Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Leif" data-source="post: 616857" data-attributes="member: 42585">The front and bottom panels of the D500 are plastic, as is much of the internal frame. It is not carbon fibre, which is made by laying down layers of woven carbon fabric, applying a plastic resin and baking it. Nikon are using a plastic that contains carbon fibres, which is not the same thing. However, I don't see your objection to the use of the term 'plastic'. The truth is that plastic encompasses cheap and nasty and high quality. Nylon is a plastic, but it is an extremely tough stable material. In some ways it is better than metal (it does not shatter so easily as it can give a bit and it is warmer to the touch in cold weather), but in others it is worse (it abrades more easily). I have no issue with Nikon using plastics, but I do have an issue with the attachment of the lens mount using screws into plastic. That is cheap and poor engineering. But the reality is that these are complex elecronic products and not designed to be dropped and throw around, apart from the D5 and its predecessors. It is said that Nikon moved to plastics after the D800 suffered fractures in the internal metal frame which were very expensive to repair. And as far as I know we do not hear about many problems with the D810, D600, D610 and D750 bodies. But if you want bullet proof, you must buy a D5. Incidentally many Canon cameras may boast a metal shell, but in truth that metal shell is often no more than thin magnesium plates screwed onto a plastic frame. The metal is largely cosmetic. As for me, I have a D200, D600 and D500. The D600 seems very well made, mode than good enough for an amateur who does not hang a camera over his shoulder, or treat it roughly. The D500 does not seem any stronger, but there is only one way to find out, and I don't intend to test them.</blockquote>

Verification