D810 Build quality - Warning

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Having a gear kit with the maximum redundancy within the assignment and trip constraints is a must. Thus never travel on important shoots with just a single camera. If your plans involve long lenses, having one long in combination with a shorter + TCs is advantageous. (for example, 200/2 + TC1.4X, 300/2.8 or f/4). And so on. Weight limits are a practical issue that needs to be factored in, in particular when air travel is involved.

Planning ahead is the key. If your computer dies on the trip and files cannot  be processed en route, add a stack of memory cards so cards needn't be recirculated. And so on.

The comments above relate to any camera system, not just the D810 of course.

[arthurking83]

Ok, lets look at it in this manner:
A broken lens is a broken lens and .. while you can (sort of) do something to mitigate the situation, it's much more difficult to keep pace with.

So in the example I wanted to use, a typical situation of a pro at a wedding/party/whatever .. will have two cameras, and two lenses attached to each camera body.
Lets say that one of those cameras is bumped or falls and there is a high chance of breakage.

Lets use 2 situations:

1/. the camera mount is fragile and most likely to break, hopefully saving the lens. Lens can be used on a spare body still back in the camera bag.
(also could still be used with the other body on the other lens, but the swapping out of lenses would be a hindrance .. hence the two cameras two lenses)

2/. camera mount in this situation is strong and so the designed in breakage point of the lens is sheared and renders that lens unusable on the day.
Problem is you don't know which lens will break! is it the 24-70 or the 70-200 .. so the pro tog here needs two copies of each lens to prevent situation two from ruining the days shoot.

With the camera as the single common point here, it's easier and more prudent to have backup copies of that piece of equipment .. and backups for the backup if needed.
The point being that this is the common piece of equipment that ties the shoot together.

of course there is always the issue of a lens simply dying of it's own accord in some other manner .. but this is not the point of the thread.

There are limits as to ensuring against lens issues and redundancy for them .. but the limits for redundancy on camera bodies is far more flexible .. both in terms of space and weight .. and financial too.
Nothing wrong with backing up a pair of D810's with say two (old)D800's ... or three of four (even older)D700's.
But maintaining backups, or some form or redundancy for the two Nikon zooms (for a pro in the above situation) .. is more costly

[Les Olson]

Also, if the only real advantage to the plastics use in the mount is for cost reduction, then a simple $1 addition of a series of captive nuts on a metal retaining ring on the rear side of the plastic mount could easily strengthen this plastic mount design.
The way I see it is that the plastic mount design in itself isn't the issue ... the use of cheap self tapping screws is(into plastic).

As has been said a few times already, the issue is that once a force that is sufficient to break one screw has been reached there is a cascading effect and the mount will break.
The use of captive nuts on a metal ring on the rear side of the plastic mount should alleviate this ...

Yes, but ...  Polycarbonate is not an intrinsically cheap material - the bulk price is similar to that of magnesium/aluminium.  Polycarbonate is only cheap to use in large scale manufacturing because its process costs are low.  It is liquid at moderate temperatures (only about 150 C IIRC) so it can be easily injection molded, it can be drilled, cut and bent cold, like metal (most plastics are brittle at room temperature and break or shatter if you try to work them).  Although polycarbonate is very strong it has low surface hardness, ie, it scratches easily - as anyone with a polycarbonate suitcase knows.  That is another reason it is easy to work with - self-tapping screws go in with little force, eg - but it also means that screws can't be put in very tight and repeated stress quickly causes loosening. 

Adding a metal reinforcing ring would fix that problem, but the ring would have to be placed and bolted on and that additional manufacturing step would remove at least some of the cost advantage of polycarbonate, as well as some of the weight advantage. 

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Ideally nothing breaks and what gear one brings is entirely dependent upon the requirements of the assignment. However, in reality accidents might happen and the emphasis then shifts to risk assessment and damage mitigation instead. Whether the better plan is additional camera(s), or extra lens(es) more or less overlapping in range or functionality, or both; will vary and only the photographer can make the final decision in this regard. Perhaps this aspect is moot due to the lack of availability of additional gear anyway. A "minimum" kit comprising 2 cameras and at least 2 lenses will allow *some* residual functionality even were a camera or lens to malfunction.

In practice the concerns outlined above rarely or never are manifested and only when a crisis emerges, one faces the consequence of whether or not having considered alternatives prior to the shoot. Any 'pro' photographer ought to have contemplated such risks in advance. The is a vast difference between returning with (sub)optimal images, or none at all. A client is not interested in what went wrong - she or he wants results.

[paul_k]

Ideally nothing breaks and what gear one brings is entirely dependent upon the requirements of the assignment. However, in reality accidents might happen and the emphasis then shifts to risk assessment and damage mitigation instead. Whether the better plan is additional camera(s), or extra lens(es) more or less overlapping in range or functionality, or both; will vary and only the photographer can make the final decision in this regard. Perhaps this aspect is moot due to the lack of availability of additional gear anyway. A "minimum" kit comprising 2 cameras and at least 2 lenses will allow *some* residual functionality even were a camera or lens to malfunction.

In practice the concerns outlined above rarely or never are manifested and only when a crisis emerges, one faces the consequence of whether or not having considered alternatives prior to the shoot. Any 'pro' photographer ought to have contemplated such risks in advance. The is a vast difference between returning with (sub)optimal images, or none at all. A client is not interested in what went wrong - she or he wants results.

Totally agree with the above statement.

An amateur can, and in some case as I experienced, will have much better equipment then a pro (me in my case), and at times may be able to shoot (some) pictures that are 'better' then what the hired pro was able to shoot from the same subject/event.

But the difference indeed is that a pro will always/is always expected to come with successful/quality pictures, whereas an amateur can just play along, bang his chest if his pictures are 'as good' as the pro's, but does not have to take any responsibility if they're not (usually with the excuse 'but I'm not a pro' or 'but he has better equipment') and just fade away.

And yes, that translates in the pro always having to take extra equipment along, just in case of failure, or of something unexpected popping up for which he might just need that one special camera, lens, or whatever he has somewhere in the back of his closet.

When I go out for eg shooting sport (pretty rare nowdays fortunately) I have my 7 fps (that's about the fastest rate I use) D3 as a first pick, but also take along a D800 with grip, which in DX mode allows 6 fps)
For a shoot which requires high res files, I take along 2 D800's, and for a high ISO job my first choice is my DF, with a D800 (I know 'only' ISO 6400) as back up.
Similar with the lenses, all of which in the end results in having to 'schlepp along' a big bag of equipment, most of which often enough (fortunately) is left unpacked without any use at the end of the day. But if something does break down, big sigh of relief that you can simply reach in that bag, and continue as if 'nothing has happened'.

That's what clients are paying a pro for, and if something that nowadays is too easily forgotten when they hire a ' I started photography two years ago and have a DSLR and a big lens' low price 'photographer' http://emgn.com/entertainment/amateur-photographer-turns-late-takes-selfies-ruins-couples-wedding-day/

[MFloyd]

Paul, I entirely agree with your analysis. This also the reason that I'm a happy amateur photographer 😄

[JohnBrew]

Well, this is disheartening. When I was trying out the Zeiss 135/2 I was concerned a bit over the weight on the mount, but my 55 Otus, though heavy, hasn't concerned me as much. While I believe most of us will never have any problems, it sure seems as if Nikon quality has taken a step back.

[Sash]

.

[David H. Hartman]

An article in American Photographer magazine told of a top wedding photographer in N.Y., N.Y. who carried two Hasselblad 500cm(s) and (2) two of each lens he used. Rather interestingly he had all of his lenses set with set screws to a focus distance of 7 feet (2.1m). The focused with his feet.

I used to shoot PR. I carried two Nikon F2(s), an 80-200/4.5 and about four prime lenses. The only malfunction I've had on an assignment was extreme drag on film advance with an F2. The camera was fairly new but tested. The problem was Ilford film cassettes where slightly taller than Kodak cassettes. I scraped the long end of the Ilford cassette on the curb and deburred it with my thumbnail. I heard my customer says to someone, "Does he know what he's doing?" He loved the photos from that shoot or I never would have worked for him again. I took the camera to Mel-Perce Camera in Hollywood. They checked it with a well worn Kodak cassette and said there was nothing wrong. I noticed the base plate with slightly depressed at the O/C key and did the repair myself. I'm quite certain this was a manufacturing defect. I've never shot a paying gig again without two cameras since.

I haven't shot for higher for 25 years. My main business was photo processing.

Dave

[JohnBrew]

With all these revelations on current Nikon manufacturing processes, are there any bodies in production where the lens mount is attached to metal? How about past models?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The D5. A PDF brochure can be downloaded from Nikon USA's D5 product page and in it, on p. 17 in the PDF, or p. 32 as the page numbers in the document are marked  there is an image of the metal chassis.

[Frank Fremerey]

Equipment is over rated.

Ask Bez about his wedding shoot!!!

Reliability cannot be over rated. Backup backup backup.

The story about the ruined wedding is telling.

Thank you Paul.

[MFloyd]

The D5. A PDF brochure can be downloaded from Nikon USA's D5 product page and in it, on p. 17 in the PDF, or p. 32 as the page numbers in the document are marked  there is an image of the metal chassis.

http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/e/Q5NM96RZZo-YRYNeYvAi9beHK4x3L-8go_p7JUL6JpQMwSj_xzTyyQ==/PDF/D5_Brochure.pdf

Page 21...