"Build Quality" what does it mean?

yes, I know the literal definition but what does it really mean to you? My take from viewing this forum and its frequent mention of build quality seems to mean that it is heavy. The heavier the better build. And if it has any kind of plastic then it is automatically trash. I wonder what would happen if they made the plastic lenses really heavy without effecting anything else. Some of the better "build peoples" heads might explode or something.

I am pretty sure that the internal mechanisms or how it is actually put together is not a consideration as most people have no clue.

this has been a common argument for people who bought the 60D, like myself. i've read that the polycarbonate body actually stands up better than the mag-alloy, but i have no experience in the mag-alloy so i really can't form an opinion other than to say the 60D is an amazing camera, and from what i've read by other people who own it and have dropped it, it stands up very well, if not better than the mag-alloy. i haven't dropped mine yet, nor have i ever dropped anybody's mag-alloy camera, but i would think that the polycarbonate would be the better choice as it would have give.

having ranted, i would say build quality is simply a matter of opinion. i handled several cameras and ultimately decided on my 60D. thats not saying it's better or worse than a rebel series, or a 7D to 1D, just saying that the feel, the grip, the options and the performance fit me to a tee.

Any camera and any lens can be trashed with sufficient force. The top covers, even of Canon 1D cameras is more vulnerable than sides and bottoms. I usually invest in an RRS or Kirk L plate for the convenience of QR mounting and the (for me and my clumsy ways) proven protection they offer if the camera is dropped.

In many ways polycarbonate materials are superior to metal for cameras and lenses. They don't look as good, perhaps, but they do hold up. Where the perception of poor build quality comes in is when something does seem too light for its necessary components. Good optics require quality glass. You want that glass firmly mounted in place and rigid in relation to alignment with the other elements. none of this comes lightly, either in metals or plastics.

Why did Minolta's 35mm SLRs fail against Canon and Nikon back in the days of film? They had good technology, but poorer build quality. I've owned or tried many different lenses and cameras over the years from Canon, Nikon Pentax, Minolta, Fuji and Olympus. Quality of build varied among all of them between their top of the line and their entry level stuff, but after market lenses varied even more. If Canon was using a plastic lens barrel on an entry level lens, the equivalent aftermarket lenses plastics were just a bit more flimsy--something you could see, feel and hear.

These days if , say, Sigma offers a quality lens that covers a need not answered by Canon or Nikon, some complain about quality of build. But what they really are put off by is the appearence and feel of the material, rather than its inherent strength. I have 6 lenses from Sigma in my kit that are as capable as can be, but the crinkly surface shows scratches easily--doesn't mean the underlying material isn't strong, just a cosmetic mistake (that Sigma seems to be addressing lately).

Build quality to me implies life expectancy. Repeated force applied to plastic will wear out the plastic faster than the same piece of metal, which means an all-plastic camera could expect an earlier death than an all-metal camera, if that makes sense. When looking at relatively expensive gear like camera bodies and lenses, there should be a sense of longevity proportional to the investment -- I know if my $2100 lens only expected to last two years' use, I wouldn't be nearly as willing to part with my money as if it was expected to last twenty years' use.

As advaitin mentions, there is also an aspect of ergodynamics that can be mislabeled as build quality -- if the grips don't feel good in the hand or the feel of the body doesn't inspire confidence I'm not likely to want to pick it up for 8 hours a day, in the same sense that the rattly plastic interior parts of a cheap car are of "lesser build quality" than the tighter-fitting, better-material luxury car. Along that same analogy, if a lens's motor makes a rattly sound it's not unlike a weak door-shut sound on a car, it just does not inspire a good user experience.

I was in Japan when the T-90 was introduced. My first response was that the exterior was made of a plastic (polycarbonate). A Canon rep offered to let me drop the camera on a concrete floor to prove its toughness. I declined.

However, should you get a chance to look at or use one of those now, they have held up well to usage.
Of course the important parts were mated to an internal metal frame. I suspect the same is true for the plastics used by Canon in their less-expensive lenses. Heavy (in comparison to other manufacturers), designed for many years of normal use.

I think build quality is in the eye of the beholder, it is a state of confidence in a product rather than a measurable or testable quality in most cases.

Some of us grew up driving cars with metal dashboards, opening refrigerator doors with chrome metal handles, seeing cameras that were all metal with real leather cases.

somehow I just can't get used to plastic handguns, and roto molded kayaks and canoes just don't have the feel of a fiberglass or wood or aluminum boat, even though they are better for alot of reasons.

Those of us that had metal tricycles will always know that the bigwheel generation had more fun on their three wheelers than we did, even though they were cheap plastic and only lasted a few years tops. I don't know how many kids had my trike before I did, or how many after. It was tough, lasted forever, and about half as much fun as a cheap plastic bigwheel.

Damn kids with their cheap plastic cameras. I want my 65 chevy back, whoever is driving it now, will you trade me for a plastic bodied Saturn with 200k on it and zero rust?