back alley
IMAGES
telenous said:
excellent!!
what i would have said in the first place if i was as smart!!
thank you!!
joe
telenous
Well-known
back alley said:
Joe, you 're a really smart guy. I think you always make the right questions - at times much more difficult than giving the right answers.
furcafe
Veteran
I use the term "build quality" as a term that includes the quality of construction & the quality of the component materials.
So it's not weight per se, but rather the feeling & reality of solidity & durability. If I hold a camera & certain parts feel flimsy when I hold it, then it feels less well-made to me. Much of this is purely subjective, of course, & has little to do w/the actual strength of materials, etc. I know intellectually that many plastics & composite materials are stronger & more durable than metal, but metal generally feels more solid to me.
On film cameras, for example, I find the film advance lever on the Nikon RFs to be flimsier than those on a Leica M or Canon P--this doesn't mean that the Nikon RF advance lever is going to fall apart or anything, just that it doesn't feel as solid & durable as those on other cameras I own. To use a more clear-cut example, the plastic rewind knob & other parts on a Nicca/Yashica YF are definitely a step down from the metal parts on earlier Niccas. And, as far as the mechanical components are concerned, I think the Epson R-D1 is clearly a step down from the Leica M8 (e.g., the rubberized body panels on my R-D1 came off & I had to tape/glue them back on).
So it's not weight per se, but rather the feeling & reality of solidity & durability. If I hold a camera & certain parts feel flimsy when I hold it, then it feels less well-made to me. Much of this is purely subjective, of course, & has little to do w/the actual strength of materials, etc. I know intellectually that many plastics & composite materials are stronger & more durable than metal, but metal generally feels more solid to me.
On film cameras, for example, I find the film advance lever on the Nikon RFs to be flimsier than those on a Leica M or Canon P--this doesn't mean that the Nikon RF advance lever is going to fall apart or anything, just that it doesn't feel as solid & durable as those on other cameras I own. To use a more clear-cut example, the plastic rewind knob & other parts on a Nicca/Yashica YF are definitely a step down from the metal parts on earlier Niccas. And, as far as the mechanical components are concerned, I think the Epson R-D1 is clearly a step down from the Leica M8 (e.g., the rubberized body panels on my R-D1 came off & I had to tape/glue them back on).
back alley said:
Huck Finn
Well-known
back alley said:
Completely agree, Joe.
The other one that gets me is demeaning the product because it uses plastic. Some of the most ruggedly built SLRs have been buklit with molded "plastic" bodies for the past 20 years. They've held up very well. Even in regard to the smaller parts, there's plastic . . . & then there's plastic. Cheap quality or excellent quality. The whole field of polymers has come light years in the past 40 years. In some cases, they're a better choice for certain jobs because of their combination of strength & flexibility than metal - strong but rigid.
As Rover said, the relevant question si whether it has the right build quality for what will be asked of it. If you pay extra for something whose build quality exceeds the demands of the job, you're throwing your money away. Or you're buying it because you like the aesthetics - which is a good buy for you but not a sign of superiority. My canoe is wood & canvas. I like it for the aesthetics & the nostalgic feel of doing things the way they did in another era. Nothing superior about its performance - but a lot more expensive.
Huck
As Rover
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
It's weight. For cameras anyway.
And back flex. If the bessa R were six ounces heavier and the back were solid, it would get much more respect.
Did someone disrespect a ZI?
On a recent trip to Germany, I took along an old olympus ec2, a scale focus compact just a bit smaller than the 35rc. Weighs as much as the rc, but being smaller, is more dense. I handed it to a German engineer I was speaking to about Leicas (what else?) in the airport, and the instant it landed in his hand and he felt how massive it was, he lit up and said, 'oh my, this is a good camera!' .
He had never heard of the model, didn't know it was just a zone focus auto only thing, didn't look through it, but soley because of it's density, assumed it was a good camera.
Granted he works for the German company whose turntable product was so heavy I swore they used a manhole cover for the platter.. So I guess mass=quality is imbedded in his soul.
And back flex. If the bessa R were six ounces heavier and the back were solid, it would get much more respect.
Did someone disrespect a ZI?
On a recent trip to Germany, I took along an old olympus ec2, a scale focus compact just a bit smaller than the 35rc. Weighs as much as the rc, but being smaller, is more dense. I handed it to a German engineer I was speaking to about Leicas (what else?) in the airport, and the instant it landed in his hand and he felt how massive it was, he lit up and said, 'oh my, this is a good camera!' .
He had never heard of the model, didn't know it was just a zone focus auto only thing, didn't look through it, but soley because of it's density, assumed it was a good camera.
Granted he works for the German company whose turntable product was so heavy I swore they used a manhole cover for the platter.. So I guess mass=quality is imbedded in his soul.
Finder
Veteran
back alley said:
Kind of antagonistic thread, especially from a moderator.
I am not familiar with Leica, but I do know something about the structural design of cameras. "Build" has nothing to do with weight, but it is possible to evaluate the quality of construction of a camera.
Jeroen
Well-known
Mass = Quality: I have a '65 Nikon F.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Btw, as others had said, this is what's so special about you joe, you always come up with questions that make people stop, think, scratch their head and really put an effort to answer it, I know that's what they often do to me
Ok, here's my take:
One way I determine "build quaility" is through *my* assessment on how much effort, design, thought, and time is dedicated to build a particular camera I have in my hand.
Two caveats:
1. Build quality of a camera is always relative to other cameras
2. Build quality of a camera is often an average of the build qualities of the different parts of the camera
Some examples:
- I would say the build quality of my Olympus 35 SPn to be *very good* instead of excellent. Why? because while the viewfinder and gears on that camera is "excellent", and the lens quality being "exquisite", the connection between the fixed lens and the body is rather flimsy. Also the shutter and aperture selection dials are rough compared to the similarly aged OM-1. Therefore the overall "build quality" of the camera is an average of (roughly) 2 excellent, 1 exquisite, 2 poor => very good.
- I would say that the Olympus 35 EC (ECR) has a better "build quality" compared to the similarly -sized and -aged Konica C35. Both take excellent pictures, so the image quality factor is moot, but the Olympus has a very well designed ASA selection dial and superior smoothness of shutter mechanism. The Olympus happens to also be heavier than the Konica, therefore it yields better performance in handheld low-light situations due to its heft. But some idiot selected the weird battery format for the Olympus compared to the simple 675 sized battery on the Konica. So the score is (roughly) 3:2 for the Olympus.
Another way is by looking at two aspects:
1. Reliability: does it keep functioning despite it's condition (dinged, cracked, peeled, etc.)
2. Durability: is it less prone to damage despite the use (or abuse)
Using similar examples, my 35 SPn is very reliable despite its condition (wobbly lens and stiff shutter/aperture dials), but it's not very durable.
My Olympus XA however is very durable, my toddler daughter has often tested it against limestone, granite, gravity, etc. but once the electric part died, it's a black metal/plastic paperweight.
About Leicas, I've handled M3, M4, M6, and they do live to their reputations as far as viewfinder, mechanical operation, and craftmanship. But there's no way I can vouch for their reliability and durability because I don't have one to use everyday like my OM-2n or XA. So I can either reserve my judgement or trust those whose past opinions held water
Ok, here's my take:
One way I determine "build quaility" is through *my* assessment on how much effort, design, thought, and time is dedicated to build a particular camera I have in my hand.
Two caveats:
1. Build quality of a camera is always relative to other cameras
2. Build quality of a camera is often an average of the build qualities of the different parts of the camera
Some examples:
- I would say the build quality of my Olympus 35 SPn to be *very good* instead of excellent. Why? because while the viewfinder and gears on that camera is "excellent", and the lens quality being "exquisite", the connection between the fixed lens and the body is rather flimsy. Also the shutter and aperture selection dials are rough compared to the similarly aged OM-1. Therefore the overall "build quality" of the camera is an average of (roughly) 2 excellent, 1 exquisite, 2 poor => very good.
- I would say that the Olympus 35 EC (ECR) has a better "build quality" compared to the similarly -sized and -aged Konica C35. Both take excellent pictures, so the image quality factor is moot, but the Olympus has a very well designed ASA selection dial and superior smoothness of shutter mechanism. The Olympus happens to also be heavier than the Konica, therefore it yields better performance in handheld low-light situations due to its heft. But some idiot selected the weird battery format for the Olympus compared to the simple 675 sized battery on the Konica. So the score is (roughly) 3:2 for the Olympus.
Another way is by looking at two aspects:
1. Reliability: does it keep functioning despite it's condition (dinged, cracked, peeled, etc.)
2. Durability: is it less prone to damage despite the use (or abuse)
Using similar examples, my 35 SPn is very reliable despite its condition (wobbly lens and stiff shutter/aperture dials), but it's not very durable.
My Olympus XA however is very durable, my toddler daughter has often tested it against limestone, granite, gravity, etc. but once the electric part died, it's a black metal/plastic paperweight.
About Leicas, I've handled M3, M4, M6, and they do live to their reputations as far as viewfinder, mechanical operation, and craftmanship. But there's no way I can vouch for their reliability and durability because I don't have one to use everyday like my OM-2n or XA. So I can either reserve my judgement or trust those whose past opinions held water
Solinar
Analog Preferred
Oh my goodness Joe,
There was a lot of camera gear that was built good enough to through several years of moderate use during the 50's and 1960's. Luckily there were others that were built to a different standard. The second group are the cameras and lenses that still earn praise today.
There was a lot of camera gear that was built good enough to through several years of moderate use during the 50's and 1960's. Luckily there were others that were built to a different standard. The second group are the cameras and lenses that still earn praise today.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
Seconded. That's why they put a block of lead into the Canomatic. I kid you not.clintock said:
A lot of people do ("Too light", "Feels flimsy", "Doesn't have the heft of an M2").clintock said:
I guess this is one of the instances where the Internet has really made things worse, because this kind of highly subjective judgment gets picked up and reproduced too much.
Philipp
back alley
IMAGES
my post was not a reaction to an anti zi comment.
it was a challange to those who make these build comments, often without conscious thought.
it was not meant to be confrontational by any crass definition but to stir discussion and thought.
joe
it was a challange to those who make these build comments, often without conscious thought.
it was not meant to be confrontational by any crass definition but to stir discussion and thought.
joe
FrankS
Registered User
Joe, does it bother you when someone says a Lexus or Mercedes car has high build quality? Since they aren't a mechanic, are they mindlessly repeating a spurious fact?
back alley
IMAGES
FrankS said:
yes.
joe
VinceC
Veteran
But I've never heard someone talk about the "build quality" of a fine automobile. They discuss specifics, design, ergonomics and overall "quality of construction," which is more about the execution of the design concept.
VinceC
Veteran
Besides, overall design, quality of construction and reliability of my Toyota is excellent. Fit and finish doesn't match a Mercedes or Lexus, but overall Build Quality might (and I think it was "built" in California).
FrankS
Registered User
Okay, then substitute quality of construction for build quality. (boy, that's splitting hairs Vince)
clintock
Galleryless Gearhead
VinceC said:
Some years and models of Mercedes have markedly horrid 'build quality', or so I've read on the internet!
VinceC
Veteran
>>boy, that's splitting hairs<<
But, like I said, I've never heard anyone say "build quality" when talking about cars. They talk about workmanship, craftsmanship, solid feel, overall quality. And from this conversation, many people consider "build quality" to encompass much more than quality of construction ... many think it gets into design aspects as well, even the feng shue of the object, if that's possible.
Nikon rangefinders seem to have high excellence in many of these aspects, but I've never heard many -- if any -- people talking about their "build quality."
But, like I said, I've never heard anyone say "build quality" when talking about cars. They talk about workmanship, craftsmanship, solid feel, overall quality. And from this conversation, many people consider "build quality" to encompass much more than quality of construction ... many think it gets into design aspects as well, even the feng shue of the object, if that's possible.
Nikon rangefinders seem to have high excellence in many of these aspects, but I've never heard many -- if any -- people talking about their "build quality."
MikeL
Go Fish
Hey Joe, I hope my post in the Nikon forum didn't start this. I put the title in quotes since 'build quality' seems to be another reason people use to justify their purchase. I'd consider my Spotmatic (once my mom's) to be reliable and durable but light. There is something about heft that denotes quality though (even if not true), like when comparing sewing machines of today versus those of 40 years ago. Today's machines might be just as reliable, but the feel is different. I have no real point here, just thinking....
ferider
Veteran
clintock said:Some years and models of Mercedes have markedly horrid 'build quality', or so I've read on the internet!
Random thoughts:
- Maybe built quality is another word for reliability, which is measurable ?
- If not it is used to express a feeling, like a "crisp wine" (whatever that means) ?
- Our Mercedes has had all kind of problems (ML 320). Its built quality is OK (feels right when you drive it) but reliability sucks. Our Honda is extremely reliable (s2000) and feels well built.
- Aren't Toyota and Lexus different brands of the same company ?
- Long live marketing and propaganda.
Roland.