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.

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...

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.

Jerry wrote:

....some odd choices for followup

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