This time I'm with Bruce. A digicam has few moving parts, those it has are mostly a legacy of sharing its platform with a film camera, if it does have a film counterpart at all. The electronics can be as robust as the manufacturer chooses. The board can be heavier to withstand shock, or pliable and resilient to roll with the blows. Nasty cheap gear can have thin, brittle boards that snap if you sneeze while holding it.
It's a matter of how much you want to spend and how much the manufacturer wants to retain you as a customer for a second, third or further purchase. Regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > > > Drawing conclusions about the inherent physical robustness of electronic > > systems, based on consumer electronic products, lacks all reason, logic, > > knowledge and experience. Some military equipment has shock and vibration > > requirements that are high enough to withstand explosions (like a ship's > > fire control system): they are electronic. You just can't draw reasonable > > conclusions about inherent properties without knowing design intent. > > Now you are being silly - comparing military equipment with massive field > demands, against equipment derived for the public, is not on. > > This is the PDML! Or is there a link to tank purchase? > > Malcolm > > > >
