Brass V.S. Steel lens mounts

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each. Why is it that

even the F100 has a brass lens mount.(I say this because I read that

steel was better) Is this purely a cost issue? In my last post

people seemed to think that brass was just as good as steel. If thay

is so why is it that the f5 has a steel lens mount?

Excellent! A+

I don't know. have you asked Nikon/ where did you get the information about

the F100 lens mount? Did you read this in a Nikon brochure (it isn't on their

website) or are you just taking someone's word on this? I'm not saying it isn't

true, but am wondering where your information comes from.

Um, Nate, we don't buy lens mounts, we buy camera bodies. For what purposes does the material from which a body's lens mount is made of matter?

 

Cheers,

 

Dan

I think it is fair to assume steel is superior than brass because the F5 uses it, F4 used it, F3 used it... most nikons actually. The N90 and F100 do not, but then if Nikon realized with the N90 that brass was better than steel then why continuing using it in the pro F5 that was manufactured later than the N90? Just cost saving policy in my opinion.

It also has to be noted that this depend in how much material is used, not only which one is, but as far as i know steel is more durable than brass.

Dan, it does matter, at least for me. I do not only want to buy a good camera, i want to buy a durable one. If i am paying $1000 for the body i think it is fair to ask for this, and this involves every part of the camera, not only the mount.

Oh please. I've worn out a shutter and then some on my N90s which has been

heavily used since 1996 using everything from a 15mm to 600mm f/4.

Durability isn't an issue. Maybe weight or balance is.

No it doesn't. If that was so, we'd all be buying Photomics and F-1's (or anything made with titanium). Those babies were SOLID. No one would be buying ANYTHING polycarbonate (because that's plastic!). Unless you're a mechanical engineering student who's taken at least one materials science class, just what knowledge do you have that qualifies you to evaluate that the use of one material over another will make that camera better?

 

Rather than worrying about the individual pieces that make up a body (which is no different that any other "gotta have the BEST" equipment fetish around here), why not focus on the performance and reputation of the unit as a whole. Of course this would have to be tempered by how much you'd be willing to spend also.

 

Think about it; for probably 95%+ of the users of these cameras, do you really think that they'll damage the brass fittings (as compared to the steel ones)? Do you think YOU can damage the brass fittings (if so, maybe you need an F5). Do you really think the Nikon people just sat around and decided to use brass on some units just for the fun of it with no research as to possible drawbacks?

Just knowing brass or stainless steel wouldn't tell you much of anything. You would need to know the specific alloy and heat treatment of each to even make any kind of educated guess. Brass can be harder than hammered hell and stainless can be ductile and some alloys rust. If that brass mount is silver colored it may even be hard chrome plated. I'd pay more attention to reports of failures in the field than what metal. It looks like five screws and it's off, it's probably the only major part you could replace yourself.

well i admit that more than probably 95%+ of the users (probably even more than 99%) will never have an issue regarding the brass mount, but does not stop me from asking for a steel mount (yes, i keep stating steel is better than brass after years and years of reading about materials. Take the same piece with the same dimensions manufactured from both steel and brass and push it to the limit...brass will bend and break far sooner than steel). Again i admit using a camera (even heavy using) does not stress that much this piece, but my point is: why did nikon decided to use brass while they use steel in their pro bodies? specially when older bodies mostly used steel, not only the F series.

In regard to the Nikon people just satting around without researching for possible drawbacks... well at least they did so with the F100 early rewind fork! search the archives for this and realize nikon replaced the breaking older "forks" for free and introduced a newly designed one after almost a year of the starting manufacturing date.

I have read reports of the N90 and F100 mounts needing service after using heavy lenses without collar, not many ones, actually just 3, which i agree may not be significant number, but i have not read not even one post regarding this issues with the F5 or other nikon cameras than the N90 & F100.(Not considering here if someones camera fall down 30ft with a 400mm lens attached). All this considered i think (and it is not just my opinion but one i have read in a few F100 reviews) Nikon should have used a steel mount.

I finally have to say that i agree that a camera is much more than the material one particular part is made of...that is why i bought a F100 15 days ago! a great camera have not regreted my decision not even for a second, but i think it is fair to ask for what older and less expensive cameras did have in a newer and expensive design. Just my final two cents...i am kind of tired of this issue.

So, out of curiosity, I sent an email to Nikon. The web site indicates a response in 4 days. I'll post anything I get......Warren

Well it seems that no matter how I word my topic or how I word my questions I still cant get around the rude/mot helpful comments.

The problem Nate, is that you are asking a question that 99% of people feel is completely irrelevant, including me. You'd have a legitimate point if the question was steel vs. plastic, but steel vs. brass should be a non issue. Go shoot some film.

Nate,<P>I only see one comment in here which can vaguely be considered

rude. most have bben pretty info packed. If you want rude and idiotic and

badly misinformed and abusive, go to www.dpreviews.com<P>Your question

might best be answered by an independent camera repairman in a large city

like New York City, Chicago or Los Angeles.

My Nikon F has never failed yet. I used it a School football game last thursday for 2 more rolls. The 180mm F2.8 ED mounted ok. <BR><BR>A gentleman asked me if it was a digital camera!<BR><BR>Will the lens mount survive to 2100? Will the shutter die before the lens mount? <b>Did you all know that the Nikon F focuses slightly more accurate after being cocked? </b> John Slack at the Nikon school showed us the proof in 1968....

Nate,

 

Ive read somewhere they made a brass(its chrome plated by the way) mount to reduce wear on lens mounts. I have no clue to why exactly they did made the F100 inferior to the F5, probably a marketing issue..... Personally i wouldnt worry about the mount, unless you are a pro user. Whats more mindpuzzling is the lack of dustseals and plastic back on the F100. Ive heard the plastic back was a weight/cost reducing choise, and the only way they could make a reasonable back was to leave the dustseals out. Now, maybe i am a perfectionist but dust in my cameras is something i do want to prevent at all times...

 

Greetings,

Hi, Nate,

 

I'm an engineer by profession so I have a little experience in the field of choosing materials. The question of which material is best in any particular situation is not a simple one especially as in this instance steel / brass are reasonably similar. However the people best placed to make the decision are Nikon's design engineers. They know what the forces are on the component, how it is connected to the rest of the body, how fast it will wear, how fast it will wear the matching lens bayonets, its coefficent of expansion, any corrosion issues, any cost issues, how it needs to be treated, machining and manufacturing issues, etc etc. Believe me they will have thought of all these things and have files about the pro's and con's of various materials, field tests, user reports etc. Companies like Nikon and Canon etc do not get to be where they are by producing dodgy equipment. They sell on the reputation of their products.

 

As above - there are many more important things to worry about - take some pictures and enjoy yourself.

Correct me if I'm wrong, I believe even Leicas use brass mounts. If it's good enough for Leica, it's certainly good enough for the rest of us. So Nate, don't be too concerned about it.

Canon uses stainless steel in that new rebel so that they can advertise it as such. If you feel it is better than brass, you don't need any "helpful" reassurance. Just believe it. Funny thing, it's pretty obvious that it's such a non-issue, that instead of arguing about which is better, there's no real certainty which bodies are which!

" Okay, I've been listening to all you "WISE" photographers and I am really stupified. I cant believe how long you can argue about a camera system. Any proffesional photographer will tell you that the camera doest make you a better photographer. Its just a tool. Aside from true proffesionals the only one who owns a pro level camera is someone who, either is trying to show off, thinking it will creat wonderful pictures for them, or is a rotten photographer with tons of money. As a wise man once said "Nice camera, now show me your pictures!" "

 

Just quoting Nate himself. April of this year.

 

What's the matter Nate, did you suddenly decide arguing was more fun than making photos?

lol! I must say that was a real good one! To tell you the truth I never ment to argue. It was a simple question. I was just wondering a SIMPLE question! Do I not have the right to ask a question? Geez. Actually no arguing is NOT more fun than making photographs. In fact I get VERY cranky unless I shoot at least 2 rolls of 36 exp. film a week!

Please forgive me if it sounded like I was trying to argue or start an argument. I was just wondering because I am about to purchase a 80-200 2.8 used w/ no tripod collar and would not want to cause harm to any camera with a brass lens mount. You know I think I should have said that before and it might of cleared this all up.

 

P.S. That last post was really clever!

I would not worry about using the 80-200mm f/2.8 withthe F100. Start walking

or running around with a 600mm f/4 or an 800mm f/5.6 hanging off the

camera and you'll be asking for trouble but not with the 80-200.

"I am about to purchase a 80-200 2.8 used w/ no tripod collar and would not want to cause harm to any camera with a brass lens mount."

 

Didn't you read the warning label on the F100:

 

*THIS CAMERA CONTAINS A HIGHLY VOLATILE BRASS MOUNT AND IS NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE USED WITH 80-200 LENS*

 

cheez.

 

Anyway, I wouldn't purchase an 80-200 w/o tripod collar, but not because of the brass mount.

"highly volatile" hmm... Just kidding :)

FWIW, I just checked the mount on my F100 and can see on the edges where the len's lugs contact the mount (not the face), the chrome is worn through and there is brass underneath. This is the same as the lens mount on my N80. Am I concerned? No. Chrome can be harder than SS, and if the proper brass, with proper dimensions were used, it is also strong enough. One andvantage of the brass could be that if the lens was struck hard, the mount could yield before the body casting. This would make the repair much cheaper.