# Are Metal Mounts Better Than Plastic?



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 4, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/are-metal-mounts-better-than-plastic/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/01/are-metal-mounts-better-than-plastic/">Tweet</a></div>
The following article is by Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz from <a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/" target="_blank">LensRentals.com</a></p>
<p><strong>Assumptions, Expectations, and Plastic Mounts</strong>

Photography companies love catchword marketing. They like catchwords because photographers make assumptions about what those words mean, even though the words really don’t mean anything. So basically, they say nothing, but it makes you believe something.</p>
<p>Two of my favorite examples are “professional quality construction” and “weather resistance”.  When I read those terms, my brain translates them to “Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah.” They are subjective terms, just like ‘elegant design’ and ‘innovative styling’.</p>
<p>Most photographers, though, make all kinds of assumptions about what those catchwords mean, and have all kinds of expectations about the equipment that is described by these largely meaningless bits of marketing. We all know what Oscar Wilde said the word <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_first_said_if_you_assume_you_will_make_an_ass_out_of_you_and_me?#slide=2">assume </a>really means. Expectations, of course, are simply a down payment on future disappointment.</p>
<p>I have watched several world-class internet meltdowns with great amusement recently. All were started when photographers found out that their assumptions and expectations about what catchwords meant were wrong. They became a firestorm when people added a lot of ‘facts’ that weren’t really facts.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<h2>Plastic Mounts and Professional Construction</h2>
<p>Much of the recent internet rioting was triggered by some Olympus 12-40 lenses that broke off at the plastic mount (the mount is the internal part of the lens where the bayonet — the metal part that twists into the camera — attaches by several screws). Several people reported their lenses broke at the mount with minimal force applied (a short fall or even pressure from other items in a camera bag). We ship those lenses all over the country and they seem no more likely to break than any other lens we stock. But apparently at least some of them had a weak mount.</p>
<p>What amused me was the absolute fury expressed by numerous photographers that a “professional quality” lens might have a plastic mount. I’ve looked up the term ‘professional quality’ everywhere and nowhere have I found it defined as ‘having an all-metal mount’. But some people are livid that it isn’t so. If you’ve read one of these posts on the internet lately, you’ve learned all kinds of things. . . none of which are true.</p>
<ul>
<li>Most micro 4/3 lenses have metal mounts (they don’t – only one does that I recall).</li>
<li>All ‘professional quality’ lenses have metal mounts (they don’t, not even close to all do).</li>
<li>Micro 4/3 lenses and NEX lenses all have plastic mounts, but ‘real’ SLR lenses have metal mounts (not true on either side of the comma).</li>
<li>Plastic mounts are only used on cheap kit lenses and have only appeared in the last few years (They’ve been around for a long time on many lenses).</li>
<li>Lenses with plastic mounts break more frequently than lenses with metal mounts (Nothing suggests this).</li>
</ul>
<p>I take apart lenses all day every day, so I was rather amazed to find all these facts spoken so dogmatically by people who claimed them to be absolutely true. I make it a rule never to argue with people who claim absolute knowledge, no matter how wrong they are. But I will occasionally show them pictures. So here are some pictures of the mounts of lenses that Aaron and I took apart for various reasons this morning.</p>
<p><strong>Canon 35mm f/1.4 L lens.</strong> Released in 1998 (15 years ago), considered a Professional Quality lens, and certainly carrying a professional quality price. It has a plastic mount. In fact, we keep that mount as a stock part because we have to replace it every once in a while. It doesn’t break often, but we have hundreds of them and they do break once in a while.</p>
<div id="attachment_15427" style="width: 582px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/35sml.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15427" alt="Canon 35mm f/1.4 L with rear barrel removed, showing 4 plastic posts that the lens mount attaches to." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/35sml-572x575.jpg" width="572" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 35mm f/1.4 L with rear barrel removed, showing 4 plastic posts that the lens mount attaches to.</p></div>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">Panasonic-Leica 45mm Macro Elmarit f/2.8 m4/3 lens.</strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> I won’t argue about whether it’s a Professional lens, but it’s really good, really reliable, and quite expensive. It has a plastic mount despite online claims otherwise.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_15428" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Leica45mm2.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15428" alt="Panasonic-Leica 45mm. The 4 empty plastic holes are where the lens mount attaches. The 3 screws still in place attach this plastic piece to the next plastic piece in the lens barrel." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Leica45mm2-575x564.jpg" width="575" height="564" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Panasonic-Leica 45mm. The 4 empty plastic holes are where the lens mount attaches. The 3 screws still in place attach this plastic piece to the next plastic piece in the lens barrel.</p></div>
<p><strong>Sony 50mm f/1.8 NEX lens</strong>. Again, I’m not arguing Professional here, but this one is widely mentioned in the forums as ‘all-metal construction’. It has a metal shell, just like the Olympus 12-40mm, but the support pieces are plastic and the mount screws into plastic, just like the Olympus 12-40mm.</p>
<div id="attachment_15429" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/sony50mm-f1.8.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15429" alt="Sony 50mm f/1.8. The 4 hollow plastic posts are where the screws from the lens mount attach." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/sony50mm-f1.8-575x554.jpg" width="575" height="554" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Sony 50mm f/1.8. The 4 hollow plastic posts are where the screws from the lens mount attach.</p></div>
<p> </p>
<p><strong>Canon 14mm f/2.8 Mk II L.</strong> I don’t think anyone argues this is a Professional Quality lens at a very professional cost. An ultra-reliable lens, but it certainly has a plastic mount. Not that we ever have to replace them. They never break here despite being far larger than the Olympus 12-40mm.</p>
<div id="attachment_15430" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9248.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15430" alt="Canon 14mm f/2.8 II rear barrel showing hollow screw hole in polycarbonate inner barrel where the lens mount attaches." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9248-575x429.jpg" width="575" height="429" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 14mm f/2.8 II rear barrel showing hollow screw hole in polycarbonate inner barrel where the lens mount attaches.</p></div>
<p><strong>Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L Mk I.</strong> A professional lens released in 2002. It weighs about 2 pounds; far larger than any two micro 4/3 lens combined. It is generally referred to as a tank because it never breaks (it has optical problems, but those occur at the front end, which is, oddly enough, entirely made of metal). The plastic mount never breaks despite holding up 2 pounds of lens. Trust me on that, we’ve carried hundreds and hundreds of these for years and never had a mount break. (As an aside, the Mk II version has a metal mount, despite being lighter. I’m not sure why.)</p>
<div id="attachment_15431" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9262.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15431" alt="Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I. That big beast is easily and reliably supported on it’s 4 polycarbonate screw mounts." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9262-575x528.jpg" width="575" height="528" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Canon 24-70 f/2.8 Mk I. That big beast is easily and reliably supported on it’s 4 polycarbonate screw mounts.</p></div>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC lens</strong><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. I include this one just for completeness, because it’s another large lens and at least one online authority has stated it has a metal mount. Sorry, there’s no metal back there at all.</span></p>
<div id="attachment_15432" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tamron24-70VC-1024x980.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15432" alt="Common mount with empty plastic holes that attach the lens mount, and screws remaining in holes attaching this to the next barrel piece." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Tamron24-70VC-1024x980-575x550.jpg" width="575" height="550" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Common mount with empty plastic holes that attach the lens mount, and screws remaining in holes attaching this to the next barrel piece.</p></div>
<p><strong>Attention Fanboys:</strong> Just because your favorite lens isn’t shown here doesn’t mean it doesn’t have plastic mounts. Lenses of 70-200 f/2.8 size and up all have metal internal mounts (as best I can recall), but lenses smaller than that may be either metal or plastic. All Zeiss ZE and ZF SLR lenses have metal internal mounts (but not Zeiss-designed lenses for other brands). Nikons are more likely to have metal mounts than other brands, but they have a fair amount of plastic-mount lenses, too. Otherwise, the majority of lenses have internal plastic mounts.</p>
<p>Does it make any difference? I looked at the Lensrentals’ reliability data for the last several years (several thousand repairs), and there’s no higher failure rate with plastic mount lenses. They have, if anything, a bit lower failure rate, but it’s not a significant difference.</p>
<p>When a plastic mount does break, people tend to freak out a bit because the lens is so obviously broken. From a repair standpoint, though, we love them. It takes 15 minutes to replace a broken plastic mount and the lens is as good as new. Metal mount lenses don’t break like that. Instead internal components and lens elements get shifted and bent. It can take several hours to return one of those to optical alignment.</p>
<h2>So What Does It Mean?</h2>
<p>Absolutely nothing except that internet hysteria is alive and well. By my latest count, during the last two weeks 7,216 internet experts have claimed it is an absolute fact that plastic internal mounts are a new, cheap, poor quality substitute for internal metal mounts. The pictures above suggest otherwise.</p>
<p>The pictures show that for many years lots of very large, very high-quality, professional-grade lenses have had plastic internal mounts. Guess what? They didn’t all self destruct. In fact several of them are widely considered particularly rugged. Looking at 7 years worth of data involving around 20,000 lenses I can’t find any suggestion that plastic mount lenses, in general, fail more than metal mount lenses. Sure, there are certain lenses that fail more than others, but not because they have a plastic mount.</p>
<p>In theory, plastic mounts might be better, worse, or no different than metal as far as reliability goes. There are logical arguments for each.</p>
<p>Obviously a few Olympus 12-40mm lenses have broken at the mount. It may be there was a batch of badly molded mounts. It may be a design flaw. It may just be random chance – a few of everything break. But it’s not just because the mount is plastic.</p>
<p>I do like taking this opportunity to remind everyone that marketing catchwords like ‘Professional Grade’ mean very little. If they say it has 16 megapixels they’ve told you a fact. If they say  ’Professional Grade’ that’s a word with no clear definition. It probably means ‘built better than some of our cheap stuff’.</p>
<h3>Speaking of Catchwords</h3>
<p>As long as we’re on the subject of catchwords, it’s probably worth tackling ‘Weather Sealed’ or ‘Weather Resistant’ next. Many people seem to believe that means ‘waterproof’. When you take lenses apart all day you find out it usually means ‘we put a strip of foam rubber behind the front and rear elements and scotch tape over the access holes under the rubber rings’.</p>
<div id="attachment_15433" style="width: 585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9253-1024x896.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15433" alt="Strip of foamed rubber that sits behind the front element of a ‘weather sealed’ lens." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9253-1024x896-575x503.jpg" width="575" height="503" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Strip of foamed rubber that sits behind the front element of a ‘weather sealed’ lens.<span style="line-height: 1.5em;"> </span></p></div>
<div id="attachment_15434" style="width: 542px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9255.jpg"><img class="size-medium wp-image-15434" alt="Tape over access holes in a weather sealed lens." src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/IMG_9255-532x575.jpg" width="532" height="575" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Tape over access holes in a weather sealed lens.</p></div>
<p>It’s better than no weather sealing, certainly. And some (but not all) ‘weather sealed’ lenses also have internal gaskets around barrel joints and other added bits seals. But I haven’t seen one manufacturer yet tell us exactly what weather their lens is sealed against. Snow? Rain? Sunshine? Wind? Well, it can’t be wind because the lenses we spend the most time taking dust out of are mostly ‘weather sealed’.</p>
<p>It’s very different with different manufacturers. You can assume whatever you like, but when you send your lens in for repair, ‘weather sealed’ still means ‘the warranty doesn’t cover water damage’.</p>
<p>The truth is, terms like Professional Grade and Weather Resistant are nearly as vague as ‘innovative technology’ and ‘stylish design’. I’m certain it’s only a matter of time before I see an online post that says, “I bought this camera because the manufacturer said it had stylish design, but it’s butt-ugly. I think we should start a class-action lawsuit for false advertising”.</p>
<p>Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz</p>
<p><a href="http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/assumptions-expectations-and-plastic-mounts" target="_blank">Lensrentals.com</a></p>
```


----------



## Quasimodo (Jan 4, 2014)

I always enjoy reading his articles, and this one had quite a bit of humor in it as well 

This coming from a guy who works with marketing, and is the first to fall for marketing catch words


----------



## Eagle Eye (Jan 4, 2014)

I previously owned the 24-70 f/2.8L. I could have sworn it had a metal mount. Am I crazy?


----------



## Marauder (Jan 4, 2014)

How dare you clutter an emotional issue with facts!!!! LOL ;D

Awesome article. I can't wait for a camera and lens to come with luxurious "Corinthian Leather" or "Quasi-Optically Precise" engineering! : LOL


----------



## Efka76 (Jan 4, 2014)

Very good article. However, now when I know the truth, I am really disappointed. The most disappointing fact is that photographic companies are charging for "professional grade" products really high and people assume that they even could use them during rain, however, reality is really different.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jan 4, 2014)

Eagle Eye said:


> I previously owned the 24-70 f/2.8L. I could have sworn it had a metal mount. Am I crazy?



The bayonet fitting is metal, but I also learned from this that it is screwed to plastic parts.

Jim


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2014)

I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera. 










The EF-S 18-55 on the left has a 'plastic mount', the EF 17-40L on the right has a 'metal mount'. Very few of us disassemble lenses, so we have no idea what's behind that mount surface. Roger is talking about how the screws that that attach that visible surface piece to the lens are connected - do those screws go into metal screw-holes that are attached to the frame of the lens, or are the screw-holes plastic?

'Plastic' can be quite strong, so for a 'light' lens (most lenses under 100mm, with the exception of the 'magic cannonball' 85L), I agree with Roger that I wouldn't expect any issues, and 'professional' could apply. However, for the bayonet 'teeth' of the mount, plastic wears down more easily than metal (vs. the screw-holes, which aren't subjected to routine 'wear'). That means a lens with a plastic mount (as I'd say is the common definition pictured above, not Rogers's use of the term), would be able to tolerate fewer mount/unmount cycles than a lens with metal bayonet teeth. Since a professional lens would be expected to last years and most 'pros' own several lenses and change them frequently, it makes sense to associate a metal mount (as pictured above, regardless of how it's screwed in) with 'professional' build.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2014)

Plastic comes in many forms and grades... If it is the right material for the job, then it is the right material.... In some cases, plastic is superior to metal, in other places it is inferior. 

You can not treat all plastics the same. Just like tin is different from titanium, so are the plastic parts of your lens different from a child's sippy cup.


----------



## infared (Jan 4, 2014)

Roger's articles are always GREAT...he backs them with facts and I always learn!
I have an extensive Canon FF system and an extensive MFT system (10 lenses for each)...
I do a lot of research (ALWAYS) before I buy. I was looking into the Olympus 12-40 zoom that Roger mentions in his article. The marketing stated "PRO" ....which I laugh at, too. ....BUT...if you go to the Olympus website and read some of the finer print (which I did), about the lens on the product page, Olympus states: " this lens features all metallic construction ". Link to page here: http://www.getolympus.com/us/en/lenses/pen-omd/m-zuiko-digital-ed-12-40mm-f2-8-pro.html
Now, I would consider myself a relatively intelligent guy with a ton of experience in photography. I do not think that plastic is a bad thing in "pro" (LOL) lens design. ( I own a Canon 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS ($1000...made of plastic, incredible lens). So here is my question...If the manufacturer states "the lens features all metallic construction", would I expect that my metal lens mount is held in place by three plastic support rods...which are a main part of the construction of the lens??? I accuse Olympus of lying here. Outright. (mind you...I own two of their cameras and many of their lenses and love & enjoy their products). They need to change the data on their product page. That verbiage is not just misleading. It is not truthful. Period.
I suspect that the design may be a little lacking regarding the weight of the lens and it may be too much for the mount design and/or there was/is some manufacturing problem here... who knows.
I have not bought the lens as it is $1000...I think there "may" be some kind of problem and Olympus has not addressed it. 
All respect to Roger...but I think that something is "up" with this lens, perhaps. Maybe not..but there are alternative lenses to choose from that have not been exhibiting "this" issue. LOL.
Of course...the plastic mounts are far easier to replace/repair (thanks Roger...I did not know that!)...so in the end...maybe it doesn't matter. Also..we do not know "exactly" how these lenses on the internet were damaged. People do lie, or are completely unaware of what actually happened to their lens and why it got damaged. 

I recently went to a photo workshop where 20 "photographers" met in a parking lot. I would say that most were not "casual" photographers. In a 10 minute span I witnessed one person dropping their camera on the asphalt, and another knocking their camera (on a tripod) over and it slammed on concrete. We had not begun shooting yet. Perhaps those individuals consider that "normal" wear-n-tear....I do not know????..so I guess I should take everything with a grain of salt.


----------



## EchoLocation (Jan 4, 2014)

Neuro's post is exactly what I was thinking. When i hear of people on the the net talking about metal mount, i'm usually thinking of the outside part of the lens that physically touches the camera body, not the inside of the lens that this metal piece attaches to. This is echoed by terms like M-Mount, R-Mount, E-Mount(excuse me, spending a lot of time in RF land these days.)
However, I really enjoyed this article, and I would never argue about camera terms with someone who obviously knows so much more about the subject than I will ever know
I do however also believe that modern plastics are often superior to metals in many situations, and I also agree with the statement in the article that plastic simply breaks when dropped while metal twists and creates alignment issues.
I was also unaware that this was such a heated issue as of late? is there really that much of a controversy going on in Olympus land? 
All in all a really interesting and fun article to read.


----------



## Achim (Jan 4, 2014)

In the late 70's Canon switched its FD mount from the old design with a coupling ring to the "standard" bayonet. And they made the first "plastic" lenses e.g. the 35...70mm/3.5-4.5. The magazines were full of discussions why this would be the death of Canon and a shame - while Canon said those "plastics" would be more precise and durable than metal...

My 35...70 (bought in 81) still works perfectly (and my other FDs too!) though I didn't really kept an eye to them while shooting outdoors... A full metal Tokina isn't working for a long time now and my "full metal" german Exakta from the late 60's is working but not smoothly...

And the brakes of some super sport cars are also made of "plastics" - or isn't carbon fibre not a kind of "plastic"????


----------



## aldvan (Jan 4, 2014)

As Infrared reminds, the 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS has a plastic frame. It is not only one of the sturdiest lens on the market, but also deliciously tight, light and pleasant to the touch. Furthemore, it is insensitive to paint scratches and abrasion as, on the contrary, it is a big white.
I want to add something about pro camera bodies. I own a 5D MkII and a 1Ds MkIII, both made of magnesium and black painted. The first one is light and compact enough to be exempted to damages due to small impacts, the second one, when hosting a big lens as a 100-400, is exposed to any sort of hi cinetic impacts when hanging to your shoulder strap and to paint abrasion due to its weight oscillating against your body.
I can understand that the marketing would have some reservation to sell a 8000$ plastic body, but I'm sure that, chosing the right, and expensive, kind of resin, the result would be sturdier and lighter. And there is always the chance to propose with all the whistles and bells a beautiful carbon fiber body...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 4, 2014)

Achim said:


> In the late 70's Canon switched its FD mount from the old design with a coupling ring to the "standard" bayonet. And they made the first "plastic" lenses e.g. the 35...70mm/3.5-4.5. The magazines were full of discussions why this would be the death of Canon and a shame - while Canon said those "plastics" would be more precise and durable than metal...
> 
> My 35...70 (bought in 81) still works perfectly (and my other FDs too!) though I didn't really kept an eye to them while shooting outdoors... A full metal Tokina isn't working for a long time now and my "full metal" german Exakta from the late 60's is working but not smoothly...
> 
> And the brakes of some super sport cars are also made of "plastics" - or isn't carbon fibre not a kind of "plastic"????



The etymology of "brake" is that it comes from Middle Dutch braeke, related to breken to break. Therefore, this is one example where plastics break!


----------



## johnhenry (Jan 4, 2014)

Metal construction is certainly heavier than plastic, as I can attest from owning the 28mm f/2.0 Zeiss, 35mm Zeiss, PC, 85mm f/1.2 Zeiss, 105 Zeiss UV Sonnar, 200mm f/2 Sonnar and 200mm f/1.8 Canon lenses.

So far, the only service has been to replace a wore helicoil focuser on the 28mm, one of my favorite lenses.

Leica and Zeiss both felt that metal was the ONLY way to build lenses, at least from a reliability standpoint.

Most people will never get to the point in the use of their equipment where they will test the strength of the mount etc. More likely is damage to optics and electronic components. Beofre that happens, the lens will probably be sold or retired from service


----------



## lescrane (Jan 4, 2014)

My "weather sealed" Canon Rebel.

A couple years ago I slipped on some rocks and fell into a river with my Rebel Xsi and canon 10-22mm lens. The water was neck high, so lucky I'm still here to post things, but my camera was dead, and my lens was full of water inside and out. I took the lens off, the mirror was wet, so I wrote it off. A couple weeks later, I went to toss the equipment. just for the hell of it, I put a battery in the Rebel, turned it on, and it worked perfectly. I paid about 50.00 to replace the focus screen and clean the sensor/mirror. 5 years later, the Rebel is still my backup. 

I would not recommend "trying this at home"...but it shows that sometimes even the low end of the equipment line can be like a Timex(for those who don't remember...''takes a licking and keeps on ticking")


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



+1, I couldn't agree more. Besides, engineering plastics really are tough, and in some applications even more suitable than metal.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 4, 2014)

Weather sealing means a little bit splash proof.

You know what "water proof" means? Take a look at the manual for the Canon 10x42L binoculars. In the manual it says that if the outside gets covered in salt spray, or sand or whatever, that you should_ soak the binoculars in a bucket of soapy water for a few hours_, instead of wiping the goo off, because wiping it could scratch the optical elements or the surface finish.

Now that's what I'm looking for when I want something that's "weather sealed". And I bought it in the form of a Canon D20. Until it says something similar in the manuals for our dSLRs, I'm not trusting them in heavy weather. Sure, a bit of rain isn't a big deal, but I've had my Rebel + 15-85IS in light rain and drizzle without an issue either.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 4, 2014)

Achim said:


> In the late 70's Canon switched its FD mount from the old design with a coupling ring to the "standard" bayonet. And they made the first "plastic" lenses e.g. the 35...70mm/3.5-4.5. The magazines were full of discussions why this would be the death of Canon and a shame - while Canon said those "plastics" would be more precise and durable than metal...
> 
> My 35...70 (bought in 81) still works perfectly (and my other FDs too!) though I didn't really kept an eye to them while shooting outdoors... A full metal Tokina isn't working for a long time now and my "full metal" german Exakta from the late 60's is working but not smoothly...
> 
> And the brakes of some super sport cars are also made of "plastics" - or isn't carbon fibre not a kind of "plastic"????



'Carbon fibre' is in fact a composite; there are carbon fibers in an epoxy resin-type matrix. The Epoxy is a 'plastic' so it is in fact reinforced plastic. The principle is the same as reinforced concrete, where the concrete carries the compression, and the steel the tension.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jan 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.



Correct.


----------



## infared (Jan 4, 2014)

Hey...NEW INFO....
Just went on to an MFT blog and another photographer just had the mount break off his Olympus "PRO" 12-40mm..here is what he had to say...and according to him...Olympus admitted that there is an issue.... 

Nicholas: “The mounting plate of my M.Zuiko 12-40 PRO lens broke off, just as others have reported. Three of the four screws sheared. This happened while mounted on an E M-1(with Battery Holder) in a padded Lowe Pro Bag. The bag fell off a bed onto a heavily padded hotel carpet. It was such a minor fall that I didn’t even look inside the bag when it happened. I only realized the lens was damaged the next morning when I took the camera out of the bag.
I called Olympus and they acknowledged there was “an issue,” and assured me that warranty would cover the repair. Perhaps most troubling: The technician iI spoke with admitted that they do not have a fix. He encouraged me to keep checking the website for updated information.“


----------



## noncho (Jan 4, 2014)

The weather sealing part was awesome 
I'm going for some tape to make my lens sealed too...


----------



## fugu82 (Jan 4, 2014)

Wouldn't "all metallic construction" be kinda hard to see through? And those all metallic circuit boards would be tricky to engineer.


----------



## deleteme (Jan 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


While I agree with you, I note that the article was provoked by the current furor over the Olympus lens that has a metal bayonet mounted on a plastic base like most lenses ( as Roger notes) and that THAT revelation of the use of plastic in a critical part is sparking the rage on the nets.

Weather proofing is another area where I have rolled my eyes for years. The most vulnerable part of the photographic assembly is the front element and other than using a Nikonos I see no protection of consequence offered by the claims of weather resistance.


----------



## scottburgess (Jan 4, 2014)

Very funny thread. I was amused by this when it got going more than twenty years ago, since with the small size of most lenses a metal housing made no sense. But then the fanboys started complaining about it, so they added the thin metal plate on the outside of the plastic mount to make them happy. Today the fanboys are shocked, SHOCKED!  to learn that the point of weakness was moved only a millimeter away and have taken up defending their rear metal cover as if it makes a huge difference in the wear-and-tear of the lenses. 

This despite the clear _evidence_ offered that said metal plate covers are not any better or worse than the plastic covers. Of course, there must be something wrong with Roger's evidence, because certainly he would have _more_ mount repairs in the database if he restricted the definition of mount to be just the outer plate! Hoo hoo! 

My own experience confirms what Roger and Aaron note: the plastic mounts of lenses I bought in the 90's are not worn off, or exploded, or oozing mysterious plastigoo, and in fact show little wear over twenty years of use. I suppose one may eventually wear out. Maybe I could achieve this if I sat 2-3 hours per day attaching the lens to a body, then removing it, over and over and over... no doubt some fanboy will now be "testing" lenses this way and ceaselessly posting "durability" data on the Intertwitternet. :

Fanboys remind me of the old couch potato saw: "Oh, sports? Yeah, I love sports. I could watch them all day."


----------



## Daniel Flather (Jan 4, 2014)

Look at the mount on the body, it's metal, but what is it attached to?


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 4, 2014)

And this is one reason why I don't like how most reviewers evaluate "build quality." They evaluate the feel of the materials of the parts they can see, which is a mistake. Think of cheap faucets with nice finishes but plastic gears. The same thing happens with lenses. Having a metal outer barrel is not indicative of the materials used for the inner assemblies that often matter more...


----------



## vscd (Jan 4, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
> ...



I second that. I think Roger Cicala is surely someone who know a lot about lenses, but in this case I think he got the crowd wrong. I would never think of something the screw mounts in, when I hear of "plastic mounts". I guess they were all talking about the plastic rear-element which fits into the bayonett. Sorry, Roger, lot of verbiage for nothing... you thought too loud.


----------



## fugu82 (Jan 4, 2014)

It's all about sample size. My experience, with a lens that I use maybe 4 times times a year, even 20 busy pros experience with that lens using it every day, are statistically meaningless compared to a huge rental organization's repair data on that lens.


----------



## Viggo (Jan 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly! It's the wear and tear over time mounting and dismounting that I was thinking of also. I have seen lenses tried mounted a bit tilted and a piece of plastic has broken off. I also seen a few 50mm f1.8 and the Nikon 18-105 split apart on the middle of the barrel. I have also tried to kill a lightweight 17-85 with brutal force without success, if it was a heavy lens it would have exploded. 

Weather sealing is always a funny term, but I have used my gear in VERY heavy rain without issue and once took my 85 L, which isn't sealed, into light rain and it fogged up right away, so there is something to it. 

The truth hurts and I love these mythbusting articles from Roger, great read!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2014)

Not surprised by any of it at all. (although I think he uses the term metal mount differently than most people, that said, he does bring up anchoring which many probably don't think to think of)


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jan 4, 2014)

Random Orbits said:


> And this is one reason why I don't like how most reviewers evaluate "build quality." They evaluate the feel of the materials of the parts they can see, which is a mistake. Think of cheap faucets with nice finishes but plastic gears. The same thing happens with lenses. Having a metal outer barrel is not indicative of the materials used for the inner assemblies that often matter more...



OTOH, you seem to have missed the part where the materials for the inner anchors being metal actually might be worse than from plastic.


----------



## Dimson (Jan 4, 2014)

this is probably one of the best and most informative write ups i've read at CR so far. truly a great insight on how the stuff works behind the scenes. i hope there will be more of this kind


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 4, 2014)

Great article. I worry about 3 things with my lenses. 
1. fungus. I live in a very humid environment
2. Will the IS element fail?
3. Will he AF element fail?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 4, 2014)

mrsfotografie said:


> 'Carbon fibre' is in fact a composite; there are carbon fibers in an epoxy resin-type matrix. The Epoxy is a 'plastic' so it is in fact reinforced plastic. The principle is the same as reinforced concrete, where the concrete carries the compression, and the steel the tension.


 
The devil is in the details. those fibers don't always lineup so that they reinforce the part in the right axis. It takes a lot of experience with making molds, superb process control, and frequent checking to make sure the fibers are doing any good. I had a plastic bayonet lens from Canon where the bayonet flanges broke away. 
Canon, like many other companies is out sourcing more and more parts, and having problems as a result.


----------



## infared (Jan 4, 2014)

fugu82 said:


> Wouldn't "all metallic construction" be kinda hard to see through? And those all metallic circuit boards would be tricky to engineer.


Obviously there is glass in the lenses, plastic-coated wires, rubber on the focus rings, etc...DUUUUUH...but like Roger says..Zeiss uses metal throughout the Lens. Zeiss could make that claim in their literature..in this instance, it is dishonest for Olympus to make that claim.


----------



## Skulker (Jan 4, 2014)

Daniel Flather said:


> Look at the mount on the body, it's metal, but what is it attached to?



Umm, I think you have supplied your own awnser. The Body. ;D

On my 1Dx that's made of magnesium BTW. But of course its weather sealed and Profesional quality. ;D

I think your making a perfectly valid point, just couldn't resist the silly reply.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 4, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > 'Carbon fibre' is in fact a composite; there are carbon fibers in an epoxy resin-type matrix. The Epoxy is a 'plastic' so it is in fact reinforced plastic. The principle is the same as reinforced concrete, where the concrete carries the compression, and the steel the tension.
> ...


The fibers in carbon fiber components are usually from a cloth so alignment is easy.... It's sort of like with fiberglass.you could lay up fiberglass cloth in a mold or you could use "chop glass", where short fibers were blown in place.... The chop layup is faster and cheaper, but the laid up cloth is both lighter and stronger.

BTW, we use carbon-fibre dishes in aircraft and on the satellites..... They are far better than metal dishes, particularly with thermal stability and weight.


----------



## Skulker (Jan 4, 2014)

I think that most people will mean the bayonets when they refer to "mounts". It may be that Roger knows better. Maybe people complain when the "mounts" break and from Rogers experience it's what he calls the mount that breaks rather than the bayonet.

On the subject of plastic mounts. Be they bayonets or what the bayonet mounts on. Many will be made of a filled plastic. That filler may be glass, carbon, ceamic or inert filler as there are several options. It can be in the form of fibers, beads or powder as well as the obvious options of woven material that you probably wouldn't expect in a bayonet, but might well find in a mount as defined by Roger.

There are also several options for the matrix as well. Epoxy is not the most likely for this type of application.

The obvious problem with bayonet mounts for lenses is wear. As the lens is mounted and removed it may well be subject to abrasion. If it wears and the filler is exposed it can create a very abrasive paste or dust that may wear even more, and get in the camera. Thus causing even more wear.

Please don't think I don't like plastic, I'd quite happily buy a lens with "plastic" bayonets. But I wouldn't expect to see them on my 200-400 when I get it. (in my dreams)


----------



## Skulker (Jan 4, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> The fibers in carbon fiber components are usually from a cloth so alignment is easy.... It's sort of like with fiberglass.you could lay up fiberglass cloth in a mold or you could use "chop glass", where short fibers were blown in place.... The chop layup is faster and cheaper, but the laid up cloth is both lighter and stronger.
> 
> BTW, we use carbon-fibre dishes in aircraft and on the satellites..... They are far better than metal dishes, particularly with thermal stability and weight.



You won't find may bits in a mass production lens made that way.


Edited to correct typo.


----------



## WPJ (Jan 4, 2014)

Eagle Eye said:


> I previously owned the 24-70 f/2.8L. I could have sworn it had a metal mount. Am I crazy?



nope your thinking of the bayonet part Roger is referring to the internal mount which you cannot see unless you take the bayonet off


----------



## zim (Jan 5, 2014)

infared said:


> Three of the four screws sheared.



Doesn't sound like a plastics issue, interesting that the weakest link would seem to be the screws under a shearing force. You could argue that's good design!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2014)

When I snapped my 16-35 f2.8 in two I was told by a tech at CPS that the plastic cage that the metal mount screwed to was a designed breaking point. He said that if camera and lens were dropped it was supposed to break away before too much impact was transferred to the glass.

My 16-35 was mounted to a 1VHS and fell onto a concrete floor. The four screws snapped tabs off the plastic cage, the mount stayed on the camera, the lens rolled away with no damage to the glass, barrel, or filter threads, all the ribbon cables snapped and it cost $150 to fix. They replaced the plastic cage (they actually offered to sell me one so I could repair it myself as I was in a fairly remote spot), and the ribbon cables, no damage to the glass.

I am very happy with the design, I think it worked as intended and prevented my lens being damaged more severely.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> However, for the bayonet 'teeth' of the mount, plastic wears down more easily than metal (vs. the screw-holes, which aren't subjected to routine 'wear'). That means a lens with a plastic mount (as I'd say is the common definition pictured above, not Rogers's use of the term), would be able to tolerate fewer mount/unmount cycles than a lens with metal bayonet teeth.



While it is true that plastic mounts (our definition, not Roger's) are far easy to break that metal ones, it might be better to have an easily replaceable breaking point in case the camera with the lens mounted falls at a weird angle. In fact, as far as I have seen from images of dropped cameras, the lens mount is what breaks off most often (even including metal ones) and I think that is for a very good reason. The plastic flanges in the 50 II and 18-55 definitely feel dodgy but I suspect they are much stronger than they look. I even feel that the elasticity of the plastic barrels (pun not intended) might be better at absorbing shock inside than the rigid metal barrels. This is engineered plastic, not the same thing cheap toys are made out of.



privatebydesign said:


> When I snapped my 16-35 f2.8 in two I was told by a tech at CPS that the plastic cage that the metal mount screwed to was a designed breaking point. He said that if camera and lens were dropped it was supposed to break away before too much impact was transferred to the glass.



+1. Exactly my thoughts.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 5, 2014)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > And this is one reason why I don't like how most reviewers evaluate "build quality." They evaluate the feel of the materials of the parts they can see, which is a mistake. Think of cheap faucets with nice finishes but plastic gears. The same thing happens with lenses. Having a metal outer barrel is not indicative of the materials used for the inner assemblies that often matter more...
> ...



Umm... no. I said NOTHING about whether or not lenses should be made with metal or plastic. My point is that you cannot tell build quality by just evaluating just how it feels on the outside. One can't evaluate quality without understanding the design and the design tradeoffs, and that is impossible by just feeling the outside of a lens.


----------



## DanielW (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> I think Rogers's definition of a plastic vs. a metal mount differs from how most people think about those terms. For most of us, we're talking about the bayonet parts - the 'teeth' that lock into the mount on the camera.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I understand that, and even make the same (in my case unfounded) assumption about the plastic teeth wearing down more quickly, but would not Roger have noticed it so far if it did happen to be true?


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

Achim said:


> ...
> 
> And the brakes of some super sport cars are also made of "plastics" - or isn't carbon fibre not a kind of "plastic"????



May be not that helpful but carbon brakes are not carbon fibres reinforced polymers. They are carbon disks and pads, more like ceramics. Regular brakes are steel disks and polymermatrix with mineral fibres for pads. However, those can't cope with the heat from stopping from high speeds.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

May be another less than helpful post but reading all these posts about carbon fibers, I had to make it. Carbon fibres as most people understand actually refer to a layered material consisting of several plies of light and strong continuous carbon fibres, all aligned or as a fabric, and held together by a matrix, often a polymer. These are very strong in the direction of fibres, but may be very weak in other directions, such as in the thickness direction. Even weaker than unrreinforced polymers. Therefore, they would be very poor candidate materials for screwing things to like in lens mounts.

Micro-beads, flakes or short fibres filled polymers are much more likely, but carbon is less attractive there.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Jan 5, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Achim said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thanks for the addendum


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2014)

I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.

I agree with Roger than some sealing is arguably better than no sealing, but hopefully all those people swearing that weather sealing saved their gear back in that difficult situation will now reconsider. The thing is, without specific benchmarks is impossible to attribute the merit of any gear survival event to weather sealing. Roger's statistics also seem to imply that the weather damage events are not less frequent on weather sealed lenses.


----------



## rs (Jan 5, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> May be another less than helpful post but reading all these posts about carbon fibers, I had to make it. Carbon fibres as most people understand actually refer to a layered material consisting of several plies of light and strong continuous carbon fibres, all aligned or as a fabric, and held together by a matrix, often a polymer. These are very strong in the direction of fibres, but may be very weak in other directions, such as in the thickness direction. Even weaker than unrreinforced polymers. Therefore, they would be very poor candidate materials for screwing things to like in lens mounts.
> 
> Micro-beads, flakes or short fibres filled polymers are much more likely, but carbon is less attractive there.


+1

When used in certain applications (usually with a different structural design than a metal construction equivalent due to differences in the properties of the two materials), composites _can_ be much better. For instance carbon fibre is used very successfully to make certain components of tripods, race cars, airplanes, boats and even lens hoods for Canon super telephotos. I remember hearing about such materials being used inside the latest generation of Canon super telephoto lenses, but I can't dig up any info on that.

It's less successfully used as a veneer in road cars... You should feel the weight of some bits of carbon fibre veneered trim in "sports" versions of luxury cars 

It's typical for a metal thread to be glued into carbon fibre where anything needs to be bolted into place. Therefore, lugs to attach a lens mount are far from a suitable use for this material.


----------



## aldvan (Jan 5, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Therefore, they would be very poor candidate materials for screwing things to like in lens mounts.
> 
> Micro-beads, flakes or short fibres filled polymers are much more likely, but carbon is less attractive there.



I absolutely agree on that. I introduced the carbon fiber argument only as a camera external body material candidate. Screws and carbon or kevlar fiber are not compatible. For that reason in automotive and motorcycling componentss, you need metal inserts for screwing things.


----------



## rs (Jan 5, 2014)

Albi86 said:


> I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.
> 
> I agree with Roger than some sealing is arguably better than no sealing, but hopefully all those people swearing that weather sealing saved their gear back in that difficult situation will now reconsider. The thing is, without specific benchmarks is impossible to attribute the merit of any gear survival event to weather sealing. Roger's statistics also seem to imply that the weather damage events are not less frequent on weather sealed lenses.


The effectiveness of stabilisation systems and battery life are both independently tested.

The ingress protection rating system already exists, and some camera manufacturers use it for their waterproof cameras:

Canon D20, IP68: http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/Digital_Camera/PowerShot/PowerShot_D20/index.aspx
Olympus TG2, IPX8:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras/digital_cameras/tough/tg_2/tg_2_specifications.html
Nikon AW1, IP68:
http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/acil/bodies/aw1/spec.htm

Why not use the same system for lenses and bodies? I know they're each only half the system, but it would easy enough to test each independently, and the consumer will then be aware of the limits of their system (the lower score of the lens and body). I wouldn't expect even the best DSLR/lens to get IPX5 rating, but a weather sealed product could be as low as IPX1 or as high as IPX4. Quantifying this would really help the consumer.


----------



## mememe (Jan 5, 2014)

Are you really sure that stuff in the 24-70 where the 4 screws go in is plastic? I dont really think that is true...


----------



## Albi86 (Jan 5, 2014)

rs said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.
> ...



Exactly. The waterproof designation comes with a pressure/depth value that clarifies to which extent it works. Weather sealing hints at something but declares nothing; it sort of invites the buyer to wishfully think of a degree of resistance that is not there.


----------



## WPJ (Jan 5, 2014)

lescrane said:


> My "weather sealed" Canon Rebel.
> 
> A couple years ago I slipped on some rocks and fell into a river with my Rebel Xsi and canon 10-22mm lens. The water was neck high, so lucky I'm still here to post things, but my camera was dead, and my lens was full of water inside and out. I took the lens off, the mirror was wet, so I wrote it off. A couple weeks later, I went to toss the equipment. just for the hell of it, I put a battery in the Rebel, turned it on, and it worked perfectly. I paid about 50.00 to replace the focus screen and clean the sensor/mirror. 5 years later, the Rebel is still my backup.
> 
> I would not recommend "trying this at home"...but it shows that sometimes even the low end of the equipment line can be like a Timex(for those who don't remember...''takes a licking and keeps on ticking")



most equipment can be submerged in water and then dried out. Heck I used to pit boards in an ultrasonic water batch to clean them myself.

this issue is power, there cannot be any power to the board or shorts happen but if there is not power in the caps, batteries removed its usually on.

also if you remove power asap and let equipment dry out sometimes it will power back up again, the duration is ip to who knows what as water may get into caps etc and cause havoc for months.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

rs said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > I've been preaching forever that weather sealing is a marketing gimmick. A spec without benchmarks, a claim not backed up by any warranty or whatever.
> ...



I was at a camera show several years ago, and the Olympus booth had one of their tough series p/s cameras in a goldfish bowl, complete with goldfish swimming around. They would let you plunge your hand into the water and use the camera to take pictures of the fish..... That's what waterproof means! I asked if they would let me try with an E-5 and they laughed, saying it was "splashproof" and wouldn't last a second in the tank.....

That pretty well sums up DSLR "weather-sealing". It will survive being in the rain, but as soon as there is any pressure, the game is up. Splashproof is a much better word....


----------



## Viggo (Jan 5, 2014)

Have look at CR's text of the 300 II, that picture tells you how much Canon weather sealing can take, and it's pretty substantial and good enough for me. If it rains like that, I'm staying inside.


----------



## WPJ (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...



try on the pressure however being an scuba diver, the first 33' if water has the same pressure as the first 33 above the ground to sum it up so the fish bowl would have no more extra pressure than that above ground.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

WPJ said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > I was at a camera show several years ago, and the Olympus booth had one of their tough series p/s cameras in a goldfish bowl, complete with goldfish swimming around. They would let you plunge your hand into the water and use the camera to take pictures of the fish..... That's what waterproof means! I asked if they would let me try with an E-5 and they laughed, saying it was "splashproof" and wouldn't last a second in the tank.....
> ...



I'm not sure I understand what you are saying..... could you elaborate?


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

The theme of this thread seems to be about marketing perceptions, not technical standards.

All-metal sounds sturdier than plastic.... the relative merits of the materials and the choice of the right material for the application take second seat behind perceptions.... Very often a break-point will be designed into a system to prevent catastrophic damage. This is why your flash is designed to have the mount break off if there is too much stress.... they could design the flash to be stronger, but the big worry is ripping the hot-shoe off of the camera... Look through the 600EX-RT manual and see if it says that it was designed to break in two.... I don't think you will find that the marketing people would let that into the manual 

Weatherproof is used because it sounds a lot like waterproof. A great many people will not understand the difference and they will buy... Waterproof has meaning and standards to be met... weatherproof is a meaningless word. The chickadees in my yard are "weatherproof"... it does not mean they will survive 15 minutes underwater.....


----------



## WPJ (Jan 5, 2014)

Don the pressure in water or atmospheric pressure is additive every 33' under water.

so 0-33 feet below the water line is the same pressure which is the same we have in land
at 34-66feet it doubles the pressure at land or sea level.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

WPJ said:


> Don the pressure in water or atmospheric pressure is additive every 33' under water.
> 
> so 0-33 feet below the water line is the same pressure which is the same we have in land
> at 34-66feet it doubles the pressure at land or sea level.


But we start off at one atmosphere of pressure (at sea level anyway) and the pressure is relative to the inside of the unit.

Assuming sea level and no weird atmospheric conditions like hurricanes, etc....
1 foot above water - 1 atmosphere
at water level - 1 atmosphere
3.3 feet below - 1.1 atmosphere
16.5 feet below - 1.5 atmosphere
33 feet below - 2 atmosphere

2 atmospheres is where most of the P/S underwater cameras are rated for. It is one atmosphere higher than the internal pressure of the unit.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2014)

WPJ said:


> Don the pressure in water or atmospheric pressure is additive every 33' under water.
> 
> so 0-33 feet below the water line is the same pressure which is the same we have in land
> at 34-66feet it doubles the pressure at land or sea level.



Go check your PADI RDP, or the open water course book, each 33ft is plus one atmosphere; so 33ft below the surface at sea level is 2 atmospheres, or 28psi. The first 33ft is not free the water column still has the air column on top of it.


----------



## WPJ (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Don the pressure in water or atmospheric pressure is additive every 33' under water.
> ...



ya something like that, but it is more like at 16' is like 1.3, at 33 its 2

hence staying jn 0-33 or 33-66 is relatively easy to seal after that it get much harder to seal


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

WPJ said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > WPJ said:
> ...


Yes.... we are saying the same thing 

and at the risk of being publicly flayed on a canon forum... the Nikonos!!! Now that was a waterproof camera  Add on an Ikilite strobe and you had a flash so bright you could annoy people in submarines


----------



## WPJ (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> WPJ said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



love it.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> That pretty well sums up DSLR "weather-sealing". It will survive being in the rain, but as soon as there is any pressure, the game is up. Splashproof is a much better word....



Well, I can't speak for you, but the weather has never _submerged_ me in water. Jumping in a pool or diving into the ocean aren't 'weather' - and anyone who does so holding their weather-sealed dSLR+lens expecting them to survive is an idiot. 

So, I think 'weather sealed' is an appropriate term. However, I agree that testing to an industry standard would be much better.


----------



## marcel (Jan 5, 2014)

Plastic mounts on the lens and in the camera. The camera worked also with the extremely heavy EF 28-80 f2.8-4L with no problem, on tripod.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 5, 2014)

WPJ said:


> Don the pressure in water or atmospheric pressure is additive every 33' under water.
> 
> so 0-33 feet below the water line is the same pressure which is the same we have in land
> at 34-66feet it doubles the pressure at land or sea level.



It's not that the pressure JUMPS from 1 atm to 2 atm and so on every 33 feet. It's a continuous increment. At 16 feet it is 0.5 atm, for example. 
Anything that doesn't specifically say "water resistance to x feet depth" should not be intentionally immersed completely, no matter how "weather sealed" it is, for any length of time. A very little water pressure is required to allow ingress unless the seals are designed to withstand pressure and are not simple foam rubber gaskets or "scotch tape".


----------



## AvTvM (Jan 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > That pretty well sums up DSLR "weather-sealing". It will survive being in the rain, but as soon as there is any pressure, the game is up. Splashproof is a much better word....
> ...



agree 100%. Appropriate Industry standard exists. 

On their german website Ricoh rates its Pentax K-50 DSLR as "protected according to IPX2" ... which would not mean much, since an ingress prtotection rating of IPX2 only means "Protection against direct sprays of water up to 15o from the vertical." 
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ip-ingress-protection-d_452.html

While I do not know, whether or not Ricoh has indepentently tested/certified the K-50 or just makes a claim, I juist love it that for once a camera manufcaturer quotes a specific and clearly understood ingress protection class. 

To my knowledge Canon has never provided such a rating, not even for its super-expensive "fully weathersealed" 1-series cameras. To me ... "professional" grade ... would mean clearly class IP67 ingress protection (against both dust and water; anything less allows for limited ingress of water and/or dust). Currently I would expect a Canon 1 D X with body cap on (no lens!) to be ingress protected at about IP 54.

Of course a rating should also be provided for any "ingress protected" ("L") lens. Along with an assurance that any given camera body + attached lens will adhere at least to the lower IP number. 

Alternatively I would also be happy to see (even tougher) MIL standards quoted, if the manufacturers want to really boast about their "professional grade" stuff. 

In Europe I would love the EU commission to regulate the matter and require manufacturers to provide a certified ingress protection standard for any consumer product [which includes any camera and lens we are discussing here] if any claims regarding "wheather protection", "sealing" or "professional grade" or similar are being used in advertising a product.


----------



## acoll123 (Jan 5, 2014)

Ironically, I had my new conn 24-70 II break at the mount a few months ago after being dropped. In the article, Roger said it had a metal mount but it appeared to be plastic to me . . . I was actually glad it was plastic and broke where it did. None of the optics were broken and the repair from CPS only involved replacing the mount ring . . . still $350 but cheaper than a new lens or glass. I think engineering a planned "break point" into a lens is a very good design decision and probably precludes more catastrophic damage.

Andy


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

The more I think about the original title question, the more I come to the classic engineering answer ie: it depends...

Best for what? Strongest, lightest, most thermally stable, most rustproof, most bombproof or... cheapest...

As an aside, I had a look at a 18-55 kit lens and it looks like it is ABS plastic all aroud. That would seem like a good material as it is quite stiff, has high impact resistance and is easily moulded to good precisions.

Personally, I would not mind having plastic mount (not bayonet) designed as a fuse, but I also concede that 'made to break easily at the mount to prevent internal damage if hit' won't make for a strong marketing punchline.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Plastic comes in many forms and grades... If it is the right material for the job, then it is the right material.... In some cases, plastic is superior to metal, in other places it is inferior.
> 
> You can not treat all plastics the same. Just like tin is different from titanium, so are the plastic parts of your lens different from a child's sippy cup.



I think it would be cool to see a Canon L lens made from a child's sippy cup. (Complete with the bright colors!) It would be great for shooting child portraits. And when not mounted to the camera, it could double as a pacifier for toddlers.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

And then for weatherproof and professional grade claims, these kinds of empty phrases are all around for each and every products that we are advertised. It is hard to find an objective claim in any publicity. Not that we should not be unsatisfied of the situation, but I think it is a general issue and would be hard to prevent through advertisement regulations. 

I mean consumers bite, so the lines are going to be cast...


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 5, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> Great article. I worry about 3 things with my lenses.
> 1. fungus. I live in a very humid environment
> 2. Will the IS element fail?
> 3. Will he AF element fail?



You forgot #4. The risk of throwing the lens at the subject because they won't/can't pose or smile.

OK, I'm feeling kinda mean today. Shoot me.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 5, 2014)

As for 'Weather Sealed', 'Rugged', 'Impact Resistant' and other such arbitrary terms, I think a better term would be 'Toddler Proof'. This term could easily surpass terms even as robust as 'Mil-Spec'! We all know that no matter how tough something is made and purported to be, 20 minutes with a toddler will usually provide a true test of the ruggedness.

So I suggest we insist on rugged standards that are truly easy to understand. 'Toddler Proof' and 'Firehose Tested' are both easy to understand and hard to fake.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> As for 'Weather Sealed', 'Rugged', 'Impact Resistant' and other such arbitrary terms, I think a better term would be 'Toddler Proof'. This term could easily surpass terms even as robust as 'Mil-Spec'! We all know that no matter how tough something is made and purported to be, 20 minutes with a toddler will usually provide a true test of the ruggedness.
> 
> So I suggest we insist on rugged standards that are truly easy to understand. 'Toddler Proof' and 'Firehose Tested' are both easy to understand and hard to fake.



"Toddler Proof"... now there's an unobtainable standard.... good luck getting the peanut butter off of your sensor


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jan 5, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> "Toddler Proof"... now there's an unobtainable standard.... good luck getting the peanut butter off of your sensor



I opine that kids have been screwed ever since DVD players came along; you could fit a grilled cheese into a VHS easily enough but now they're lucky if they can get a greasy tortilla in there!

Jim


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> As for 'Weather Sealed', 'Rugged', 'Impact Resistant' and other such arbitrary terms, I think a better term would be 'Toddler Proof'. This term could easily surpass terms even as robust as 'Mil-Spec'! We all know that no matter how tough something is made and purported to be, 20 minutes with a toddler will usually provide a true test of the ruggedness.
> 
> So I suggest we insist on rugged standards that are truly easy to understand. 'Toddler Proof' and 'Firehose Tested' are both easy to understand and hard to fake.


.

Ok I know we walked on the moon and had poeples living in space, but come on, toddler proof... it's not even been put in science-fiction yet!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 5, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> RustyTheGeek said:
> 
> 
> > As for 'Weather Sealed', 'Rugged', 'Impact Resistant' and other such arbitrary terms, I think a better term would be 'Toddler Proof'. This term could easily surpass terms even as robust as 'Mil-Spec'! We all know that no matter how tough something is made and purported to be, 20 minutes with a toddler will usually provide a true test of the ruggedness.
> ...



I'm watching a rerun of Star Wars - Empire Strikes Back as I'm working on stuff. Amazing how easily that futuristic crap is blasted to bits. Now if it were only 'Toddler Tested Tough'!! Obviously, they haven't achieved that level of durability in the future either and science fiction hasn't dared to assume so...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

Jim Saunders said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > "Toddler Proof"... now there's an unobtainable standard.... good luck getting the peanut butter off of your sensor
> ...



You see, this is where we differ from kids, we have lost the capacity to believe it will fit in. Beliieve me a grilled cheese will fit in a dvd player.


----------



## Don Haines (Jan 5, 2014)

RustyTheGeek said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > RustyTheGeek said:
> ...



Realistic Sci-Fi would have four Jedi knights clustered around a pill bottle and trying to get the top off.. (Use the force Luke)... Danger... Excitement.... Child-proof lids..... A Jedi craves not these things...


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 5, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> Jim Saunders said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



And now, this really got me thinking, why are Canon lenses not made of grilled cheese and peanut butter. They could then claim their lenses to have a higher nutritonal value than the competing brands and I'm sure it could help wildlife and bird phootographers get closer to their subjects. It would be a situation where everybody wins!


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 5, 2014)

Great thread - thanks for starting it!

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 5, 2014)

Hi Folks.
14 years in toolmaking taught me one thing, there are four levels to making things, 
Fool proof, readily achievable, 
Child proof, hard but not impossible,
Idiot proof, almost impossible but not quite, and with a high risk of striking a nerve or two,
Squadie proof, impossible.

Please don't get me wrong, I have a great respect for our service men and women, current and past, and I thank them all for their sacrifices, dad is a Normandy veteran for a start, but please, I have seen things done to the product I used to help make that defy belief! 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 6, 2014)

"Toddler proof." Remember the old Pelican case 'forever guarantee'? The stated exceptions were shark bite, bear attack, and children under five.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Jan 6, 2014)

Interesting coincidence... I was working with a a fellow pro today. He recently got a 70D and an 18-55 STM for video. The first time he put the lens on the camera, the mount sheared completely off. Canon would not replace under warranty claiming abuse. He picked up another one on sale very cheaply and it works fine.

I got to try his 15-85. Now that is a nice sharp lens!


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 6, 2014)

Can't resist sharing an anecdote here. My wife's two-year old nephew taught himself how to press the shutter and the playback buttons (after having watched me a couple of times) and was actually teaching his five-year old sister how to do so. Fortunately my 5DIII was mounted on a tripod held on by myself with both hands!


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 6, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> Can't resist sharing an anecdote here. My wife's two-year old nephew taught himself how to press the shutter and the playback buttons (after having watched me a couple of times) and was actually teaching his five-year old sister how to do so. Fortunately my 5DIII was mounted on a tripod held on by myself with both hands!



Lovely anecdote. Having an adult acting as a watchdog to prevent toddler induced damage is a way of "toddler proofing" things I guess. I still prefer to let my 2 years old son use my cheap smartphone for playing the photographer game, but DSLRs do seem to attract the kids. My son always run to me and asks to see the photos on the back screen as soon as he sees the camera (or smartphone for that matter). I've read Neuro posting that kids are fast running and have unpredictable trajectories... well for my son that is only true as long as I keep my 60D stored. Otherwise, it is very easy to predict the trajectory, he aims straight at the objective with his finger pointing toward the middle of the front element.


----------



## surapon (Jan 6, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> 14 years in toolmaking taught me one thing, there are four levels to making things,
> Fool proof, readily achievable,
> Child proof, hard but not impossible,
> ...





Ha, Ha, Ha---Dear Graham---You make my day 
"14 years in toolmaking taught me one thing, there are four levels to making things,
Fool proof, readily achievable,
Child proof, hard but not impossible,
Idiot proof, almost impossible but not quite, and with a high risk of striking a nerve or two,
Squadie proof, impossible. "

I love your Beautiful Words and Beautiful Thinking----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Have a great work week.
Surapon


----------



## MLfan3 (Jan 6, 2014)

thank you for sharing this, Roger is always great and maybe the smartest person in this business.

anyway, I think metal lenses/cameras are being overrated, my plastic 6D is as durable as supposed to be all metal the Sony A7R or the Nikon D800E or the 5D3.

and my rebel XTi lasted more than 7 years.

new gen engineering plastics are very tough with good amount of elasticity to it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Jan 6, 2014)

IMG_0001 said:


> I've read Neuro posting that kids are fast running and have unpredictable trajectories... well for my son that is only true as long as I keep my 60D stored. Otherwise, it is very easy to predict the trajectory, he aims straight at the objective with his finger pointing toward the middle of the front element.



That's too funny!


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 6, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> "Toddler proof." Remember the old Pelican case 'forever guarantee'? The stated exceptions were shark bite, bear attack, and children under five.



You are not supposed to put childrens under five in there my friend. I am sure this was also mentioned in the manual and I know you read your manuals (I'm pretty sure you could actually tell me on what page this was written  ).


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 6, 2014)

Hi IMG_0001
That is just hilarious, gave me quite a laugh. 

Cheers Graham. 



sagittariansrock said:


> IMG_0001 said:
> 
> 
> > I've read Neuro posting that kids are fast running and have unpredictable trajectories... well for my son that is only true as long as I keep my 60D stored. Otherwise, it is very easy to predict the trajectory, he aims straight at the objective with his finger pointing toward the middle of the front element.
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 6, 2014)

Dear Surapon
Glad someone got a laugh from it.
Some funny posts on here gave me a chuckle. I think all metal construction has historic connotations of quality, that car sounds quality, the doors make a solid sound when you close them, the other one sounds tinny!

I believe engineered plastics are improving all the time, and a time will come when all plastic construction will trump all metal. 

Cheers Graham.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 6, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> 14 years in toolmaking taught me one thing, there are four levels to making things,
> Fool proof, readily achievable,
> Child proof, hard but not impossible,
> ...





Valvebounce said:


> Hi IMG_0001
> That is just hilarious, gave me quite a laugh.
> 
> Cheers Graham.
> ...



Thanks,

I also like jokes about men and women in uniforms, but they are harder for me to catch. I can more easily relate to toddlers or idiots though. I have a lot of first hand experience in idiocy... 

regards


----------



## photo212 (Jan 6, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> thank you for sharing this, Roger is always great and maybe the smartest person in this business.
> 
> anyway, I think metal lenses/cameras are being overrated, my plastic 6D is as durable as supposed to be all metal the Sony A7R or the Nikon D800E or the 5D3.
> 
> ...


Any of the plastic bodies/lenses will last if you treat them with some kindness. I'm rather hard on my equipment. So I pay extra for the little extra durability. The report is not taking into account that someone with tougher equipment is tougher on the equipment. Someone carrying a porcelain camera/lens would be extremely gentle with it. If a few years later their metal camera broke but the porcelain camera was intact does that make the metal camera less durable or more prone to breaking? I think not. 

You never see an Aston Martin stuck in a muddy field, but there those 4WDs covered in mud getting pulled out. Which vehicle is better off road?


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 6, 2014)

MLfan3 said:


> my plastic 6D



The 6D can hardly be described as 'plastic'. The top plate is plastic as I'm sure you are aware. The rest of it is pretty much the same construction as the 5D mkii. 

I mention it because your comment is misleading to anyone who may be thinking of getting a 6D. 

What's interesting is that when you hold the two cameras together and tap the pentaprism housing it is impossible to tell any difference. However I've noticed that there are a couple of scratchy 'smears' on the top of the 6D now whereas the 5DII is still unmarked. 

I agree with you the high quality polymers are suitable for these kinds of applications, and though I have no issues with the smaller L lenses being made from the stuff I'm a little twitchy about the top of the 6D being made from it. Maybe I feel the camera bodies take more knocks than the lenses.


----------



## IMG_0001 (Jan 6, 2014)

Sporgon said:


> MLfan3 said:
> 
> 
> > my plastic 6D
> ...



Note that it was either a plastic top cover or sticking an antenna out on the top for allowing wifi and GPS signals in and out. Ahhh... compromises, compromises, when you get us.


----------

