) that because of the ease of printing Titanium that the top and bottom planets of the XPro3 are actually printed. So my guess is by using Titanium treated with Duratect they have parts that are significantly harder than still, even quartz, for about the same price as Mg Allow. The sides and end of the camera protected by a rubberized covering. The tops and bottoms are not so the Duratect made sense since it is commonly used with Titanium. Given all they would need to do is deliver the drawings and specifications to a speciality shop that prints Titanium, it probably was a better choice.

Companies often change out parts or use new processes for parts even if there are no detected problems with the old parts with the consumer. Of course when Fuji does that they leave themselves open to Monday morning armchair engineering from the forums.

Truman, Fuji have made a massive deal of the use of Titanium on the top and bottom plates (and note, only the top and bottom plates) and even etched the word on the base of the camera, next to “Made in Japan”. Make no mistake, this is about marketing, not metallurgy, although I’ve no doubt that it’s now cheaper for them to manufacture than many assume.

References? Seems like opinion to me.

 

[Threaded]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

It is not the finish that oxidizes, it is the base metal if there is a scratch in the finish. Magnesium is a highly reactive metaled and magnesium alloy will oxides even at low temperature. Magnesium allow if the surface is untreated will quickly develop a gray oxidized layer. There are sealers, primers and paints that can be used to protect the surface from oxidation. But if the protective layer is scratched off - the underlying metal will oxidize.

Yeah, I wrote hastily and carelessly. I know it's the underlying metal and not the coating that oxidizes. The pertinent result of the Google search was not the lack of results complaining about the Pro2's coating, it was the complete lack of complaints about oxidization of its magnesium alloy. In other words, there seems to be little indication that any such problem existed, hence my comment about a solution in search of a problem.

It seems that Duratect coating is regularly used with Titanium. A metallurgist or materials engineer would be able to tell us why. My suspicion is it gives the better surface adhesion to Titanium than other coatings and sealants. It is also quite hard and durable so more resistant that paints. Being a copolymer - the coating thickness is most likely significant thicker than paint. Since Titanium cannot be polished (like Mag/allow) that might be important to Titanium. It also happens that while Titanium is hard, when treated with the Duratect process in Duratect silver it has a Hv (Vickers Hardness index) of 1500 and the Duratect black a Hv of 1200. Stainless steel has a Hv of 170, Quartz 1100, Sapphire 2300 and Magnesium Alloy 50-75. So about the only things out there that are a risk of scratching the Duratect processing Titanium is Dimond and Sapphire.

https://fujifilm-x.com/en-us/stories/x-pro3-stories-3-aged-or-damaged/

Whatever the reason, I suspect Fuji researched it well and has a good reason for it. The detailed reasons would be protected as trade secrets and would probably require an NDA.

Since I have not the easiest person in the world on a camera the extra cost is worth it. That might not be true for everyone.

I accept that the titanium without the coating is more scratch-prone, but doesn't this just highlight the fact that Fuji appear to have fixed a problem the existence of which no evidence can be found and in fixing that non-existent problem have introduced a real problem (i.e. the scratch prone titanium) which they are now effectively charging buyers to remedy (i.e. the Duratect coating)?

If I'm misunderstanding anything here, please put me straight.

I do not know for sure but I suspect there reason Fuji used Titanium is a reason a lot of parts are now made of Titanium - flexibility in design because of 3D printing. Magnesium alloy is easy to mill since it is relatively soft. Titanium cannot be milled easily because it is very hard. When Kelly Johnson and his team at the Lockheed Sunk Works at Lockheed designed the A12 Oxcart - the fore runner single seat version of the SR71 Blackbird - for the CIA titanium was the only metal that could be used for the aircraft skin. It was light weight but stronger than stainless steel. More importantly it could take the extreme heat build up flying at 2400 mph. Because of the heat - aluminum could not be used. The skin of the aircraft would literally glow at about 600 deg F.

But in order to build the first Oxcart, Johnson's team had to develop the necessary tools to machine Titanium. In fact one of the major accomplishments of the Oxcart program was the development of technology to mill and machine titanium.

http://www.paperlessarchives.com/a12.html

However, today most titanium parts are printed using 3D printer technology. I expect (but of course do not know) that because of the ease of printing Titanium that the top and bottom planets of the XPro3 are actually printed. So my guess is by using Titanium treated with Duratect they have parts that are significantly harder than still, even quartz, for about the same price as Mg Allow. The sides and end of the camera protected by a rubberized covering. The tops and bottoms are not so the Duratect made sense since it is commonly used with Titanium. Given all they would need to do is deliver the drawings and specifications to a speciality shop that prints Titanium, it probably was a better choice.

Companies often change out parts or use new processes for parts even if there are no detected problems with the old parts with the consumer. Of course when Fuji does that they leave themselves open to Monday morning armchair engineering from the forums.

Truman, Fuji have made a massive deal of the use of Titanium on the top and bottom plates (and note, only the top and bottom plates) and even etched the word on the base of the camera, next to “Made in Japan”. Make no mistake, this is about marketing, not metallurgy, although I’ve no doubt that it’s now cheaper for them to manufacture than many assume.

References? Seems like opinion to me.

 

[biza43]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

Is that so? Haven't you got a camera to be professionally oxidizing, biza43, or are you just going to hang around here all evening being obtuse?

No, I give up with you. Since you don't like facts. It's called cognitive dissonance, you should learn about it. Bye.

 

[biza43]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

Is that so? Haven't you got a camera to be professionally oxidizing, biza43, or are you just going to hang around here all evening being obtuse?

If you don't like what I say, go and read what Truman has been writing in this thread. You could learn something new, who knows?

 

[notchy]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

Is that so? Haven't you got a camera to be professionally oxidizing, biza43, or are you just going to hang around here all evening being obtuse?

No, I give up with you. Since you don't like facts. It's called cognitive dissonance, you should learn about it. Bye.

You know biza, you post scores of messages here each week, many of them passive aggressive in tone or containing impatient snark - often directed at new posters you deem to be unworthy of your or anyone else's time. You don't like it when people disagree with you and start making personal comments when people refuse to accept your often overbearing position.

There's no cognitive dissonance here, only a poster who believes that the majority of threads in this forum require his opinion, who insists on having the last word in every debate and who becomes frustrated when he encounters people who have a different opinion to his own.

 

[biza43]

...

XPRO2 - less robust and more oxidation prone. But apparently some folks prefer it because it attracts less hand-oil.

Well the following Google search:

"X-Pro2" "oxidation" OR "oxidization"

returned eight pages of results. Not one of those results was a complaint about oxidization of the X-Pro2's finish. Moreover, I've yet to see a post here bemoaning any weakness in the X-Pro2's chassis or finish. I put it to you that this coating is a solution in search of a problem.

To be fair the coating is a solution to the problem introduced by using titanium, which is more prone to scratches and hence needs the duratect coating.

It’s the titanium itself which is the solution to a problem that never existed. There have been precisely zero complaints about the durability of the X-Pro2, or the X-Pro1 for that matter, and unsurprisingly no reports of them oxidising either.

Lets be honest, Fuji’s extensive metallurgical research here consisted of them knowing full well that titanium is perceived as a premium material and consumers are likely to pay more for it and see it as a desirable upgrade. If anyone thinks this was genuinely about addressing any issue in the previous cameras, they’re kidding themselves.

Thanks Threaded, yeah, I wrote quickly and carelessly and have tried to clarify what I meant in my reply to Truman above. I don't enjoy sticking the knife in to Fujifilm, but I agree with you. They appear to have solved a problem that didn't exist, in doing so, introduced a real problem and are now effectively charging for the upgrade (the Duratect) to fix that problem (the scratch prone titanium).

Not everyone babies their cameras. It takes one simple look around to see many cameras, even robust ones from Leica and others, that after intensive daily use show scratches, dents, and oxidation. I doubt it that amateurs will see their cameras developing such traits.

Titanium is a better material than mag-alloy for many applications, and will make cameras more robust and resistant. By implementing titanium and Duratect, Fuji are making sure that the XPRO3 is as robust as possible, under a certain cost. For those that are not scratching their XPRO2, they will probably not scratch their non-Duratect XPRO3.

But such is the nature of humans, that folks now complain that the Duratect coating is more prone to fingerprints... oh the horror!

Is that so? Haven't you got a camera to be professionally oxidizing, biza43, or are you just going to hang around here all evening being obtuse?

No, I give up with you. Since you don't like facts. It's called cognitive dissonance, you should learn about it. Bye.

You know biza, you post scores of messages here each week, many of them passive aggressive in tone or containing impatient snark - often directed at new posters you deem to be unworthy of your or anyone else's time. You don't like it when people disagree with you and start making personal comments when people refuse to accept your often overbearing position.

There's no cognitive dissonance here, only a poster who believes that the majority of threads in this forum require his opinion, who insists on having the last word in every debate and who becomes frustrated when he encounters people who have a different opinion to his own.

And yet, you are the one resorting to personal attack and name calling. Again, you should learn from others, there is no wrong in that. I have certainly learned a lot from Truman in this, and other, threads.

Rest assured I am not frustrated or aspire to have the last word. I simply find it interesting that you still resort to spurious arguments and illogical conclusions, when it is established as fact that titanium resists to corrosion in the presence of salt water, for example. Simply because you found no evidence of reports from XPRO2 being corroded, it does not mean that it could happen. It does not mean that titanium is better than aluminium resisting corrosion.

Hence, it means that XPRO3 has better WR materials than XPRO2. By applying Duratect coating, it means that they also improve scratching resistance. Simple.

Have a nice day.