Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Poor little brand new Nikon 18-55mm VR. Brand new. Nice glass,
sharp. Nice VR. TERRIBLE plastic lens mount. Camera took a spill,
cheap plastic flange on bayonet snaps off like a spaghetti noodle.
Forget the B.S. about strong re-inforced plastic. It is ALL garbage.
From the description of the fall, NOTHING would have happened to a
metal-mount lens except for a dinged filter or cracked PLASTIC hook.
Instead, the lens breaks out of the camera mount!!

This is the price of $140 kit lenses. The lens is now unusable. The
repair bill from Nikon is 2x the lens cost.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/117841934

I like it.

People who are that much of fumbling idiots don't deserve to own any
cameras. I took a spill down a terminal-moraine from a glacier one time, I
had the wherewithal to keep the camera above the rocks and rubble the whole
way down. I deserve to own a camera. You do not.

|AX| Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

Jerry wrote:

....some odd choices for followup

uk.rec.ufo, uk.rec.sheds, uk.local.surrey

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

Good! wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 18:07:24 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Poor little brand new Nikon 18-55mm VR. Brand new. Nice glass,
sharp. Nice VR. TERRIBLE plastic lens mount. Camera took a spill,
cheap plastic flange on bayonet snaps off like a spaghetti noodle.
Forget the B.S. about strong re-inforced plastic. It is ALL garbage.
From the description of the fall, NOTHING would have happened to a
metal-mount lens except for a dinged filter or cracked PLASTIC hook.
Instead, the lens breaks out of the camera mount!!

This is the price of $140 kit lenses. The lens is now unusable. The
repair bill from Nikon is 2x the lens cost.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/117841934


Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places. Lens mounts are no
place to do so. The reasoning is something like: "people who buy these
lenses, usually with a low end camera, rarely remove them from the
camera, so there will be no wear and tear on the part."

As to RichA's never ending anti-plastic rant we can just confirm again
that he looks for any statistically insignificant "evidence" to "prove"
his point. In this case the camera took a spill (has never happened to
me despite my basic clumsiness, rarely use lens strap, carrying my
cameras over the shoulder on a tri/monopod, etc.

The same "spill" could have landed on something hard and jutting and
knocked out the front element while leaving the mount intact...

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.

Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon.

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling.

To blame Nikon because that lense mount failed is stupid. If people
were reporting early failure because of normal use it would be
different, but that is not happening.

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

Rich wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:22*pm, clw wrote:
In article ,
*Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.

Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon. *

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling. *

True. But to expect to use a camera for say 2 years without dropping
it once is probably naive and unrealistic.

I've used my curent camera for three years and haven't dropped it.
Nor did I drop the camera before it.

A metal mount wouldn't
have broken the way the plastic did.

It would have broken some other way.

--
Ray Fischer

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

Rich wrote:
Alan Browne
As to RichA's never ending anti-plastic rant we can just confirm again
that he looks for any statistically insignificant "evidence" to "prove"

Every time I go into Henry's Outlet store in Toronto, I see dozens and
dozens of lenses from the 1980s and 1970's, all with metal mounts, all
in WORKING CONDITION.

None with autofocus or electronic diaphrams or image stabilization and
which cost more than today's lenses.

You won't be able to say that in 2030 about the
plastic CRAP we get today.

The plastic crap which is fine for you but not for anybody else.

--
Ray Fischer

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Oct 3, 6:22*pm, clw wrote:
In article ,
*Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.

Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon. *

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling. *

True. But to expect to use a camera for say 2 years without dropping
it once is probably naive and unrealistic.

I've used cameras for 50 years and I can't remember dropping one once.

A metal mount wouldn't
have broken the way the plastic did. Where the problem lies is in the
bayonet. A camera body of plastic can be made thicker than metal,
that way it will hold up. But a bayonet mount cannot be altered, it
has been designed to specific dimensions, often decades ago when there
was no such thing as a plastic mount so there was no reason to scale
up the bayonet for strength. Therefore, the ears on the mount are the
same thickness in crappy plastic as metal, and they don't hold up.



Eric Stevens

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 22:23:05 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote:

On Oct 3, 6:22 pm, clw wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.
Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon.

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling.
True. But to expect to use a camera for say 2 years without dropping
it once is probably naive and unrealistic.

I've used cameras for 50 years and I can't remember dropping one once.

I've yet to drop a camera or lens. Maybe I shouldn't say that, the Gods
of such things may take revenge.

I did drop a brand new disk drive a few weeks ago. Left it on top of
the computer that I was working on while I move some cables around.
Then (forgetting it) tipped the computer on its side to help my reach
(awkward location) ... slammed onto my desk (steel) and then onto the
floor. Had a dent on a corner. Installed it and it works fine...

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

On 2009-10-04 00:50:10 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

Rich wrote:
On Oct 3, 6:22*pm, clw wrote:
In article ,
*Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.

Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon. *

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling. *

True. But to expect to use a camera for say 2 years without dropping
it once is probably naive and unrealistic.

I've used my curent camera for three years and haven't dropped it.
Nor did I drop the camera before it.

A metal mount wouldn't
have broken the way the plastic did.

It would have broken some other way.

I can only speak from my experience back in 2005. I was heading out my
front door with my D70 with an 80-400mm VR mounted. I was holding it
with the strap hanging loose. As I walked through the door, the strap
caught the door knob and the entire rig was pulled from my hand and
slammed to the ground from about 3 ft.
The initial impact point was the lens hood, which remained in place. I
had camera and lens checked out and both survived without damage or
need for adjustment. The only visible evidence of the fall was a scuff
mark on the lens hood.
I have been wary of door knobs with regard to camera straps ever since.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

Plastic proves itself as CRAP again
 

"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Oct 3, 6:22 pm, clw wrote:
In article ,
Alan Browne wrote:

Just proves (again) that Nikon are capable of making stupid
decisions
about "value" and using plastic in the wrong places.

Gee, one would think from some of the posts in this thread that they
thought they were buying a hand to hand combat weapon from Nikon.

Except perhaps for a steel ball, there is almost nothing on earth that
cannot be broken by mis-handling.

True. But to expect to use a camera for say 2 years without dropping
it once is probably naive and unrealistic.

Maybe, just maybe you're the klutz. Do you drive a tank in case you
have an accident or have found a car without plastic? You want the
camera manufacturers to protect you from you. It's said, you can't teach
stupid!

A metal mount wouldn't have broken the way the plastic did.

And neither does you car. How about ballet or yoga or some form of
exercise so your synapses work better and you don't let your camera get
in a precarious position.

Where the problem lies is in the bayonet.

The problem lies in the person that drops it. Hurry up down to the local
mall, I hear they are having a sale on metal plates, glasses and
windows.

How many times do you need to tilt at this windmill? The horse is
dead. Talk about ad nauseam noise!!!!