Plastic quality

FYI my magnesium 7d has a chunk cracked out of it like a boiled egg

Its actually quite brittle

Some years ago I saw a cheapo plastic DSLR kicked down some concrete steps

no damage (to the body)

Flexi palstic can be good because it absorbs shock (like the bumper)

cant comment on this specific cam though

Anyway

S35 chip with onboard sound in a box for this price - thats awesome - the choice of spending another $10k to get a few more things is there for those who want to take it..

S
 
Postmaster, I think aluminium is a pretty light metal, which is why they use it for sports car engines. Having an aluminium housing would not add any noticeable weight to a camera.

Is there such a things as "A Professional DSLR Shooter" ??

ectobuilder, Sony's warrantee doesn't cover accidental damage, and you breaking something off the feebly built camcorder is not there concern.

NeedCreative, I sympathise totally. Look at JVC's 750, built from metal though-and-though and solid as a rock, yet cheaper than the plastic fantastic Sony FS100.

If you haven't read my review already, read it here:

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=268

vcfilms, my friend has an EX1, he recently busted the mic holder, even handing lt with kid gloves (at my recommendation), and it has killed it's re-sell value.

I used to think the DVX100 was a bit lacking in build quality, but it is way better than the recent FS100. DVX100b's have been on the independent film circuit and in the hands of students for years and years now, with no issue. Pretty much all EX1's sold during the first year, have now broken to some degree or had paint rub off etc.

Sony's F3 is heavy, but still plastic. It is only heavy due to what is inside it. To me, it is still poorly built compared to the RED, and even the AF100, which is a budget camera in comparison.

Postmaster, perhaps somebody should make an aftermarket metal housing for the FS100, so you can take the plastic body parts off, and replace them with what Sony should have built to start with :) It is sad when you have to spend five grand on a camera built in a flaky manner, then spend more money on a suit of armour for it to protect it from any passing butterfly that might land on it.

If you gave a five year old pair of twins two cameras, the FS100 to one, and an AF100 to the other and said "go kids, see how many parts you can break those into with your bare hands". I suspect the Sony would be in 25 pieces before the AF100 kid could even get any piece off. Hey, perhaps I'll ask Sony and Panasonic UK if they will lend me cameras to do this test??

Honest, I know two little boys who would be very excited about breaking expensive cameras into little pieces. There would be strict rules of course, like not bouncing it off the floor or bashing it against anything, bare hands only!!

vcfilms, De Lennie says the build quality of the FS100 "is really tough and very well build and I don't know why Nigel Cooper of DVuser doesn't think it is".

maranfilms, we do live in a throw away society, but JVC and Panasonic and even Canon (up to a point) still manage ok.

Postmaster, I told Sony UK that in future they should email me the blue-prints for any possible future camcorders, and I will tell them what is wrong with it before they even start to think about actually putting it into production. I said to Bill Drummond of Sony UK that if they had done this with the FS100 I would have said stick that in the bin and allow me to start over for you. To me, it is simple and obvious what to produce, but why the hell should I tell Sony what it takes to have the best selling camcorder on the planet. They don't speak to real cameramen that's the problem. Speaking to DSLR users will only produce a Frankenstein that is unusable with bugger all form-factor.

As I've already posted elsewhere comparing DSLR's to the FS100. It is like comparing a 1970's Space Hopper to a supermarket shopping trolly. If you are used to using the Space Hopper as your main form of transport, if somebody then brings out a supermarket shopping trolly, of course the shopping trolly will be superior, but that doesn't make the shopping trolly a BMW 7 series now does it.

No ND filters, what where they thinking. All that stuff about E-mount being too short is rubbish. The difference between E mount and MTF can hardly be measured, yet Panasonic managed just fine. Sony just didn't want to take sales from the F3.

olindacat, man after my own heart. I owned and used a Sinar P2 mounted on a Cambo stand with great glass, and Hasselblad 500cm and Nikon F3; they where the days ;) Fact is, each new Sony camera is even more flakier than the last.

The manufacturing cost of the FS100 can't be that much more than a DAB radio from RadioShack (or Maplin if you are in sunny England), how much is a DAB again?

jesting, I think the FS100 is dated NOW! compared to the AF100.

NeedCreative, in parts of the USA you can almost buy a really cheap car brand new for that price ;)

Rick you are right, there is not night and day between AF100 and FS100, but it is there and it is pretty clear when using the kit which feels most reassuring.

mico, yes, the FS100 is the same build quality (slightly worse in my opinion) than EX1/3 etc, but they break too. Also, people are reluctant to complain these days. Example. 20 odd years ago I worked for Jessops Photographic in England, UK, in the days when Jessops sold real photographic equipment and not fax machines and coffee makers like they do today. Back then if I sold a Nikon 300mm F2.8 to a customer and it broke 4 years later, the customer would come back and shout blue murder and to mad. Today, a customer will buy a modern plastic AF Nikon 300mm F2.8 for thousands of dollars and if it breaks 14 months later just out of warrantee period, they will simply say "Ah well, better buy another one" and accept it; WTF!

ectobuilder, the F3 is no tank, just a heavy FS100. I agree ectobuilder, mico saying "no one" is so wrong.

When companies say that it is a "special" type of plastic that is designed to bend and bounce etc, it is total rubbish. I remember years ago the first time a manufacture (Canon I think) said it was Polycarbonate Plastic, as Used by NASA; well what did NASA use it for, toilet chain handles in the staff toilets at their offices? Certainly not on space rockets. Polycarbonate is plastic and it is cheap, even if it is a tad tougher than regular plastic.
 
Nigel-Cooper said:
Postmaster, perhaps somebody should make an aftermarket metal housing for the FS100, so you can take the plastic body parts off, and replace them with what Sony should have built to start with :) It is sad when you have to spend five grand on a camera built in a flaky manner, then spend more money on a suit of armour for it to protect it from any passing butterfly that might land on it.
Click to expand...

Actually I gonna do something like that.

I already tossed that pathetic handle and grip, and start from there.

1. Make a nice top plate like they did for the F3
2. Use the "exo sceletton" aka Easom cage that I already had or my HVX200 - love that thing
3. I have an old tripod plate of my Digibeta. I gonna adapt this to the cage with a proper shoulder mount under the camera (not somewhere way back).

Nigel-Cooper said:
Postmaster, I told Sony UK that in future they should email me the blue-prints for any possible future camcorders, and I will tell them what is wrong with it before they even start to think about actually putting it into production. I said to Bill Drummond of Sony UK that if they had done this with the FS100 I would have said stick that in the bin and allow me to start over for you. To me, it is simple and obvious what to produce, but why the hell should I tell Sony what it takes to have the best selling camcorder on the planet. They don't speak to real cameramen that's the problem. Speaking to DSLR users will only produce a Frankenstein that is unusable with bugger all form-factor.
Click to expand...

Yeah, good move Nigel. As I already said, I have the feeling that Dan Lenny wanted a better DSLR mousetrap, than a real video camera.
Give me call when they send you the next blue prints - I´m a former industrial designer. :beer:

best, Frank
 
Good post Nigel. Now I do think the insides of the camera are fantastic, and many of the feautures and of course the images are lovely and far better than a DSLR in many respects (hence I will keep it an shoot with it), but for the price of as you mention a small (used) car they could have done better with some aspects. There are ways to make a camera light without having to worry if one will crack a side panel setting it down with anything more than a light thud. We are shooting sometimes in fluid situations. Gear can and does break. A professional camera would account for this and offer a bit more protection.

And don't get me started on that viewfinder/EVF location... :) What we need here is a combo of the AF100's build and the FS100's sensor and electronics. -sigh-

All of that said, I think we have all well covered this point now. It is what it is, it's an artifical build limitation and hopefully Sony will do better next time. I do have to give them credit on the image and the rest of the camera. Just don't drop it or try to shoot with the camera above you and expect not to need a separate EVF or monitor and you'll be fine. Again - don't drop it....
 
Nigel-Cooper said:
ectobuilder, Sony's warrantee doesn't cover accidental damage, and you breaking something off the feebly built camcorder is not there concern.
Click to expand...

I was referring to third party warranties like the one offered on BHPhoto.com by SageMax. Their coverage has a feature called "Accidental Damage Handling".
 
I think Sony knew what they were doing here. They knew what was going to sell. They knew what people would selectively look at (Super 35mm Sensor/XLR Inputs/Low Light Performance) and they knew what people would overlook (built quality).

The overlooked attribute just becomes the sequel's featured selling point ("oh look at that sturdy build quality on the FS200!").

Also, the fact that Sony is the only kid on the block that has a Super 35mm Sensor means they are in a position to skimp on whatever they want because in a capitalist society Market Competition combined with consumer choice pushes innovation and forces the industry to meet consumer demand. Therefore until someone else comes out with a Super 35mm with great low light performance, it won't force Sony's hand.

Assumption being that people (consumers) want their Super 35mm Sensor. Note that in this case, based on this assumption it may force Panasonic (and others) to create a Super 35mm Sensor as well to meet this assumed market demand, thus creating a domino effect that will force Sony to move to their next step as well.

I think Sony (and that includes any manufacturer) knows that if they needed to respond to competition that they could release a FS101 in an instant. So the risk is minimized by knowing their time-to-market.

This reminds me of the CPU race, prior to AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) Intel was releasing CPU chips at a snails pace. But when AMD came on strong, it forced Intel to accelerate their road map and to give what consumers wanted (i.e. like something as basic as performance!).
 
Last edited:
Well I own both the AF100 and the FS100, like I said. I DO NOT find the buttons on the AF100 superior AT ALL. In fact, I really dislike the recording buttons, and the placement of the controls under the LCD means I have to open the LCD even when I don't want too for access to the controls. With the AF100, I still have to look at the buttons to figure out which ones I am going to hit. And while the FS100 buttons are no better, I have NO problem hitting any of them with my finger. Do you have abnormally large fingers? :) I find it takes me just as much time on either camera to do anything OTHER than hit record. Neither wins in that category.

As far as construction goes, I just don't see this huge difference between them. If I dropped either the AF100 or the FS100 I would be worried about either one of them breaking. I'd actually even be a little more worried since the AF100 is heavier. Neither one is a tank, but then again, I don't want all this weight. I am *happy* Sony offered the FS100 in a light body. I wish for those that want a heavier body they offered a stronger body, but for me, I cannot complain.

The one true criticism I have on the FS100 is just the ND filters. I agree that they are a huge omission. You will go no argument about that. However, or *my* needs when I weight the pros with the cons, the FS100 in *my* circumstance has been working out better so far. Since I have both, I can evaluate both (when my AF100 gets back to me).

People have different needs, and for that reason, it is very interesting to see what one person hates or cannot live with, and another person finds it as an advantage. At least we have choices! :)

And I'll repeat, all this discussion about the plastic body, I've not seen one broken yet or heard the circumstances of the breakage. This goes for either the AF100 or the FS100. Until we've seen proof that the body has failed, then it's just people guessing.
 
I've got to hand it to you Rick: I've been reading everything you've said about these as I think you are among the few rare birds who has both. You've been steadfast in hyour objectivity and haven't once sniped at me for asking too many questions. Thanks.

I have a preorder with EC Pro and money in store credit at BH that just need to be refunded and was on fence about this cam because I am clumsy and now pushing 50 which seems to exacerbate things and I worry I'll destroy the the little bugger. I'm apt to fall on the poor thing, and I weigh a lot! I can also see myself snapping off that viewfinder in the first three hours. Given I could buy a copy of the AF100 for $3850 and that, along with ND and waveform (which I don't even know how to use yet) I wanted to hear from the AF owner's camp about their purchases. In some respects, I rightfully got my face torn off over there but I did learn a thing or two in the process.

But my gut tells me (and I think it was Frank's heart/head analogy) make me feel my first instinct was right: despite the build or plastic this is the cam for now if image quality is primo and that has always been key for me (Frank: I sure hope you show us how you kit yours out, in detail!)

I have only used a small handful of camcorders (all Sony) in a mere few years, but I have never seen a Sony that wasn't cheap plastic, and I haven't broken them yet—but had to be very careful. I still think Nikon and Canon jam a lot of mechanicals and electronics into their machines and their builds are so much more durable.

While I know this camera will depreciate quickly as soon as the version or a competitor has something comparable out, but I tend to hold on to my cameras once I marry them and they become a part of me. I have some I've owned for 25+ years.

I guess I'll be buying that special insurance, to cover the end-result of what I am sure will be a laughable posting (of my first mishap) for all to enjoy :-)
 
Last edited:
I dont thing Nigel is necessarily Sony bashing, I think he's just stating his opinions and being harsh on them for things that deserve it. Sony needs to address the built quality of their cameras. My ex1 when I sold it was worn, cracked and just felt like it's days were numbered. it was well used but only a few years old. This is a great cam, I would own one already if Sony had addressed the build quality and ND issues. I am a long time Sony guy, and would love nothing more than to own this camera (and I may very well soon). The thing is, I guarantee there's a lot of people out there that would have bought this that wont now because of the design of the cam. Even the f3 has a ex1 like build and it costs $13k. What do we have to pay to get Sony to build something that will last for years to come? Maybe I'll mold mine in aluminum :)
 
ectobuilder said:
Also, the fact that Sony is the only kid on the block that has a Super 35mm Sensor
Click to expand...
? All the Canon DSLRs are Super35 sized (7D, t2i, 60D, 600D, 550D, all the APS-C units). And all the Nikon APS-C, and, well, any APS-C, are all that same size (or extremely close).

Note that in this case, based on this assumption it may force Panasonic (and others) to create a Super 35mm Sensor as well to meet this assumed market demand
Click to expand...
There's not much difference between Super 35 and the 4/3 sensor that Panasonic is already using. There's a difference, yes, but not much of one. The Super35 sensor is about 25% wider, so it's bigger, but when you're talking about "large cinema-sized sensors", they're both in the same ballpark. Both are massively bigger than Super16 or 16mm or 2/3", and both are about half as big as "full frame" 35mm. And Sony's sensor isn't really full Super35 anyway, it's 23.6mm, whereas Super35 is 24.9mm.

This reminds me of the CPU race, prior to AMD (Advanced Micro Devices) Intel was releasing CPU chips at a snails pace. But when AMD came on strong, it forced Intel to accelerate their road map and to give what consumers wanted (i.e. like something as basic as performance!).
Click to expand...
Many times on this board you will hear statements along the line of "competition is good" since it inspires the manufacturers to compete for our attention.
 
I really don't think the camera feels that cheap. When you strip it down to just the body without the cheap accessories (yes, they are a bit cheap) and build your own rigging, it's pretty solid.
 
We're all entitled to our opinions :) I can only give mine as an owner, and definitely think that Nigel is just giving his observations as well. While I may not agree, mine or no more or no less valid than his. I am sure we have different requirements. The only way to know for sure is to get your hands on one, you can rent from afar, and see if it will meet your needs. I know people who absolutely LOVE the form factor of the AF100, and I know people who hate it. There are people on this board that want 30 and 40 pound sturdy well built cameras because that's what they like. I want the smallest camera I can get with a great image. Again, different needs.

I would be more afraid of breaking off the AF100 LCD than the FS100. The FS100 LCD is REALLY sturdy as well, no more or less to me than how the AF100 feels, but the AF100 LCD hangs out the side, and I've brushed it on the tripod more than once when maneuvering.

I'll also say that I can tell you, the 4/3 sensor of the AF100 is NOT a problem. Coming from the 7D I was initially worried too, like many without experience at that sensor size, but after shooting with it, you hardly notice ever. You just frame normally as you would and I use a slightly wider lens and same results basically. Sure, the background might be a little different, but once I was actually filming for a client, I realized it really wasn't an issue at all. Even now with my FS100, I don't feel like I am having to make huge changes in the way I shoot after shooting with the AF100, because once you frame for what you are doing, on both cameras it looks really nice.

the idea of someone building a fitted cage for the FS100 sounds cool. I wouldn't use it because I DO NOT want the weight, but, it might help for those that need more protection. Given the simplicity of the body, it shouldn't be that hard.
 
vcfilms said:
I dont thing Nigel is necessarily Sony bashing, I think he's just stating his opinions and being harsh on them for things that deserve it.
Click to expand...
I would agree. Nigel has given some very glowing reviews to Sony products over the years. But today's Sony is not the same as the Sony that built BetaSP. Read Akio Morita's book "Made in Japan" to read about the Sony that we all remember. Then read this fascinating article by Reuters on Sony today; I saw it in a Canadian newspaper when I was up there a couple of weeks ago.

I dug into it because Sony had just rocked the markets, announcing that while they had projected to make a $870 million dollar profit, they instead revised their numbers to show a $3.2 billion dollar loss. It was crazy. You just don't do that to Wall Street, and people were going nuts trying to figure out how it had all happened, and whatever happened to the glory days and all that.


EDIT: Hmmm... that article seems shorter than the one I read. Wait, looks like this is the full article.
 
Last edited:
I have a FS-100 and I don't have any issues with the build quality of the body. If you don't like the way it is built, then don't buy one.
 
Okay, mine arrived today and I just took it for a spin down town.

After seeing what it does, I don´t give a flying rat´s a....s if the body would be made of card board an plywood.

OMG - that baby´s inner values are insane.

...nuff said!

Frank
 
Oh boy what a post. The Ex1 mic holder broke and that KiLLED its resale value. Please. Ex1 has a similar build quality as FS100 you say? Its been what 3-4 years since the EX came out and theres been how many posts about build quality? That says alot about the FS100's build I would say. DM accessories has been selling a very very affordable after market mic holder that will bring that baby back form the dead by the way.

On another note for some strange reason I must have gotten a very special one of a kind Fs100 where I can actually use the buttons because mine aren't ridiculously small.

Disclosure: My Sony camera purchases: EX1 for a year, then EX1R for a year and a half, now Fs100. No paint rub off or damage taking it all over Europe and the US in a backpack in the sun, rain, sleet, and snow. And I'm far removed from being precious with my cams. EX1 sold on ebay for almost what I paid. In the EX1R's case I sold it for more because of the $500 rebate sony offered at the time of my purchase. Put them on for 7 days and both only took a day to sell. What crappy cameras.

QUOTE=David G. Smith;2359521]I have a FS-100 and I don't have any issues with the build quality of the body. If you don't like the way it is built, then don't buy one.[/QUOTE]

Hallelujah. Or according to someone you're just one of those people today, reluctant to complain.
 
Last edited:
David G. Smith said:
I have a FS-100 and I don't have any issues with the build quality of the body. If you don't like the way it is built, then don't buy one.
Click to expand...

I'll probably still buy one for the IQ. The point is, I hope that in addressing the issue of build quality Sony may listen and their future cameras implement a little more. It's not as easy as saying if you dont like it dont buy it. How about if you dont like it, address it so maybe it can be fixed?
 
But there are people like me who don't want the body to change if it means a heavier camera. I'm careful with my gear myself, so maybe less of a concern, but I don't want to break a lens either, and they are MUCH more fragile to me.
 
When I had my early REd camera I had to buy an after market input output connecter plate from Element Technica because of smaller connectors getting broken. I also had to buy a spare Compact flash module because the pins were getting bent. MY pl mount needed adjustment. Battery plate didn't lock well. I had to wait for a modified xlr cable. The EVF was so huge I had to put another add on to support it. Their first accessories were badly thought out. Some of their first zoom lenses were downright troubling. Did it make a great image? Yes it did but it was a monster. Did I let them know. You bet I did by calling them up. It took them years to create a smaller lighter weight model I'm sure will also have some issues. And when the scarlet appears i will still consider it.

If you look around every camera from ALexa on down has some build quality issues. Where you might have to modify by purchasing some extras or sending it in. No camera is immune. If you want it to change write or call the company. But it would be nice if you really used the camera and put it through some shooting first instead of listening to FUD by people who had the camera for a one day review or never used it alt all. That one fs100 review in question is so far removed from my experience that i find it laughable and I hope Sony never calls that "reviewer" for any design advice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top