Metal or Polycarbonate?

[snegron]

I'm sure this has been covered before, and I don't really want to start a war of metal vs. plastic, but I would like to hear from everyone about their experiences with either or both. How has your all (or mostly) metal 35mm body held up after a fall or the usual knocks of everyday life? How has your polycarbonate body held up?

As for me I have noticed that with my metal bodies the knocks are visible. There was one time when my strap failed and my Nikon FM2N hit the ground. It landed on its back but near the prism area. The meter stopped working from that point on. I have used the camera without batteries for the past 20 years after that incident.

With my polycarbonate bodies I have knocked them around and have not seen any dents or scratches on them. I did crack the pop up flash on an old Nikon N5005 one time though.

I guess the perception is that metal lasts longer than plastic although plastic maintains its form throughout its short life. Is this true with the plastic used for cameras? Will the plastic become brittle in time as it does with older plastic objects we have seen? Is the plastic used for cameras more weather resistant that the plastic used for other items? I am not knocking plastic (no pun intended), after all, many high impact and expensive items contain plastic (like Glock firearms, automobiles, etc).

 

[Dan Fromm]

DuPont makes Lexan. GE makes polycarbonate too, I've forgotten their trade name. If you want to know the material's service life you'd do better to ask a manufacturer than endusers.

FWIW, I have a camera whose body was made of some thermosetting plastic or other, trade name Mahoganite. Not Bakelite, but I suspect they're cousins. Its 57 years old. No problems yet. Where did you get the idea that plastics are short-lived?

If you want to know more about plastics, find a materials handbook and read it.

 

[snegron]

DuPont makes Lexan. GE makes polycarbonate too, I've forgotten their trade name. If you want to know the material's service life you'd do better to ask a manufacturer than endusers.

FWIW, I have a camera whose body was made of some thermosetting plastic or other, trade name Mahoganite. Not Bakelite, but I suspect they're cousins. Its 57 years old. No problems yet. Where did you get the idea that plastics are short-lived?

If you want to know more about plastics, find a materials handbook and read it.

As I clearly mentioned in my original question I was interested in knowing user's experiences with both body types. Plastics used in cameras is different from that of plastics used for other items. There are many camera manufacturers out there as well. I am quite sure that they made many of their cameras out of different plastics as well. Some hold up better than others. Only user's experiences can detrmine which has withstood the test of time. And yes, if I wanted to know "more about plastics" then I would have probably done a Google search on plastics. The idea of posting my query here is for camera users to share their experiences with the rest of us regarding their experiences and observations.

 

[PhotoJim]

Plastic can be very durable if it's made right. The problem is that most plastics are not terribly durable.

Plastics, including polycarbonate, can take impact and not break. However, when they take severe impact they tend to crack and break, whereas metal tends to deform. Deformed metal is usually more functional than broken plastic.

I think that metal cameras tend to be better built, not because they're metal per se but because they are built to a certain audience that has certain expectations. That having been said, there is a certain tactile pleasure to using a metal camera over a plastic one.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Y'know, snegron, most of the questions you've posted have rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure this is not your intent, I take as given that you're posting with serious intent and in good faith.

So I've tried to work out what it is about your questions that bothers me so and I think I've identified it. I've reread the post that started this thread and I can't for the life of me see what difference any possible answer to it will make for anything you might do. So please help me a little. What decision are you trying to make?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[snegron]

Plastic can be very durable if it's made right. The problem is that most plastics are not terribly durable.

Plastics, including polycarbonate, can take impact and not break. However, when they take severe impact they tend to crack and break, whereas metal tends to deform. Deformed metal is usually more functional than broken plastic.

I think that metal cameras tend to be better built, not because they're metal per se but because they are built to a certain audience that has certain expectations. That having been said, there is a certain tactile pleasure to using a metal camera over a plastic one.

Good point. Interesting thing I have noticed from several manufacturers is that it appears they use different types of plastic. I have a few old polycarbonate cameras from the mid 80's that appear to be more rigid than newer ones. They give the impression of being less flexible and more prone to cracks than newer bodies.

I wonder if the purpose of the new plastic, flexible exteriors was meant to prevent damage to internal circuitry as a result of usual knocks and pings? Maybe the reasoning is because if circuit boards are mounted on a rigid metal surface, any slight movement caused by impact can cause it to become misaligned or something? I wonder if this is why manufacturers like Leica have maintained metal bodies in their M series cameras: less electronics to protect. Who knows, this might even be the reason Nikon experimented with a softer exterior metal on the F3; it would retain its ruggedness while protecting the interior circuits by having a higher brass content on the exterior. I have an old severley deformed F3 that still works!

You are absolutely right about that great feeling of holding a metal camera!

 

[PhotoJim]

Plastic is cheaper than metal - that's the motivation. It also weighs less, so the camera is lighter. I'm sure durability is not at all why plastics are chosen.

Any jar strong enough to damage a metal camera to the point of nonfunctionality is going to cause worse damage to a plastic camera, but a plastic camera will be more able to take minor dings.

 

[butterflydream]

Metal body absorbs the shock by deformation, while plastic absorbs it by elasticiy. But plastic body is lighter, so if you drop it it will get less shock.

Plastic is cheper in material price and also cheap in shape forming. The lifetime could be even longer, as it doesn't corrode. But mechnical parts like gears will have much shorter life than metal for its low wear resistance.

Some plastics are more expensive than metal. PEEK, LCP etc are more expensive. In former time, these materials were not allowed to be sold to communist countries, like carbon fiber, microprocessors etc.

 

[snegron]

Metal body absorbs the shock by deformation, while plastic absorbs it by elasticiy. But plastic body is lighter, so if you drop it it will get less shock.

Plastic is cheper in material price and also cheap in shape forming. The lifetime could be even longer, as it doesn't corrode. But mechnical parts like gears will have much shorter life than metal for its low wear resistance.

Some plastics are more expensive than metal. PEEK, LCP etc are more expensive. In former time, these materials were not allowed to be sold to communist countries, like carbon fiber, microprocessors etc.

It would be interesting to know if camera mnufacturers use a higher grade of plastic. There seem to be some plastic cameras that feel more solid than others. This might be due to a heavier metal alloy under the camera skin that gives the impression of a tougher camera. Looking inside older cameras like the Nikon F, the film take-up spool was plastic (very thin plastic thumb wheels too). These cameras are still fully functional today, plastic spool and all. However, less expensive plastic cameras built in the 70's are brittle and I have seen them crack in my hands. I guess what I'd like to know is if our newer plastic cameras will be here for 40 or more years as the F has been? Will they be functional thanks to their protective flexible outer body, or will they become brittle and cease to exist?

 

[butterflydream]

Yes, some cheap P&S cameras are made of ABS rather than Polycarbonate that is even cheaper. ABS is weak to UV and weather, I don't belive they will last long time. They will certainly crack after years.

 

[Paul Howell]

This has been covered, I am just attempting to put my thinking into perspective. In normal use I think most plastic or polycarb camera bodies will out live their electronics. I have a 20 year old Konica "Off Road" point and shoot 35 which shows no signs of cracking or unusual wear. On the other hand most current high end bodies like the F6 are made for rugged daily use under adverse conditions. Going back in time it is like comparing a F or F2 with a Nikkormat, professional vs. a very good consumer camera. The winders for the Nikkormat had a nylon gear. Or a N 90 vs a F100. I assume that the high end cameras like the F6 are still made with a metal body, has better motors and electronics because that is what is needed for heavy daily use.

So to answer you questions you need to ask how I am going to use this camera?

 

[jovo]

My Omega View (and several Toyo cameras as well) uses polycarbonate for a number of its important components. I have read some "beware" comments about such parts, but I've had no problem at all so far, and that includes the kind of use/abuse that schlepping the thing around over my shoulder on its tripod can bring about. So far I haven't smacked it into a rock or tree, nor have I smitten a bear or other wild thing with it. But, God willing, there's still plenty of time yet!

 

[EdGreene]

I own a Canon F1 (metal body), Pentax LX (metal), EOS 1n & EOS 3 (metal chasis, plastic overlay) & EOS A2s (metal chasis, plastic overlay).
The LX or F1 w/motor drives attached weigh a freakin' ton and are cold bears in the winter. Neither my F1 or LX offer the big body-ergonomic molded grips of the plastics. The LX/F1 are tiny even when compared to my A2, and are nearly "cumbersome" & unbalanced with a hot shot flash mounted, though the EOS "Robocameras" w/hot-shoe flash mounted handle like a dream.
*Don't handle plastic bodies and use DEET at the same time. You've been warned.

As a former PJ, I can swear for the handling of the plastics in cold weather, while swear at the cold, hand numbing metal bodies. Other than the A2, none of the plastics have that "intimate" feel of a metal body.
___________________________________________________
*But mount my Canon FD 55mm asph. f/1:1.2 lens and Canon Booster "T" finder on my F1 and I'm out shooting in available light (Moonlight) at -3EV!
No plastic SLR/DSLR can get there at all, even with an f/1:1.0 lens mounted.

 

[Paul Howell]

Ed made a good point about shooting in the cold. All of the new camera bodies are metal covered in plastic. In terms of being heavy, I shoot most of my 35mm with a Sigma SA 7, 9 and SD 10. I also have Pentex 42mm and Miranda (just started to collect Miranda) shooting with a Miranda EE with 300mm is a lot of work compared to a SA 9 with 300 zoom. But I will take my Spots and Mirandas any where any time, battery no battery, wet dry, these old metal bodies will take a lot of punshiment and keep on working.

 

[reub2000]

The thing with these old metal bodies is that the light seal material is usually a sticky goo.

 

[elekm]

... that's because the sticky goo is foam, not metal. and because Japanese manufacturers took the shortcut route of sticking that crap into the channels, rather than properly designing the back to properly block light.

Most German cameras, on the other hand, don't use foam because the backs were properly designed.

On metal vs. plastic, it depends. I've seen numerous point and shoots held together with different types of tape. But plastic does seem to absorb impact better, although I find a plastic SLR feels cheap.

 

[Ray Heath]

Y'know, snegron, most of the questions you've posted have rubbed me the wrong way. I'm sure this is not your intent, I take as given that you're posting with serious intent and in good faith.

So I've tried to work out what it is about your questions that bothers me so and I think I've identified it. I've reread the post that started this thread and I can't for the life of me see what difference any possible answer to it will make for anything you might do. So please help me a little. What decision are you trying to make?

Thanks,

Dan

yep, another pointless question in the internet morass

what does it matter whether it's metal or plastic?

most cameras now are some sort of plastic, so you get what you get, surely nobody would be swayed to buy a particular camera because it is, or isn't metal

anyway, most new cameras will suffer electronic failure before they suffer metal or plastic fatigue, cameras are just not made the way they used to be made

in the past, get a good camera, give it lots of use, but treasure it as a precision instrument

nowadays, get any camera, use it, abuse, then buy another because whatever you do to it won't matter, it will still fail in a couple of years

 

[Roger Hicks]

in the past, get a good camera, give it lots of use, but treasure it as a precision instrument

That's what I still do today. My latest acquisition is an MP. Before that, my last new Leica was an M4-P, about 20-25 years ago. If the MP lasts as well -- and there's no reason why it shouldn't -- then it will, like the M4-P, have been very cheap to run: fifty bucks a year, maybe. Now, I'm thinking of selling the M4-P (and one of my M2s) and buying another MP.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Papa Tango]

This ultimately is one of those "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" questions. From what my experience has been as well as anectdotal relations, here is what may be of the most relevance:

1. Metal frame/body cameras are usually of an era when product longevity was an important factor in design. They are of an age that the metering systems, electronics, and shutter mechanisms are simpler and more resilient.

2. The overall "sturdiness" of lens construction, and lack of elaborate electronic controls in the lens body of those produced during the heyday of metal constructed cameras generally will not fail or become sloppy like the matching variable quality plastic gizmos that pass for much of the lens line today. Similarly, it is easier to restore such earlier lenses to factory "feel".

3. The whole ergo argument is solely dependent on the primary shooting style of the photographer. As an example, the EOS "bulge" is nice for bareback camera use. I have two A-1s that are never off a handle grip with integral shutter release.

There are strategic advantages to both. There are aesthetic considerations, as well as shooting style. Yes, foam seals fail. Take a look in many of the German made cameras and you will find a cotton cord. Replacement foam materials these days is of a material that is unlikely to ever turn into goo, so longevity issues there become moot. As others have said, it's primarily about making images. The camera is just a tool, plastic, metal, or wood.

 

[snegron]

This ultimately is one of those "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" questions. From what my experience has been as well as anectdotal relations, here is what may be of the most relevance:

1. Metal frame/body cameras are usually of an era when product longevity was an important factor in design. They are of an age that the metering systems, electronics, and shutter mechanisms are simpler and more resilient.

2. The overall "sturdiness" of lens construction, and lack of elaborate electronic controls in the lens body of those produced during the heyday of metal constructed cameras generally will not fail or become sloppy like the matching variable quality plastic gizmos that pass for much of the lens line today. Similarly, it is easier to restore such earlier lenses to factory "feel".

3. The whole ergo argument is solely dependent on the primary shooting style of the photographer. As an example, the EOS "bulge" is nice for bareback camera use. I have two A-1s that are never off a handle grip with integral shutter release.

There are strategic advantages to both. There are aesthetic considerations, as well as shooting style. Yes, foam seals fail. Take a look in many of the German made cameras and you will find a cotton cord. Replacement foam materials these days is of a material that is unlikely to ever turn into goo, so longevity issues there become moot. As others have said, it's primarily about making images. The camera is just a tool, plastic, metal, or wood.

And then there is the group who not only uses cameras but collects them as well. I will be the first to admit (at the risk of being banished from Film Kingdom) that I currently use Nikon DSLR's and the newer DX line of lenses almost exclusively for work. 98% of the weddings I shoot can be covered entirely with my DSLR's. However, I have a fondness for film and old film cameras and lenses, particularly older Nikons.

For all of my personal projects (non work related) I use my old film cameras. Several of these projects are quite demanding and the cameras get knocked around a bit. Some shots are taken under harsh conditions usually in extreme heat. I have absolutely no problem leaving a Nikon F3HP or F2A in the trunk of my car with temperatures reaching 120 Farenhiet while I am shooting under a hot, humid Florida summer day with a Mamiya RB67. I feel the same can't be said of a camera with a plastic exterior and high contents of electronics inside.

As several have mentioned above, there are many grades of plastics. Maybe if I left a Nikon F100 in the trunk on a hot summer day for 6 or more hours it might not melt or become deformed. Who knows?

Yes, a camera is a tool, but many take pride in their tools. Tools are works of art as well.

*Note, I don't leave my work equipment in the car even though I use all metal Nikon D1X's.

 

[Papa Tango]

Yes, a camera is a tool, but many take pride in their tools. Tools are works of art as well.

And this is why both of my 35s are black A-1s, and my MF is an RB Pro with a custom green kidskin covering on the body, WLF, and backs, and all trim redone in black krinkle finish...

P.S. Enjoy Florida. I lived there for 33 years, and was done medium well when I left...

 

[Chan Tran]

I like metal cameras but I think the plastic ones work and last just as well. I am gentle with my equipment in either case as I am not a pro. I am not gentle with the tools I use on my job though like laptop computer, eletrical test and measurement instruments etc..

 

[Roger Hicks]

I like metal cameras but I think the plastic ones work and last just as well.

No-one knows yet. I have used metal cameras from the 1920s and wooden cameras that are over 100 years old. My oldest plastic camera is a Nikon EM, bought new some 20-25 years ago but lightly used. From my experience with Linhof's plastic locking knobs on the Kardan Color I'd not trust ALL plastics!

Ultimately, though, it surely comes down to what you're happiest with, and even then, there are variations in metal (and plastic, and wood). I like my black-paint brass-bodied Leica MP more than I like my zinc-alloy M4P, and my mahogany-bodied Gandolfi Universal more than my black walnut Variant.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dave Parker]

Two of my cameras that I have used for work the last 25 years are metal substructures covered with various plastics, some of them are pretty beat up looking, but still perform just fine, my two 9xi cameras have taken a beating over the years, still function quite well and have gone from very humid climates to extrememly dry, they have been dropped numerious times and the only time I had to send one in for repair was when the aperture base plate went bad in it, not due to how it was used, but was a manufactures defect, but they are still going strong, during the same time period, I used a couple of Minolta XD-11 just as heavy and they held up just fine as well, although the looks of them, which are all metal bodies are quite a bit worse, but still function fine, the brassing was heavy on both of these bodies and if you looked at them for being pretty, they were worse that the smashed in face of a bulldog, so my experiance is that they both can hold up equally well, if looks don't bother you. As far a s being works of art, I don't normally purchase cameras for that aspect, I do however have a few in my collection, that were bought specifically to collect, and I don't often shot a roll of film through them, they are petty much trophies..

Dave

 

[naturephoto1]

I guess that it just comes down to preference. Personally, I prefer a metal camera body to the outer plastic. However, as has been mentioned in cold and even in hot weather the plastic outer bodies may well be more comfortable when being handled. All my Leica R camera bodies (R8, R7, and R4SP), Rollei 35S, Rolleiflex 3.5F 12/24 Planar, and Linhof Technikardan 45S are all metal cameras. Only my Mamiya 7II has a plastic outer skin over the metal chassis.

Rich