'build quality'

Actually, early Nikon cameras and lenses were intentionally heavy -- using much more brass and chrome then necessary -- because Nippon Kogaku believed customers would equate heft and weight with quality. After a few years, professional photographers complained about the excess weight, and the lenses were redesigned in black barrels to be much lighter.
 
back alley said:
rollie, you have an s2000?

isn't that the hot sports car?

i'm about to cry...
Click to expand...

Actually, it's Devon's car. Two wheels too much for me :)

Pretty cool though.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
I've taken apart about 20 J-3's now. Something to be said about choice of materials, manufacturing tolerances, and build quality.

Over-engineering can be a bad thing as well. I've taken apart several Retina's.

Dependable is a good thing. My Nikon RF's just keep on going. Had an S3 out in the Snow yesterday, worked great. I doubt it has been serviced.
 
Build quality in design terms is how close a product comes to it’s design specification in general production, what joe is talking about is more the customers response to a particular design spec
 
Last edited:
DougFord said:

When evaluating a product design for “build quality”, a portion of that evaluation will include subjective assessments; which are based on various criteria that have greater personal importance, contributing to our overall impression of a given product. Preferred ergonomic and aesthetic designs conspiring to impart a sense of intelligence and well thought out construction are thrown into the mix. Just like the German engineer (in the example sighted above in this thread) who made his evaluation of “build quality” solely on the weight and materials used to construct the viewable and tactile portions of the camera. Did he “extrapolate” his subjective assessment of build quality, apparently, to all other functions of the camera? If he knew that the shutter system tolerance was +/- 25% on a good day and not +/- 3% with an MTBF rate of 100k, would he still regard it as well made?
Basing build quality assessments on objective, measurable criteria, and the “weight” that we choose to give this data in our final personal evaluation regarding build quality helps to define and rationalize our purchases​
Click to expand...


That holds water from a marketing point of view; it would be lost on an engineer

Predicted faults per thousand units vs. actual, is the design engineers’ measure i would contend
 
DougFord said:
Basing build quality assessments on objective, measurable criteria, and the “weight” that we choose to give this data in our final personal evaluation regarding build quality helps to define and rationalize our purchases
Click to expand...
However, most of us just don't do that. We don't care about objective, measurable criteria. We don't have the data either. The most objective, measurable criterion we apply is when we take the camera in our hands to feel its weight. That's as measurable as it gets.

Instead we read random stuff on the Internet and base our decisions on other people's subjective assessments: camera X "is a must have and an immortal classic", camera Y "feels flimsy", camera Z "is built like a tank".

Philipp
 
Replace the magnesium alloy wheels on your BMW with brass ones, it will drive like a tank. ………..trust me I’m a designer
 
VinceC said:
Things I've used that have too much "build quality" --

the original prewar Contax and postwar Kiev shutter -- engineering elegance run amok;
the 10.5cm f/2.5 Nikkor ... it weighs more than a pound of frozen cheese!
Click to expand...

It will take all evening to get rid of the Nikkor/cheese balance image . . .

I equate build quality with a combination of design, materials and tolerances ... once spent a great deal of time around auto shops in the 1970s and the differences are immediately apparent.
Weight isn't always desirable, but balance nearly always is. 'Handling' is hard to quantify.
 
dear back alley, you REALLY need a break from this forum. A tiny one. Just a few days.
You never vented about such things before.
 
Interesting thread.

For most photographers, I'm convinced it amounts to "How it feels in my hands."
Certainly gearheads that frequent forums are in to cameras as objects as well as tools.
I have 8 or 10 old cameras that I don't shoot anymore because I now have better, but I keep them because something about their design impresses or interests me. It's just nice handling well/designed/made stuff.

Buying ever more expensive, better built, better spec'd gear means we never have to worry that our gear is the limiting factor. That's a comfort, no doubt.
I do suspect that many of us could spend a whole lot less money and still not be at risk of being "gear limited."
 
On your question about what do I know: The lens of all the yashica gsn's I handled wobble a bit. Some more,some less. The lens on a Contax iia or iiia (the ones I had) does not wobble. Neither on the leica m2.
However... neither on the superplastic cheap minolta dynax5 slr.
 
I think, as others have mentioned, build quality is a perception that seems to be linked to heft and the apparent quality of the materials used. So by that measure, a Bessa R, say, doesn't stack up to an MP. But until the item in question has been in service for some time, it's hard to evaluate whether indeed it's of good build quality or not. It's not an initial impression, since it has to apply to how well the item functions over time. It is linked to reliability -- a beautifully made item that doesn't work reliably can't be said to be of good build quality, can it? It's pretty hard to say that a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic, two of the most reliable vehicles in existence, is of lesser build quality than a much pricier BMW 5 series.

That Bessa R may begin to have its paint rub off relatively quickly, and it feels plasticky. But does it keep working without the need for servicing? That's the true test. I hate to use a gun analogy, but I remember during the Vietnam War much was made of the fact that the Colt M-16 (built here in Hartford) had trouble dealing with mud, moisture and other conditions experienced out in the rice paddies. Meanwhile, the supposedly shoddy AK47 had no such problems, and was more durable. So which had the better build quality?
 
At work I use an "old" Micron Trek II 333Mhz computer because I like the way it is built. I could buy any computer that I want. I used to have my own VAX. The much newer and faster Dell Inspiron's are just flimsy. Keyboards die, touchpads go wacky, etc. My 1998 Trek II survived 3 months of use in the hospital by a four-year old. She preferred my 1985 Microsoft Mouse (an original) over the touchpad. I still use that Mouse at work. I recently bought some Panasonic Toughbooks. We'll see how those stack up against the Trek II.

I should add that it runs Wordstar Version 6 like lightning. Never liked how version 7 took away a column.
 
Last edited:
I've been tempering my camera gear lust/aquisition by indulging in another hobby lately... On some of the cigar forums there are many posters who blindly say this or that cigar is crap/****/2nd class (dog rockets is the term) because it's not a $$$ cuban they had smuggled in. It has made me think a little about myself & how I take this sort of elitist information... Do I lust for some $$$ cubans??? hell YES, but then I also take their opinions with a grain of salt b/c I know there wasn't that much factual information involved.... I even sprung for some medium priced Dominican stoges that should do just fine for a beginner like me.

Peter

-edit- oops... I made it insert *'s, sorry.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes I tend to equate the quality of an item to my physical and/or emotional reaction to the item. I often assume that because it feels right and looks right, then it has to be right. The way switch gear, the heft, and the finish suggest that the item will be superior. Of course that is not the best way to buy anything, but is often the only information we have.

I am reminded of a purchase I made this past summer. I needed to dig up some bushes out of my yard. So I went to the hardware superstore to buy a new pick-axe to replace my ancient implement. I found this really nice digging tool -- nice balanced weight, and a great handle. Best of all the head wouldn't slide down and smush my fingers like the old pick-axe. The new one looked and felt just right. Took it home, started to dig, hit a large tree root, and the blade folded up easier than a lawn chair. I then got the ancient pick-axe from the garage and finished my digging.
Sometimes what is perceived as quality is only that -- a perception and not a reality.

Michael
 
Build quality has to be more than just weight, else my Zorki 4 would have better build quality than my M3, and much more than my OM-4T. And that's just not true.

...Mike
 
>> should add that it runs Wordstar Version 6 like lightning<<

WordStar! Now that's something that had undeniable Build Quality.

I'm a Version 7.0d fan myself ... it's Windows "aware" (for pre-XP versions, anyway) and "mouse aware." So is more workable in the modern world. Runs like blazes in Windows XP with a Pentium 4. It has no compare.

I suppose WordStar must be the Nikon RF of word-processing software.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom