'build quality'

[DavidH]

Ahhh, build quality. Among my arsenal of Nikons, I have an F3 and a D70. The F3 has that undefinable something that makes it a joy to handle. The D70 has no 'personality' whatsoever.

I've dragged my D70 around the Arctic, up the Amazon, into the jungles in the far east, around the African bush...and it still works fine and looks fine...

(In fact, only camera we've ever lost on a shoot was another Nikon that a baboon threw over a cliff.)

You can feel that a camera has a certain something - and enjoy using it all the more because of that (why I love the G2 and F3 but not the newer D70).

Is that build quality? Or just a personal connection? And does it make any real difference?

The rest is marketing.

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> So we need cameras with crumple zones

The Nikon fitted cases for the F and F2 are metal shells covered by leather. They provide an additional layer of protection.

 

[Jeroen]

Camera Armor: http://www.camerarmor.com/

 

[Nachkebia]

degree in 'build quality' ? how about you need a degree in culinary to taste a food? I have zeiss ikon and leica M7 and I can clearly assure you build quality of leica is much much rigid and steady, not to mention how solid it feels (because of weight)

 

[varjag]

>>So we need cameras with crumple zones <<

Contaxes and (older) Nikons sort of use that idea. Leicas use a heavy cast outer body. Contax and Nikon use a cast inner chassis covered by protective panels. You drop a Nikon rangefinder (or Nikon F) and you get a dent, but all the gizmos inside keep on working.

Not sure if it was intended design, but my Contax is live testament to that, yeah 🙂