Nikon repair drops the ball...

[Paddler213]

Sorry, I don't buy his story. There must be more to it than he is telling.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Why did he buy another camera when he had the Z7II as back up.

Because he wanted a backup always available. My question is why the Z7 II was his backup choice.

When I'm off photographing sports or on safari, generally it's matching or semi-matching bodies (e.g. two Z9's, or two Z8's, or perhaps a Z8 and a Z9). First, there's the problem of cognitive dissonance if your backup has different controls/functions than your primary. Second, there's the level of performance you'll get out of your backup.

Note that he could have purchased another Z7 II and then had two Z7 II's during the extended trip. That would have answered the cognitive dissonance issue. But it appears that he prioritizes the functions/performance of the Z8/Z9 over the Z7 II, so again, I'm scratching my head as to why the Z7 II was his backup in the first place.

 

[MasterOfGoingFaster]

I read the article. It struck me odd that he didn't do a good job in describing what happened, instead saying things like the lens decided it didn't want to be on the camera. In my dealings with people like this, getting accurate facts is like pulling teeth.

It appears Nikon saw evidence of damage from impact. He claims there was not impact at the time the lens fell. I bet the damage occurred earlier (perhaps in transport to Alaska). I suspect he didn't notice the damage until the lens fell off.

I think both he and Nikon are right, but he doesn't understand what happened. He's just angry and that makes him difficult to deal with. Just look at the number of emails he sent. Wow.

 

[peripheralfocus]

I read the article. It struck me odd that he didn't do a good job in describing what happened,

Yes, that and the tone of the article is a real tell. I'm sure he feels jerked around by NPS, and he may have been to some extent, but in my extensive experience with such matters, it's rarely a one-way street. It's very common for both sides to be doing each other dirty, or trying to. 'Tis the way of our species.

 

[NiVoak]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

 

[michaeladawson]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

 

[peripheralfocus]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing:

Seconding this. Many years ago, I spent a lot of time around top-tier sports photographers at major events. It was not uncommon for some of them to pick up or carry their heavy rigs by the body instead of the lens, and the camera companies (only Nikon and Canon, at those events in those days) were constantly telling them not to.

All the ones that I knew who kept doing it, just accepted responsibility for paying for new lens mounts on a periodic basis. I knew one guy (the hardest on equipment I've ever personally witnessed) who was always shooting with bent lens mounts. He knew it, and would just wait until it got bad enough that he could see the focus problems when his shots got printed in the newspaper he worked for (it can get pretty bad before it shows up in newspaper printing), then he'd get them repaired (which the newspaper paid for, of course).

Just a cost of doing business as far as he was concerned. It never occurred to him to change his carrying habits. He was not that kind of guy. He was a pretty great sports photographer, though.

 

[Mr Baz Reviews]

Why did he buy another camera when he had the Z7II as back up.

Because he wanted a backup always available. My question is why the Z7 II was his backup choice.

When I'm off photographing sports or on safari, generally it's matching or semi-matching bodies (e.g. two Z9's, or two Z8's, or perhaps a Z8 and a Z9). First, there's the problem of cognitive dissonance if your backup has different controls/functions than your primary. Second, there's the level of performance you'll get out of your backup.

Note that he could have purchased another Z7 II and then had two Z7 II's during the extended trip. That would have answered the cognitive dissonance issue. But it appears that he prioritizes the functions/performance of the Z8/Z9 over the Z7 II, so again, I'm scratching my head as to why the Z7 II was his backup in the first place.

Well unleashing my Columbo type detective skills :-D

It seems he is running workshops, and doing wildlife photography. Is the Z7ii good enough for that? I suspect you have a better idea of that then I do. In short he's going for pixels it seems.

Though he seems to charge 5-6K per slot, I'm not sure how many he has or his costs. I'd wager a nice chunk of profits went on the camera + repair.

Do you need 2 x Z9's for wildlife? Or maybe he started with the Z7ii added the Z9 and kept it as a spare body. 2 bodies is normally enough, but for tuition he could probably get by with just about anything to demonstrate/teach. Maybe it's a prestige thing, I never cared what camera I had in my hands, some do. As a teacher I suppose you want nice stuff v the budget offerings if you charge that kind of money.

What I don't get it why he has a camera clipped into a harness with a lens dangling down just begging to damage the lens mount. But I always wondered why Nikon only put 4 screws into such a large mount, which surely is begging for 5 or 6

 

[queequee]

You’re referring to torque . A force applied a long distance from a pivot point results in a large turning or twisting force. Putting a long lens on a camera body places a lot of stress on the mount if the camera-lens combination isn’t carried or supported properly. In the case of this guy, it’s not surprising his lens mount came right off.

The impact of his protruding belly alone hitting that long lens multIple times while on a hike probably did his mount in lol.

 

[NiVoak]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

It sure is common sense, most of us know instinctively that certain of our lenses are to be supported by the lens.

It is just a case of a small quick table to help make this question a bit more idiot proof.

 

[ChallengerLastCall]

Reminds me that my old Tamron 300 2.8 had its own carrying strap which I used instead of the camera's strap when I had this lens mounted.

Big heavy lens need to be carried via the lens and not the camera.

I guess the bending moment on the mount was too much for the mount.

User error, I believe.

Agreed,

Just curious, how many cameras' shear off the lens mount when attached to a long telephoto that is mounted on a tripod and the camera is left unsupported? None? less than 10?

If the mount can support the 3lbs of camera hanging off the end of the lens, horizontally I might add, what are the load differences for the 3lb lens hanging off the camera?

I think there is a good chance that, based on the picture of how he carries it, if he is bending over frequently, then he is putting opposite direction force on the lens and the camera, that would most definitely weaken the mount.

 

[michaeladawson]

Oh good lord! It’s clear what happened. The lens was rolling on the deck, not the camera. This guy carries a heavy lens with the strap or support connected to the body, not the lens. It’s obvious. Even the photo of him shows how he does it.

I don’t feel for him in the least nor feel he needs the benefit of the doubt. If you’re going to carry your equipment like that accept the potential consequences.

 

[Paddler213]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

It sure is common sense, most of us know instinctively that certain of our lenses are to be supported by the lens.

It is just a case of a small quick table to help make this question a bit more idiot proof.

I think that if your lens has strap attachment points you'd pretty much have to be an idiot to carry it only by the camera.

The torque applied to the camera mount depends on the weight of the lens and the distance from the center of gravity to the mount. So, it you carry a Z9 with a 500/4E (with FTZ) mounted, and pick it up by the body, you're applying about 7 ft-# of torque to the mount. If you carry it by the lens, the camera will apply about 0.4 ft-# to the mount. Huge difference.

 

[ChallengerLastCall]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

It sure is common sense, most of us know instinctively that certain of our lenses are to be supported by the lens.

It is just a case of a small quick table to help make this question a bit more idiot proof.

I think that if your lens has strap attachment points you'd pretty much have to be an idiot to carry it only by the camera.

The torque applied to the camera mount depends on the weight of the lens and the distance from the center of gravity to the mount. So, it you carry a Z9 with a 500/4E (with FTZ) mounted, and pick it up by the body, you're applying about 7 ft-# of torque to the mount. If you carry it by the lens, the camera will apply about 0.4 ft-# to the mount. Huge difference.

Thank you.

 

[Lance B]

Why did he buy another camera when he had the Z7II as back up.

From the article:

You need a backup of everything in case something breaks and even then you can only carry so much while out in the field. At a bare minimum, I'm always with 2 camera bodies, 3 lenses and whatever paraphernalia I need to get the job done.

Strange. Also if you didn't have impact damage, why would you pay $500? I wouldn't!

That struck me as odd too.

I get the need for a back up, just saying what's the chances of breaking both bodies? If your main one goes down use the back up. At worst you'd maybe pick up a Z5/6 or something to tide you over.

The likelihood of a second failure is low but the cost if it does happen is very high since he's on location shooting.

Looking at how he is going around, it's no wonder the Z9 mount ripped out. The foot is reversed, only the body is supported - all the weight is on the mount. I'd wonder how long that Z8 will last before it needs a repair :-O

I would never carry my bodies like that either but these are professional bodies that should be able to withstand the forces of a heavy lens hanging off the mount.

I agree. I can't help but think there has been another impact or torsional load applied at some stage that ripped the lens off the mount. Normal carrying of the 100-400 would *not* have caused the mount to fail. There is more to this than what has been told to us.

--
Lance B

Lance BB

Explore Lance BB’s 738 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

Galleries by Lance B

www.pbase.com

 

[RicClarke]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

It sure is common sense, most of us know instinctively that certain of our lenses are to be supported by the lens.

It is just a case of a small quick table to help make this question a bit more idiot proof.

Acknowledging that its not a good thing to to carry the combination hanging (down) from a strap attached to the camera, surely its substantially worse to mount it on a tripod (from the camera mount).

 

[Ken Seals]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky? Any one else carry a 180-600 supported by a Z9, or any other camera?

Maybe you were lucky, but it's very likely that the D500 lens mount is bent to some degree.

 

[michaeladawson]

Actually, I have carried a Tamron 150-600 hanging on a D500 with a battery pack (one side connected to a strap) for several years and I will soon replace it with a Nikon 180-600 on a Z9. The lenses are about the same weight. Are you suggesting that the Z9 isn't as tough as a D500, or I've just been lucky?

You've been lucky. The lens mount is designed to fail when a load above a certain point is hit, because replacing a mount is far cheaper than repairing a camera with a bent frame.

This is a common, known thing: don't try to carry the entire camera/lens load with big lenses like that by mounting the body to something (cotton carrier, monopod, whatever). The weight of the lens acts as a fulcrum on the mount when you do that, and it's pretty easy to go over the stress point at which the mount will break off. If you look carefully, the lens mount screws are intentionally short; they're designed to be the break point on the mount.

Note that there are strap attachments and foot attachments on all those big lenses for a reason. You should be carrying heavy lens/camera combos by the lens so that you're not constantly stressing the lens mount.

It is common sense not to carry a big lens dangling from a camera strap, and big lenses have their own straps. Does Nikon offer any guidance anywhere for the lenses that must be supported by their own strap , rather than the camera strap?

A list of lenses that are safe to carry supported from the camera, would be a good move by Nikon.

I would think guidance is common sense. If the lens has a tripod foot or other built in attachment point I would think Nikon intends you to use it. It’s not rocket science.

It sure is common sense, most of us know instinctively that certain of our lenses are to be supported by the lens.

It is just a case of a small quick table to help make this question a bit more idiot proof.

I don’t see why a table is needed. If there is a support attachment point built into the lens it is intended to be used. The existence of this attachment point is Nikon’s guidance.

if there is none (e.g. 24-120) there is nothing you can do. If Nikon intended this to be supported by the lens they would add an attachment point.

 

[michaeladawson]

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/...on-professional-services-was-anything-but-pro

Now that is anything but a good experience...

There’s been a lot of discussion on whether this guy was misusing his equipment. I think he probably was. But people are missing the point of his article. It was about NPS support, or lack thereof.

I am not an NPS member and know little of their services. I am more interested in hearing whether this guy has a valid gripe about NPS rather than whether he mistreated his equipment. Except to the point that equipment abuse invalidates NPS services.