Replace plastic lens mount with metal?

[BobD]

Just wondering if anyone has replaced a non-metallic lens mount (on body or lens) with a metal one? Is it a simple swap or are there issues to contend with?

I was thinking of doing this with a Maxxum 4 body but does anyone have experience with doing this on any camera/lens?

 

[cmacd123]

if there was another model using the same body with a metal mount, or if you can do machining - it might be posible.

 

[Dan Fromm]

Issues? Electronic. How does the lens communicate with the body? How does the AF mechanism drive the lens' focusing helical? All this information passes through the mount.

OP, if you want a body that's more rugged, buy a Maxxum mount body whose lens mount is metal. If you want lenses that are more rugged, get Maxxum mount lenses with metal mounts.

 

[4season]

I successfully upgraded the lens mount of a Sony A7 to the all-metal part used on the A7R/A7S. The lens mount used on the A7/A7R/A7S Mk II was very similar, but not quite identical, so some modification would have been required in order use the part on a first-generation camera body.

 

[ic-racer]

What is exactly wrong with the mount? Loose or broken? Might be easier and cheaper to just get a non-functional donor body of the same kind.

 

[cmacd123]

And My understanding is that unless you are changing the lens many times a day, the plastic mounts are actually a touch more resilient.

 

[BobD]

I'm not trying to solve any particular problem. It was just something that I wondered about. If anyone had done it.

 

[koraks]

The only lens mount I've ever had problems with due to wear & tear, and became unusable, was the metal lens mount on a couple of Mamiya ZM bodies. The few lenses I've had with polymer/'plastic' mounts have never given me any problems whatsoever.

 

[250swb]

Similar story here. I know everybody got spooked in the day about plastic mounts and this has gone into camera mythology, but there's nothing wrong with them. In fact the upside is lenses and bodies are often cheaper just because of it, so win win. And the majority of plastic is in budget cameras anyway so it's hardly worth being a snob about if status is the aim. On a cold wet day out on the moors photographing a lonely raggedy tree I'm pretty happy to have left my heavy metal at home.

 

[RMD]

I was once given to understand that plastic mounts were 'sacrificial'
if the lens was knocked against a hard surface. The mount broke more
easily and should in theory reduce camera body damage and repair cost

 

[koraks]

I was once given to understand that plastic mounts were 'sacrificial'
if the lens was knocked against a hard surface. The mount broke more
easily and should in theory reduce camera body damage and repair cost

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

But to give an anecdote: a family member of mine was in conflict with a (rather unreasonable) neighbor at some point. Said family member had an EOS1000F with the back-then 'kit' EF35-80 lens, which featured a plastic mount. The kind neighbor grabbed the camera and swung it by the neck strap full force against a pole. This broke the latch on the battery compartment and I think the back sprung open, but was undamaged. Otherwise, both camera and lens continued to function fine and there was no other damage except for some scuffs on the polycarbonate shell of the camera. I still have that camera here somewhere; last time I checked it still worked, although it had developed the sticky-shutter syndrome that's common for this type of camera.

After that incident, I stopped worrying about plastic lens mounts.

 

[BobD]

The only lens mount I've ever had problems with due to wear & tear, and became unusable, was the metal lens mount on a couple of Mamiya ZM bodies. The few lenses I've had with polymer/'plastic' mounts have never given me any problems whatsoever.

Good points. I guess I assumed plastic mounts were less durable.

On the other hand, it is often stated that metal mounts are better able to handle larger, heavier lenses. Not true?

And, why do they put the metal mounts on the higher-spec cameras? For example, the Maxxum 4 has a plastic mount but the better-featured Maxxum 5 has a metal mount. Is it just salesmanship?

 

[MattKing]

And, why do they put the metal mounts on the higher-spec cameras? For example, the Maxxum 4 has a plastic mount but the better-featured Maxxum 5 has a metal mount. Is it just salesmanship?

Perhaps metal mounts would be more suitable if used with really, really large lenses?
They may also be more expensive to include - plastic mounts tended to be used in cameras designed for the super competitive budget market.

 

[Paul Howell]

A very long time ago I had read that some Canon Rebel users were buying older 620 bodies for the metal mount. The Canon F mount for the EOS was universal for all EOS bodies, so the electronics would line up. My guess is that metal mount from a Minolta 7xi would swap out without any issues, same number of pins.

 

[neilt3]

What is exactly wrong with the mount? Loose or broken? Might be easier and cheaper to just get a non-functional donor body of the same kind.

A fully functional Maxxum/Dynax 4 can be picked up for £10-£15 ( £-$ about the same ) , and a faulty body costs about the same , so unless you've got a dead body in a draw , if you going to buy something , you might as well get a working one .

Good points. I guess I assumed plastic mounts were less durable.

On the other hand, it is often stated that metal mounts are better able to handle larger, heavier lenses. Not true?

People tend not to put big heavy lenses on small bodies such as the Dynax 4 . A Minolta 400mm f/4.5 might be a bit cumbersome having limited grip , even the 28-70mm f/2.8 type lenses don't sit well on one .
It is a perfect camera for some small primes or a compact zoom .
It also works well with such as the Sony SAM 85mm f/2.8 lens , which also has a plastic lens mount flange .

And, why do they put the metal mounts on the higher-spec cameras? For example, the Maxxum 4 has a plastic mount but the better-featured Maxxum 5 has a metal mount. Is it just salesmanship?

The metal mount can feel more secure and a better fit , and will possibly prove more durable over the years of changing lenses .
I've got most of the Minolta cameras , all still work 100% , plastic or not .

Given that the 5 and 4 both sell for about the same amount these days , sometimes as low as £10-£15 ( or $ ) , if you want a camera with a metal mount , just buy a 5 .

 

[neilt3]

A very long time ago I had read that some Canon Rebel users were buying older 620 bodies for the metal mount. The Canon F mount for the EOS was universal for all EOS bodies, so the electronics would line up. My guess is that metal mount from a Minolta 7xi would swap out without any issues, same number of pins.

As long as the thickness of flange was the same , especially at the fixing points .
Also , buying a working or faulty Dynax/Maxxum 7xi for parts would be more expensive than a fully working Dynax/Maxxum 5 that already has a metal flange .