Prev: 4/3rds fixed 3x zoom lens camera coming
Next: It's been a slice...
From: bugbear on 30 Jun 2010 04:08
RichA wrote:
> The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
> is toy-like.

What FUNCTIONAL problems have been observed?

BugBear
From: bugbear on 30 Jun 2010 04:08
Rich wrote:
> On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:45:41 +1200, in <i0dt2t$ka...(a)news.albasani.net>,
>>
>>
>>
>> Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2010 10:11 a.m., John Navas wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), in
>>>> <36c0881d-810e-4c83-b719-27fce90d1...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> RichA<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
>>>>> is toy-like. The Panasonic G2 is a horrible cost-cutting exercise,
>>>>> production shifted from Japan to China, kit lens debilitated, overall
>>>>> feel is cheaper than the excellent G1. Olympus even discontinued an
>>>>> MMF-1 4/3rs to m4/3rds adapter for the MMF-2, which is cheaper and has
>>>>> a lot more plastic. Plus, the E-PL1 is a cheap, plastic m4/3rds
>>>>> offering.
>>>> There's nothing inherently wrong with plastic, often just the opposite,
>>>> witness the Boeing Dreamliner.
>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boei...
>> Can you say "sour grapes"?
>>
>> The 777 is 10% plastic by weight.
>> The AV-8B Harrier is 25% plastic.
>> The F-22 is about 33% plastic.
>>
>
> Saying the Olympus E-Pl1 has the kind of plastic that the F-22 does is
> like saying the F-15's titanium skin is the same as the cheap steel in
> a Chinese truck toy.

Good job no one said it, then.

BugBear (relieved)
From: whisky-dave on 30 Jun 2010 06:23

"bugbear" <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:m4CdnTg6EtIRZrfRnZ2dnUVZ8ournZ2d(a)brightview.co.uk...
> Rich wrote:
>> On Jun 29, 6:58 pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:45:41 +1200, in <i0dt2t$ka...(a)news.albasani.net>,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Me <u...(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 30/06/2010 10:11 a.m., John Navas wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), in
>>>>> <36c0881d-810e-4c83-b719-27fce90d1...(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> RichA<rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
>>>>>> is toy-like. The Panasonic G2 is a horrible cost-cutting exercise,
>>>>>> production shifted from Japan to China, kit lens debilitated, overall
>>>>>> feel is cheaper than the excellent G1. Olympus even discontinued an
>>>>>> MMF-1 4/3rs to m4/3rds adapter for the MMF-2, which is cheaper and
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> a lot more plastic. Plus, the E-PL1 is a cheap, plastic m4/3rds
>>>>>> offering.
>>>>> There's nothing inherently wrong with plastic, often just the
>>>>> opposite,
>>>>> witness the Boeing Dreamliner.
>>>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boei...
>>> Can you say "sour grapes"?
>>>
>>> The 777 is 10% plastic by weight.
>>> The AV-8B Harrier is 25% plastic.
>>> The F-22 is about 33% plastic.
>>>
>>
>> Saying the Olympus E-Pl1 has the kind of plastic that the F-22 does is
>> like saying the F-15's titanium skin is the same as the cheap steel in
>> a Chinese truck toy.
>
> Good job no one said it, then.
>
> BugBear (relieved)

I want to know why my council can only recycle certain types of plastic,
if they are all plastic aren't they the same ;-)


From: simon on 1 Jul 2010 01:50
Funnily enough I had a look at a a camera one of the guys had last night at
our camera club (cannot recall brand, but was definitely canon or nikon)
I was very surprised at how cheap and lightweight / flimsy it felt compared
to my K10D and K-7. What immediately struck me was 'wow, my old istDL was
light and plasticcy... but it was better than this..

So i certainly wouldn't say it was confined to 'lesser brands'

From: Me on 1 Jul 2010 02:45
On 30/06/2010 10:58 a.m., John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:45:41 +1200, in<i0dt2t$ka6$1(a)news.albasani.net>,
> Me<user(a)domain.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2010 10:11 a.m., John Navas wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:40:28 -0700 (PDT), in
>>> <36c0881d-810e-4c83-b719-27fce90d1ef9(a)g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> RichA<rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Pentax KX has some great image attributes, but its build quality
>>>> is toy-like. The Panasonic G2 is a horrible cost-cutting exercise,
>>>> production shifted from Japan to China, kit lens debilitated, overall
>>>> feel is cheaper than the excellent G1. Olympus even discontinued an
>>>> MMF-1 4/3rs to m4/3rds adapter for the MMF-2, which is cheaper and has
>>>> a lot more plastic. Plus, the E-PL1 is a cheap, plastic m4/3rds
>>>> offering.
>>>
>>> There's nothing inherently wrong with plastic, often just the opposite,
>>> witness the Boeing Dreamliner.
>
>> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/boeingaerospace/2003889663_boeing180.html
>
> Can you say "sour grapes"?
>
Yes - when I'm touching wood - err - I mean carbon fibre composite.
>
> The 777 is 10% plastic by weight.
9%, if you exclude the inflatable auto-pilot.
> The AV-8B Harrier is 25% plastic.
How many harriers (total) made - how many have crashed over how many
flight hours?
> The F-22 is about 33% plastic.
>
Jeesh - for the price, it should be made of unobtanium.
Just as a matter of interest, how many jet fighter/fighter bombers have
been used to defend the USA?
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: 4/3rds fixed 3x zoom lens camera coming
Next: It's been a slice...