Broken Nikon D90 Lens Mount

[Montana]

I would invest it in a new body too. Something better built.

Yep, like a D300s with a metal body.

I keep telling people the D90 is an entry level, plastic bodied camera, but......

I notice Pure didn't mention what lens was involved.

Yep, when I had my XTi, I sure got tired of handling it with little kid gloves. There is actually a lot to be said for the metal bodies. No mysterious 2 piece surprise when you open your camera bag.

 

[LuckySo-n-So]

As for the insurance policy my mother decided to make up or "thought" she had a rider policy to cover stuff like this with a WAY less deductible. Unfortunately she didn't and now I'm stuck with this mess. It could have been only like $100 if she got the right insurance when I went to college.

You broke your camera and it's your mother's fault???

Seriously???

 

[benhasajeep52 50]

can you superglue it?

if there's no other damage to the body/mount as far as electronics go, and the mount fits tight when you slide it back on, i'd get some loc tite and glue it back on.

If you don't have the tools to do it yourself. I am sure you can find a machine shop that will drill out and tap new holes in the body frame. Re-drill the mount holes and re-counter sink those holes. And of course install the next size screws.

This can be done at home even without precision equipment since the holes are already there (ie no alignment issues). Obviously if you do this warranty will be void! But this is done all the time in lots of high tech equipment!

Finding taps that small may be a trick, not in your normal hardware store selection. Since the frame is magnesium the hole may just be drilled propper size and the screws inserted without taps?? The screw makes its own threads in the frame possibly. Not sure how Nikon does it.

This sounds like a shade tree solution, but it will work as long as done propperly (mostly the tapping part). If other avenues don't turn out you might look into this.

 

[Freiherr]

I saw my friend's lens come apart from his Nikon D90. The plastic mount on the lens broke! No damage to the body though. Repairing it isn't going to cost a lot but the hassle of sending it in and waiting over a month to get it repaired....is!

 

[Pure]

As far as the lens that was attached it was the 80-200 2.8, a rather heavy lens.

As for the blame, sure it's my fault because the camera is mine and is under my supervision, however the insurance plan I pointed out to my mom had a $100ish deductible for a few thousand in coverage.



At this point I will speak with Nikon after they receive my gear later next week. However if repairs are needed, and Nikon refuses free service, then I am not sure what I will do. I'd love to upgrade to a D300s but I am not sure if I can pay for that at this point.

 

[epp_b]

As for the blame, sure it's my fault because the camera is mine and is under my supervision

Hold on a second, there; just because you own it doesn't make it "your fault". There may have been a manufacturing defect that weakened the area around the lens mount, perhaps the mount screws were cross-threaded or ... you get the idea. If you did nothing to provoke the damage, the only entity at fault here is Nikon.

 

[PhotoXopher]

All I have to say is that if this were a Sigma you'd hear nothing but 'that is why I only buy Nikon'. Just goes to show ALL manufacturers have their problems.

There, I said it.



Carry on.

 

[Pure]

Epp, very true. It's a little disappointing that they use such small screws to hold a mount to the body. Especially since the 80-200 2.8 is just under 3 pounds and is quite heavy.

All I have to say is that if this were a Sigma you'd hear nothing but 'that is why I only buy Nikon'. Just goes to show ALL manufacturers have their problems.

There, I said it.



Carry on.

Of course all manufacturers have their problems. Just look at Nikon's refresh of the 70-200mm VRII, it's a nightmare.

 

[epp_b]

Just look at Nikon's refresh of the 70-200mm VRII, it's a nightmare.

Well, actually...

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The New 70-200mm ControversyJan 20 (commentary)--When the new version of the 70-200mm came out, the first round of angry forum posts on the Internet centered around focal length breathing (the tendency of a lens to lose focal length as you focus closer). Shortly after that settled down there started a new round of "physical defect" assertions. Some of these included photos through the front of the lens of what looked like a ring in the lens that had defects in its structure. The premise of most of these posts was that this ring was a functional part of the lens and thus the lens needed repair.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]That would be incorrect. The "rings" that people claimed to see defects in are actually light baffles: by not having a flat edge just outside the internal element that moves forward and backwards during zooming, less light is reflected into the edges of that element, which increases contrast. Most Nikon zoom lenses have a variant of this baffle design. [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Apparently this baffle is a cast part (metal poured into molds), and some of the casting is less than precise or has molds that aren't holding up to repeated use. The ring doesn't have to be perfect, though, as the sole purpose of the "rings" are to not present a flat surface for reflections. I've not commented thus far about this controversy as I thought that Nikon would quickly realize the bad word-of-mouth circulating and issue an official bulletin that explained what people were seeing. Unfortunately, that hasn't really happened--a few Nikon tech centers have responded to individuals with a variant of what I just wrote, but no "official" response has been made--so the controversy still exists.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]tldr; there's no real problem here. Focus-breathing on still-camera lenses is irrelevant, especially at the short end of the focusing distance, and the apparent cosmetic defects (which weren't defects at all) were just hyped up by gear nerds who would rather have their stuff look pretty than actually make pictures.
[/FONT]

 

[KmH]

As far as the lens that was attached it was the 80-200 2.8, a rather heavy lens.

Thats what I suspected.

Fair warning to other entry-level, plastic bodied camera owners, there are limits to what plastic can endure. The brand name on the camera doesn't matter either.

 

[rallysman]

As far as the lens that was attached it was the 80-200 2.8, a rather heavy lens.

Thats what I suspected.

Fair warning to other entry-level, plastic bodied camera owners, there are limits to what plastic can endure. The brand name on the camera doesn't matter either.

Good to know! And to think, I slung my D50 around with a 400 mm lens for a long time. Not to mention the monster Tamron 28-105.

 

[KmH]

LOL. :thumbup:

Many think the D50 is one of the best digital cameras Nikon has made so far.

I was looking closely at a D3000 the other day and was surprised how much cheaper it looked, and felt, than a D40 or a D60.

 

[schumionbike]

LOL. :thumbup:

Many think the D50 is one of the best digital cameras Nikon has made so far.

I was looking closely at a D3000 the other day and was surprised how much cheaper it looked, and felt, than a D40 or a D60.

You know, I shoot a D40 and I definitely didn't get that impression when I shot with my friend D3000. The AF system is a bit more advance too, I wish I had more time with it. I don't think it's muchan upgrade over the D40 but it's an upgrade for sure.

 

[PatrickCheung]

LOL. :thumbup:

Many think the D50 is one of the best digital cameras Nikon has made so far.

I was looking closely at a D3000 the other day and was surprised how much cheaper it looked, and felt, than a D40 or a D60.

You know, I shoot a D40 and I definitely didn't get that impression when I shot with my friend D3000. The AF system is a bit more advance too, I wish I had more time with it. I don't think it's muchan upgrade over the D40 but it's an upgrade for sure.

gotta add to the offtopic conversation here...

iunno the d3000 feels a LOT cheaper in my hands than my old d60... it's AF-system might be better, but that doesnt mean the body doesnt feel cheaper. internal upgrades usually mean external downgrades for almost anything that's entry level.

plus... its kinda true. things made nowadays aren't made to last. hell, i find that every new generation of products get a slight quality drop from the previous one. take my psp for example, first gen psp was built like a tank (size of one too)... dropped it all over the place (rather clumsy... which is why i got a metal body camera) and it worked fine. my new psp slim... dropped it once, huge chip in the back. fun stuff. and guitars! dont get me started about those... ugh.

 

[KmH]

It's typical design evolution. Each successive edition is made less durable until they reach a point they're not willing to accept a higher level of warranty returns for incidental normal use damage.