M635_Guy wrote:
Did you notice the word "probably" in there? I didn't make a definitve statement - at least it wasn't my intention for it to be read that way.
I did see that, I'm just suggesting that there is no "probably" either. I guess it would be accurate to say, "it's complete armchair speculation with no facts to back it up, but I'd guess a D800 would have suffered less damage..."
It's just impossible to know, and there's just as much reason to believe a rigid body would have caused damage to the internal components by transmitting the shock, as there is to believe it would have protected them.
In the end, though... I just hope my camera never looks like that!
binary visions wrote:
I did see that, I'm just suggesting that there is no "probably" either. I guess it would be accurate to say, "it's complete armchair speculation with no facts to back it up, but I'd guess a D800 would have suffered less damage..."
It's just impossible to know, and there's just as much reason to believe a rigid body would have caused damage to the internal components by transmitting the shock, as there is to believe it would have protected them.
In the end, though... I just hope my camera never looks like that!
Impossible to know, not unreasonable to speculate. Good thing you're here to defend the internet though...
Well, service statistics are quite unreliable also, even when you weigh in ratios of sold bodies. As one service manager pointed out to me, the weakest bodies (the entry-level DSLR's) are most certainly the most pampered ones.
Pro-level bodies often see a life-total of physical abuse differing not in a "times more" but in a "magnitudes more" of incidents.
But M635_Guy, I'm still interested why you (with self-pronounced expertise in the matter) would think that the fall would be harder from a toppled tripod than from a free-fall from the same height. This is not a statement of disbelief, just general interest.
theSuede wrote:
Well, service statistics are quite unreliable also, even when you weigh in ratios of sold bodies. As one service manager pointed out to me, the weakest bodies (the entry-level DSLR's) are most certainly the most pampered ones.
Pro-level bodies often see a life-total of physical abuse differing not in a "times more" but in a "magnitudes more" of incidents.
But M635_Guy, I'm still interested why you (with self-pronounced expertise in the matter) would think that the fall would be harder from a toppled tripod than from a free-fall from the same height. This is not a statement of disbelief, just general interest.
He's saying that as the tripod topples, the leg of the tripod is actually a radius, causing the camera to travel in an arch...so the distance from the ground to the camera actually INCREASES (slightly) momentarily as the camera goes over.....say the legs are at an 80 degree angle....well as they approach 90 degrees, the distance to the ground increases....then from 90 degrees to the ground, it's all gravity.....As for that APPROX 5% increase in height having a quantifiable difference in camera destruction, is probably not practical.....i'm sure some with a degree in quantum physics could explain that it would MAKE a difference, but if you could TELL the difference, i'm not sure you could......
also, as someone else pointed out, the added weight of the tripod, will cause the camera to have more momentum as it hits the ground...THAT, i'm sure would be quantifiable, and i'm sure a difference could be shown in that instance.
A friend of mine had his camera crash while attached to a tripod. When it hit the ground it was a very loud crash. I was just a few feet away and it was much more impact than I would have expected from a simple drop. The tripod almost seemed to slam dunk the camera. Sad. I think the D600 did amazingly well for a "consumer" grade camera. I doubt that any pro camera would have come out better.
theSuede wrote:
The only difference between falling "on tripod" and being dropped free-fall from the same height is that the mounted on tripod fall will be from a 5% higher altitude (the cosine of the leg prop angle as it topples over).
Or do you mean that the angular lock that the tripod mount causes (the camera can't spin freely just AT and just AFTER the initial impact?) increases the initial deceleration peak?
You might be (you're probably?) right, I'm just curious as to your reasoning.
The main difference I was referring to is the additional mass of the ball head, etc.
It seems like being locked in a single position by the ball head would also focus the impact more. When our guys do drop testing, the PC's aren't locked into a rigid frame - they have the ability to bounce freely.
theSuede wrote:
Well, service statistics are quite unreliable also, even when you weigh in ratios of sold bodies. As one service manager pointed out to me, the weakest bodies (the entry-level DSLR's) are most certainly the most pampered ones.
Pro-level bodies often see a life-total of physical abuse differing not in a "times more" but in a "magnitudes more" of incidents.
I had a whole thing typed up that would probably only spur more debate - it is hard to have a real discussion on the internet . The net of my comments agreeing with your post above were that the pro bodies get not only knocked more but harder over their lifetime, and that pros have a very different view and treatment of their camera than consumers. They don't abuse it for fun, but generally see it as a tool, not a valued possession, and the cameras are designed accordingly (similar to the laptops I deal with at work - consumer and commercial designs are different).
I agree with the statement that talks about pro bodies have more abuse than entry level bodies.
I have friends with Rebels , D3000 etc that are extremely pampered , barely see the light of day out of the bag, are treated like are made of glass.
By probability only, out of the fact that a pro body owner probably make a living on taking pictures, or simply enjoy taking pictures more often, is more probably that accidents happen.
I remember when I got my first digital camera I didn't let anyone touch it! And had the lens cap always on.
On topic, but off.. When Nikon started the "plastic body" thing back in the 80's with it's EM model.. It was 80% black plastic crap.
I vividly remember a guy walking into the store with a blob in his hand and laying it down on the counter and saying "We left it on the front seat of the car during a family reunion, when I got back, this was on the hot sunlit seat".
John Skinner wrote:
On topic, but off.. When Nikon started the "plastic body" thing back in the 80's with it's EM model.. It was 80% black plastic crap.
I vividly remember a guy walking into the store with a blob in his hand and laying it down on the counter and saying "We left it on the front seat of the car during a family reunion, when I got back, this was on the hot sunlit seat".
Even pro bodies can get damaged. Back when I shot Canon I dropped a 1D2N and 300/2.8 IS. Fortunately the lens received no damage --- body hit the cement first and I caught the lens before it too hit the pavement.
As a result the lens mount on the camera was damaged, I couldn't get the lens off and the camera body just spun around in circles. Took both to Canon and luckily they were able to free the lens. I forgot how much it cost to have the body repaired, but it wasn't as much as I expected under $100 if I remember.
Took both to Canon and luckily they were able to free the lens. I forgot how much it cost to have the body repaired, but it wasn't as much as I expected under $100 if I remember.