Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/01/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Bill, they are flocking to the material because it is cheap and the next lightest thing to plastic - which the engineers would probably prefer to use if it did not have image problems for the typical punter. I do not do my materials research on the web, so I can not quote a specific example - but - whilst there are several useable alloys of magnesium, all of which have better properties than pure mag and all of which are strong and resilient - compared to pure mag but none of them are strong or resilient compared to traditional materials. Of all the manufacturers who have gone to magnesium Leica surprise me the most. The cost benefits will be small for them because of the small quantities to offset against tooling. I won't be replacing my R8 with and R9. Perhaps I am being too hard on the companies. Structurally a camera shell does not need to be metal at all, though the main chassis should be. I can understand the attraction of magnesium for weight reasons, having carried the R8. Customers expect metal cameras so they have to react to market demand. The original Voigtlander bodies had plastic parts and were widely criticised for it. Magnesium is a cheap, light for a metal, alternative. Cosina build the Voigtlander andthe Zeiss Ikon. If the paint is thick enough for a well used camera never to "brass" "magnesium??" and the metal is not exposed and there is an effective corrosion inhibiter under this it will probably be OK in the short term. A magnesium camera shell 20 years old will probably have serious deterioration. A brass camera body 60 years old will not have deteriorated at all. I do think most manufacturers propaganda is, if you wish, puff pieces. Certainly in the commercial worlds I have known (HiFi and cars) this is the case, so I extrapolate, perhaps wrongly, that it is in others. I think magnesium is the latest fashion material like titanium was a few years ago. Titanium was a pointless extravagance for camera shells but at least it was a good engineering material. There is probably a magnesium alloy being pushed by suppliers now that magnesium is not much used in its traditional markets having been replaced by plastics in many high tech applications. I have a magnesium shelled camera. I wish it was plastic or a different metal. Frank On 21 Jan, 2006, at 01:50, Bill Marshall wrote: > but tell me why they are all flocking to thismaterial like > lemmings? And why are their numerous websites out there that say > the opposite of you in terms of strength & elasticity? Are their > various alloys that may have different properties? Leica has a > fairly extensive explanation on their website of the expense that > they went to in order to manufacture their magnesium covers in a > way that would meet their product needs. Their are also numerous > articles independent of PR departments that explain various > treatments that have been developed to successfully inhibit > corrosion. Are they all just puff pieces?