# Broken Nikon D90 Lens Mount



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

This morning after going to class I went to grab my camera for a small event I had to shoot today for my college's newspaper.  While opening up my bag I noticed my lens was separated from my camera.  .....Uh oh

Basically somehow the mount on my D90 has been ripped off from the body.  The screws were ripped out from the body.  It does not seem to have any internal damage minus the stripped threads inside of the screw mounts.  

I've asked the local camera store for an estimate and they said around $300 to repair it.  I've also thought about going the insurance route, however I need to find out the deductible on my parent's insurance coverage.  Do you think I should go the repair route and get it fixed, or go the insurance route?


----------



## epp_b (Mar 1, 2010)

Nikon's warranty on bodies is two years; the D90 hasn't even been on store shelves for that long.

If it really did just "come apart" without any obvious cause (ie.: dropping it), Nikon should be repairing this for free under warranty.


----------



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

epp_b said:


> Nikon's warranty on bodies is two years; the D90 hasn't even been on store shelves for that long.
> 
> If it really did just "come apart" without any obvious cause (ie.: dropping it), Nikon should be repairing this for free under warranty.




I contacted Nikon and I'll be shipping it to the repair facility and have them see if they will fix it free of charge.  However I am still looking into more options.  I may end up just taking the insurance money and investing in a new body.


----------



## Montana (Mar 1, 2010)

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


----------



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

I was looking into the D300s as I'd like to stay DX for now and It has a much better build quality.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 1, 2010)

Careful, since you still have warranty, you could be accused of insurance fraud.


----------



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

I'm not doing anything until I get word from Nikon.  Nikon will probably give me some damn reason not to repair it for free so who knows.  My local repair shop quoted me a repair cost of $250-$400.  Which would not be worth it at all.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 1, 2010)

Well, if Nikon refuses service, I would first try to fit it.  Beyond that, invoking your insurance policy probably makes the most sense.


----------



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

fit it or fight it?

As far as the insurance policy goes, if all else fails I'll get the insurance money and probably invest in a D300s since I have enough saved to upgrade the body.


----------



## epp_b (Mar 1, 2010)

Er, "fight" it


----------



## JimmyO (Mar 1, 2010)

Lmk how this goes, i wouldnt mind ripping the lens off my camera for a d300


----------



## Pure (Mar 1, 2010)

So it seems I'm down to repairing my camera or selling it for parts.

Basically the deductible on my parents insurance is $500, which totally screws me.  So it's either be camera-less until I can repair it, have Nikon fix it for free [which they damn well better since it broke off without falling damage], or sell it.

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.  

I'll let you know how it goes, I'll be shipping the camera out this weekend after classes.


----------



## KmH (Mar 1, 2010)

In the US, Nikon's camera body warranty is only for 1 year:



> THIS IS YOUR NIKON INC. ONE YEAR LIMITED WARRANTY (VALID IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES, ALASKA, HAWAII, CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA, AND THE CARIBBEAN).


 
The warranty on US lenses is for 5 years.

The other important warranty factoid is the warranty only applies to the original owner.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 1, 2010)

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.


----------



## KmH (Mar 1, 2010)

Montana said:


> 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.


----------



## Montana (Mar 1, 2010)

KmH said:


> Montana said:
> 
> 
> > I would invest it in a new body too. Something better built.
> ...




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 (Mar 1, 2010)

Pure said:


> 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???


----------



## benhasajeep (Mar 2, 2010)

Sw1tchFX said:


> 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 (Mar 2, 2010)

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 (Mar 3, 2010)

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 (Mar 3, 2010)

> 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 (Mar 3, 2010)

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 (Mar 3, 2010)

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.  



PhotoXopher said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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


----------



## epp_b (Mar 3, 2010)

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


Well, actually...



			
				bythom.com said:
			
		

> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_*The *_*New 70-200mm Controversy*_Jan 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 (Mar 3, 2010)

Pure said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2010)

KmH said:


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



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 (Mar 3, 2010)

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 (Mar 3, 2010)

KmH said:


> 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 (Mar 3, 2010)

schumionbike said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > LOL. :thumbup:
> ...



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 (Mar 4, 2010)

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.


----------



## mdtusz (Mar 4, 2010)

The d90 is plastic, but it certainly feels well built. While other bodies may be metal, they are also wayyyy heavier, and once you get a lens that's big enough to be considered "heavy", you're balancing the camera on the lens, not the other way around. This is probably a unique incident. I have no worry at all with the structural limitations of a plastic body other than bashing it around into things, but then again, I would worry with a metal body as well, just to a lesser extent.


----------



## Pure (Mar 7, 2010)

I shipped out the body today to Nikon's repair center in NY.  How long after they receive the item and get it into the system do they typically have an estimate or notification of repair information?


----------



## Brick (Mar 8, 2010)

Pure said:


> This morning after going to class I went to grab my camera for a small event I had to shoot today for my college's newspaper.  While opening up my bag I noticed my lens was separated from my camera.  .....Uh oh



Kinda makes me nervous about my d90.  What sort of bag did you have it in?


----------



## Pure (Mar 9, 2010)

Brick said:


> Pure said:
> 
> 
> > This morning after going to class I went to grab my camera for a small event I had to shoot today for my college's newspaper.  While opening up my bag I noticed my lens was separated from my camera.  .....Uh oh
> ...



Canon | Deluxe Backpack 200 EG | 6229A003 | B&H Photo Video


----------



## benhasajeep (Mar 10, 2010)

Well there's the problem.  You have been keeping Nikon equipment in a Canon bag.    Supprised it lasted as long as it did.


Seriously, hope Nikon fixes it for you.  If the D90 is a plastic body, maybe the mold for the frame will be found to have been thin or something.


----------



## KmH (Mar 10, 2010)

Nikon will repair the camera, without a doubt.

I'll be totally amazed (not for the first time) if they do so as a warranty repair.


----------



## Pure (Mar 28, 2010)

UPDATE-  Repairing the camera for a cool $301.31.  It's at Nikon's New York facility with a parts hold, "level C" repair.


----------



## KmH (Mar 28, 2010)

Pure said:


> UPDATE- Repairing the camera for a cool $301.31. It's at Nikon's New York facility with a parts hold, "level C" repair.


Did you look up "level C"?  They had mine for 6 weeks.


----------



## Pure (Mar 28, 2010)

Damn.  Hopefully mine won't be that long.  Doesn't matter too much to me, but still, 6 weeks is a long time.


----------



## KmH (Mar 28, 2010)

Pure said:


> Damn. Hopefully mine won't be that long. Doesn't matter too much to me, but still, 6 weeks is a long time.


Do you understand what it is they have to replace?

In this video of a Canon 10D, once the camera explodes and the very first part zooms toward you at :43? That's the part that has to be replaced in your D90. Pretty much the very heart of the camera. The camera has to be totally disassembled, reassembled and recalibrated. 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw]YouTube - UC Berkeley E128 Final Project - Canon 10D DSLR v2[/ame]


----------



## gsgary (Mar 29, 2010)

KmH said:


> Pure said:
> 
> 
> > Damn. Hopefully mine won't be that long. Doesn't matter too much to me, but still, 6 weeks is a long time.
> ...




The same problem would not happen on a 10D though because it is better made than the D90


----------



## Pure (Mar 29, 2010)

KmH said:


> Pure said:
> 
> 
> > Damn. Hopefully mine won't be that long. Doesn't matter too much to me, but still, 6 weeks is a long time.
> ...




I realize that.  As long as I have it back by late May, I have no worries.  And if Nikon can't deliver by then then I'll be very upset with them.


----------



## Pure (Apr 21, 2010)

UPDATE 2:

The camera arrived safely back to my house yesterday.  Just over 4 weeks from when it was sent to them.  For being such a major repair, rather fast service.  Most of that time was spent in "parts hold" status.


----------



## smyth (Apr 25, 2010)

Wow. That really sucks. I know that Nikon is stingy as hell in replacing anything at all that has even a 1% chance of user fault. Our student paper bought a D90, and part of the mount got ****ed up, and the lens was not coming off the camera body. Finally got the lens off, and low and behold, the entire mount had been displaced. Was absolutely not dropped or anything, and was babied. Sent it to Nikon, nope, you broke it, you pay to have it fixed. Luckily the store we bought it from fixed it for us as a positive gesture towards us, but it sucked.

That being said, my D90 has held up very well shooting with that same lens, and I dispute the fact that entry level bodies can't hold up to big lenses. I spent an entire weekend with my D40 with the 70-200 f2.8 attached, no problems at all.


----------



## KmH (Apr 25, 2010)

smyth said:


> Wow. That really sucks. I know that Nikon is stingy as hell in replacing anything at all that has even a 1% chance of user fault. Our student paper bought a D90, and part of the mount got ****ed up, and the lens was not coming off the camera body. Finally got the lens off, and low and behold, the entire mount had been displaced. Was absolutely not dropped or anything, and was babied. Sent it to Nikon, nope, you broke it, you pay to have it fixed. Luckily the store we bought it from fixed it for us as a positive gesture towards us, but it sucked.
> 
> That being said, my D90 has held up very well shooting with that same lens, and I dispute the fact that entry level bodies can't hold up to big lenses. I spent an entire weekend with my D40 with the 70-200 f2.8 attached, no problems at all.


You don't mention how part of the mount got ***ed up in the first place. Was it a lens with a plastic mount flang?

Tell us the rest of the story.

It also sounds like you forced off the lens? :scratch:


----------



## smyth (Apr 26, 2010)

KmH said:


> smyth said:
> 
> 
> > Wow. That really sucks. I know that Nikon is stingy as hell in replacing anything at all that has even a 1% chance of user fault. Our student paper bought a D90, and part of the mount got ****ed up, and the lens was not coming off the camera body. Finally got the lens off, and low and behold, the entire mount had been displaced. Was absolutely not dropped or anything, and was babied. Sent it to Nikon, nope, you broke it, you pay to have it fixed. Luckily the store we bought it from fixed it for us as a positive gesture towards us, but it sucked.
> ...



It was an 80-200mm f2.8, so no, definitely not a lens with a plastic mount flange.

To be honest, it was someone else who put the lens on there, so that part, I don't know, but from what she told us, it went on like it normally does, went to take it off, and it was really stuck on there. I managed to get if off, as it had a little bit of play I just kept it going until it came off. But the problem was at the base of the camera where the mount meets the rest of the body, it was now completely mis-aligned.


----------



## KmH (Apr 26, 2010)

It sounds to me like you forced it off, but can't bring yourself to say so.

The warranty then didn't apply and Nikon had every right to charge for the repair.

IMO, you're very fortunate the camera store covered your ****up.


----------

