At 11:54 6.2.2001 +0000, you wrote:
>Seth says:
>My guess is that under similar use, the metal lens mounts will
>last substantially longer than plastic ones.
>
>I reply:
>
>Agreed. Looks better, too, in most "classic" applications. But
>when do you know if it is worn out?
>
>Another scenario: You drop your camera and lens. Both mounts
>are metal and both are damaged because they are of approximately
>equal strength, which is exceeded by the accident. But if one
>was designed to fail under such extreme conditions, and that
>part was extremely cheap to replace, is that a "better" part?
>Should the "fail" part be on the lens?
>
>mike
Another plus for metal: With enough shock, plastic will shatter. You can't
much repair that. My friend accidentaly dropped an old Exakta lens (about 1
kg heavy) onto hard stone floor, from his standing height. It landed on the
mount. One of the bayonet blades got twisted a bit - couldn't be mounted in
the Exakta. A mechanist was able to either twist it back or file it away,
and now it mounts into his Exakta as when new.
If made with plastic mount, it would be repairable ONLY AS LONG AS THE
PARTS ARE AVAILABLE. Anybody got parts for 50 years old lenses ;-)
Frantisek
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
