Oh my GOD! D810 has a bayonet mount that's mounted in CHEAP PLASTIC??! A $3000 body??!

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 15:48:52 +1300, Me wrote:

On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

In that case I hope they have made it easy to replace.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

It looks like your average glass fiber reinforced plastic. It's cheap,
almost as strong as aluminum, and stronger than inexpensive forms of
carbon fiber.

From the photo, it looks like the failure was caused by undersized
screws. In cases where that's intentional to limit damage, there's
usually an oversized screw from the manufacturer that gives you a second
chance.

--
I will not see posts from astraweb, theremailer, dizum, or google
because they host Usenet flooders.

On 10/12/2015 7:05 PM, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.


And: reduce weight; make a stronger product; act as an insulator, etc.


--
PeterN

On Mon, 12 Oct 2015 16:05:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.

Not in this case. It would have been cheaper to do away with the extra
plastic part and mold the necessary material into the metal frame.
Nikon must have had a functional reason for adding an additional part
into the camera, but I don't know what it would be. Using it as a
mechanical fuse does make sense.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.

What do you think would have happened to the lens if the mount hadn't
caved?
--
teleportation kills

On 10/12/2015 11:43 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.

What do you think would have happened to the lens if the mount hadn't
caved?


Aren't you making an assumption by asking Rich: "what do you think...."

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/12/2015 11:43 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.

What do you think would have happened to the lens if the mount hadn't
caved?


Aren't you making an assumption by asking Rich: "what do you think...."

Naha, I think that RichA can think...
--
teleportation kills

On 10/13/2015 11:27 AM, android wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

On 10/12/2015 11:43 PM, android wrote:
In article ,
RichA wrote:

On Sunday, 11 October 2015 22:49:03 UTC-4, Me wrote:
On 12/10/2015 10:34, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 13:40:48 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Disgusting.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56602541

Hardly 'cheap plastic'. Almost certainly carbon-fibre.

Unfortunately carbon-fibre is known to have poor shock resistance.
(This is the problem which put Rolls Royce into bankruptcy when they
were first developing the RB211 engine). It's basically a design and
specification (of the carbon-fibre part) problem and I bet Nikon is
thinking hard about this right now.

I do believe it's designed to be a weak point.
People complained about the D800. The lens mount was attached directly
to the chassis. Crack the chassis by dropping the camera with a large
lens attached, and the camera body is uneconomical to repair.

RichA would have you believe that they changed an existing design to a
new one to make it worse and save a few cents.

Save what? Plastic is used to save money.

What do you think would have happened to the lens if the mount hadn't
caved?


Aren't you making an assumption by asking Rich: "what do you think...."

Naha, I think that RichA can think...


But does he.

--
PeterN