Why not a titanium body ?

tinetz wrote:

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

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.

Right. One anecdotal. Noted. But you are producing a quite elaborate strawman and celebrate yourself in burning it down. Fascinating.

People like to note their Pentax cameras are sturdy. They have a magnesium alloy shell on the outside, a steel metal chassis on the inside and polycarbonate parts where it matters or is necessary (dampening of internal mechanical shocks, radio wave permeability...). They have gaskets where it matters and use appropriate construction techniques for the different materials. Did you know that magnesium alloy is very hard to screw together, the screws have to be specific as this is generally a weak point of this material. Thus the engineers did choose what they know is appropriate.

As far as I remember noone stated that he thinks that Pentax cameras are sturdy because the mount is screwed to a steel chassis.

I hear it all the time

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/337346-why-pentax-4.html#post3882042

this person

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/337346-why-pentax-4.html#post3882034

as did this one

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59265673

as did this one

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

and so does this person

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64292562

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-2.html#post2579432

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-2.html#post2579432

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-5.html#post2584687

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63473566

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63474733

There is a common theme and when someone describes that the pentax camera use a steel chassis they are doing so with the disillusion that there is no plastic mirror box in the camera housing and its the steel chassis that is the soul construction that gives the camera connection between the lens and the sensor.

They are doing so to make pentax look better than another companies that is doing the very same thing use plastic  very same way in the  chassis.

All they want to here is the steel chassis. Why do you think they like to hear it and say it over and over.

It is an interesting detail, thanks for pointing out the construction, but in general the trust in the reliability comes from empirical evidence, mechanical failure of the body itself is not one of the problems you face with Pentax cameras (*not speaking of electromechanical parts that can fail and did so in the entry class line...).

I liked to read the teardown of the 10.000$ Fuji here https://m.dpreview.com/news/1766896105/lensrentals-tears-down-a-10k-fujifilm-gfx-100-that-was-on-the-losing-side-saltwater

Rogers remarks are interesting: "The seals between the various plastic shell pieces aren’t what I call robust weather sealing. I’m aware that several people have called it a great weather resistance camera. I am not joining those several people in claiming that."

I don't see this discrepancy in Pentax cameras. They are considered as sturdy and the construction delivers quite well.

Thanks Ian, this is great ammo for me to fire back at any further Pentax 'flagship' mag-alloy body snobbery I shall come across again in the near future. 👍

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

tinetz wrote:

Ian Stuart Forsyth wrote:

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.

Right. One anecdotal. Noted. But you are producing a quite elaborate strawman and celebrate yourself in burning it down. Fascinating.

People like to note their Pentax cameras are sturdy. They have a magnesium alloy shell on the outside, a steel metal chassis on the inside and polycarbonate parts where it matters or is necessary (dampening of internal mechanical shocks, radio wave permeability...). They have gaskets where it matters and use appropriate construction techniques for the different materials. Did you know that magnesium alloy is very hard to screw together, the screws have to be specific as this is generally a weak point of this material. Thus the engineers did choose what they know is appropriate.

As far as I remember noone stated that he thinks that Pentax cameras are sturdy because the mount is screwed to a steel chassis.

I hear it all the time

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/337346-why-pentax-4.html#post3882042

this person

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/337346-why-pentax-4.html#post3882034

as did this one

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59265673

as did this one

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

and so does this person

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64292562

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-2.html#post2579432

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-2.html#post2579432

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/6-pentax-dslr-discussion/242577-do-we-really-need-mag-alloy-body-5.html#post2584687

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63473566

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63474733

There is a common theme and when someone describes that the pentax camera use a steel chassis they are doing so with the disillusion that there is no plastic mirror box in the camera housing and its the steel chassis that is the soul construction that gives the camera connection between the lens and the sensor.

They are doing so to make pentax look better than another companies that is doing the very same thing use plastic very same way in the chassis.

All they want to here is the steel chassis. Why do you think they like to hear it and say it over and over.

It is an interesting detail, thanks for pointing out the construction, but in general the trust in the reliability comes from empirical evidence, mechanical failure of the body itself is not one of the problems you face with Pentax cameras (*not speaking of electromechanical parts that can fail and did so in the entry class line...).

I liked to read the teardown of the 10.000$ Fuji here https://m.dpreview.com/news/1766896105/lensrentals-tears-down-a-10k-fujifilm-gfx-100-that-was-on-the-losing-side-saltwater

Rogers remarks are interesting: "The seals between the various plastic shell pieces aren’t what I call robust weather sealing. I’m aware that several people have called it a great weather resistance camera. I am not joining those several people in claiming that."

I don't see this discrepancy in Pentax cameras. They are considered as sturdy and the construction delivers quite well.

This were mostly discussions where you were engaged. You pointed out this detail of the construction and corrected some false assumtions. That was in 2017 and I found it an interesting detail.

But noone (I guess you understand that this term is a simplification, you might have found someone in one of your previous discussions, but I would not consider this a common conception) neither in this thread nor in another one lately was actually claiming that the robustness of Pentax cameras comes ONLY from the fact, that their mount would be screwed to a steel chassis.

On the other hand, I just realised a trend, that as soon as someone mentions, that he thinks that Pentax cameras are robust in their construction, someone chimes in to say, yeah, but the mount is not screwed to a metal chassis. I call that a strawman. And it it gives the impression that it is intended to dispel doubts and uncertainties.

The same reasoning you apply to peoples arguments and extrapolate a "common theme" with a "disillusion", can be applied to this argument. It is one thing to set facts straight (and I liked the detailed analysis of this fact some years ago) but now it seems it is used for the arguments sake, it is bordering FUD.

I guess we both agree that a robust construction can not be tied only to a certain material, but involves many decisions by the engineers. Noone would call higer class Nikon bodies lacking in this respect, many would also agree that the low line Pentax polycarbonate shells are of great quality and robustness. But there are cameras on the market which have other priorities and which compromise on the robustness of the construction. The example I brought from Fuji being one of a very expensive body. Here the "common theme" is really based on a "disillusion" of what "waether sealing" means.

Oiche wrote:

Thanks Ian, this is great ammo for me to fire back at any further Pentax 'flagship' mag-alloy body snobbery I shall come across again in the near future. 👍

That is my whole point of posting, if we look at the K5 and the K7 series camera that had a plastic back panel  I never heard any issues with weather sealing or that there was any issue with how that camera was any less durable than the new K3- K1 that use a metal panel. we don't hear much on that front.

We also don't see that the K5/k7 is anymore durable because its top shell is a metal one and that there is also no more issues with WR to the K3 and K1 that use plastic if anything I feel that plastic can be better for WR as there is less of an issue with corrosion and the magnesium frame.

With the cameras that i have had apart the places that have shown water intrusion in the chassis most have been around the bottom plate in the K10, K5 and K7 there was some water marks found on the opposite side under the front panel. All but the K10 have metal bottoms and fronts so plastic and none plastic alike both show water intrusion.

Where I also see water entering the camera body is thru the seal around the lens mount and the magnesium front panel and when you take apart the front panel you cans see as to why this is happening. On the lens mount ring there is a small rubber seal that then rests on the front body panel and because there is no anchoring of the front panel to the underlying chassis other than 1 screw on the bottom plate and 4 screws on both sides and because of this there is some play around this seal. You can see this by applying a little amount of flex to this connection.

If we look at this seal on the lens mount ring there is very little cushioning to makeup for any play

And when we look at what that seal is mated to the very thin surface of the magnesium chassis its not hard to have some water intrusion into the chassis

Is this an issue no but some have had problems when water has made its way to the electronics.

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

This.

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.

Didn't know that. Thanks. The upper shell is made of plastic though (I would know because I cracked mine...)

-- hide signature --

"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell

IIRC the mirror box is stainless steel... Plastic wouldn't last long.

Ergo607 wrote:

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell

IIRC the mirror box is stainless steel... Plastic wouldn't last long.

It is plastic, look at it.

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

No Oiche. Better be slow with firing here. The chassis, as commonly referred to, is a steel frame inside the body. It is made of stainless steel. You can see it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59269106

The mirrorbox is polycarbonate and the outer shell magnesium alloy.

tinetz wrote:

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

No Oiche. Better be slow with firing here. The chassis, as commonly referred to, is a steel frame inside the body. It is made of stainless steel. You can see it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59269106

The mirrorbox is polycarbonate and the outer shell magnesium alloy.

Haha a lot of people are confused as to what the chassis is.

From this guy's comments steel is nothing to write home about , he has a point...

"Nikon has done away with metal sub frame chassis and have moved onto single piece carbon reinforced plastic chassis as this is much more resilient to impact damage.

This is found in the D500 and the D750 and one of the D3XXX lines

On 1 hand you a steel chassis that has no rigidity and gains that rigidity when combined to plastic components. Or you are stuck with singe molded plastic with which the mirror box and the external body panels are directly attached to.

I don't think one is better than the other, they are just different"

Oiche wrote:

tinetz wrote:

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

No Oiche. Better be slow with firing here. The chassis, as commonly referred to, is a steel frame inside the body. It is made of stainless steel. You can see it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59269106

The mirrorbox is polycarbonate and the outer shell magnesium alloy.

Haha a lot of people are confused as to what the chassis is.

From this guy's comments steel is nothing to write home about , he has a point...

"Nikon has done away with metal sub frame chassis and have moved onto single piece carbon reinforced plastic chassis as this is much more resilient to impact damage.

This is found in the D500 and the D750 and one of the D3XXX lines

On 1 hand you a steel chassis that has no rigidity and gains that rigidity when combined to plastic components. Or you are stuck with singe molded plastic with which the mirror box and the external body panels are directly attached to.

I don't think one is better than the other, they are just different"

That was not the discussion.

tinetz wrote:

Oiche wrote:

tinetz wrote:

Oiche wrote:

drummercam wrote:

Ergo607 wrote:

LightBug wrote:

Magnesium is what most higher end cameras like K1 and K3 use.

Where exactly is Mg being used in K1 and K3?

The chassis is Mg alloy.
-------------------
"Elegance of operation" -- Pentax
"Heavy for its size" -- DPR

The chassis is the mirror box which is plastic. Did you mean the outer shell?

No Oiche. Better be slow with firing here. The chassis, as commonly referred to, is a steel frame inside the body. It is made of stainless steel. You can see it here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59269106

The mirrorbox is polycarbonate and the outer shell magnesium alloy.

Haha a lot of people are confused as to what the chassis is.

From this guy's comments steel is nothing to write home about , he has a point...

"Nikon has done away with metal sub frame chassis and have moved onto single piece carbon reinforced plastic chassis as this is much more resilient to impact damage.

This is found in the D500 and the D750 and one of the D3XXX lines

On 1 hand you a steel chassis that has no rigidity and gains that rigidity when combined to plastic components. Or you are stuck with singe molded plastic with which the mirror box and the external body panels are directly attached to.

I don't think one is better than the other, they are just different"

That was not the discussion.

Indeed, that's another matter but good to know but interesting.

Many thanks for all the interventions and discussions that I benefited greatly from.