I found a thread on Nikonians.org this week that echoed a concern about lens and camera body mounts expressed the week before in a discussion on Photo.net (or possibly Nikongear) . There were pics in the Photo.net thread. The pics made it clear to anyone who cared to look closely that the DSLR camera and lens were smashed apart by a tremendous shearing impact during use or by heavy weight while the camera was stowed during travel. In that thread, one photo of the mounting ring on the camera body seemed to show that it had been left in a very slight oval shape. Nasty. However, the author of that thread insisted that an acknowleged bump was (in his opinion) not severe enough by half to have resulted in such major damage to the camera and lens and/or that his stowage of the camera during travel could not possibly have resulted in such damage. He was questioning the inherent quality of (in this case) a Nikon D610 DSLR body.
Clearly there are many, many photographers over the years who've tried to rationalize some carelessness on their part or some otherwise rash handling of their gear by claiming afterward that the gear was somehow deficient because, "No way was the impact/bump/drop/weight anywhere near severe enough to cause this kind of damage, so what kind of junk did Nikon/Canon sell me!!?!" Ninety-nine percent of the time that's utter nonsense. Either the photographers are wrapped up too deeply in a chase to get some perceptibly terrific shot and simply aren't aware of how hard the camera and lens get hammered in some situation, or they lose track of luggage or some other sort of weight piled on top of a camera bag that puts some huge amount of direct strain on a mounted lens whiel traveling, or they mis-mount and jam up a lens/body connection, or they hang a huge and fast lens on a small body and then used the combo heavily with the camera mounted on the tripod instead instead of the lens foot mounted on the tripod. We rarely hear any admissions of that last bit either.
There are all manner of silly statements made in various discussion forums about how Nikon/Canon/Sony/Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic, etc., are cheaping out on the metal used for body and lens mounts and how the plastics used in body construction are weak or suspect. We all need to also, from time to time, recognize angry trolls when they show up in a discussion forum. Anyway, the non-troll photographers making such statements sometimes point to posted photos of their sheared-off flanges and torn out mount plates and then get angry at responders who point out that metal used in mounts is as good (or better) than ever and that the torsional/impact/lateral/frontal and/or shearing forces needed to to have done such damage are really large. "NO!" the complainants reply, "I hardly touched it! It just (catastrophically) broke!" It's nonsense. They've somehow rationalized that their carelessness was not really that careless and switched responsibility for the damage away from their handling and onto the manufacturer's choices for construction materials. It's nonsense.
I remember one thread from a couple of years ago (can't remember positively which forum it was - possibly DPReview.com) in which a photographer complained that an 80-200 f/2.8 zoom lens had simply dropped off while he was hiking with a Canon 1D X rig on his shoulder. It was only three pages of posts and three days later that he casually mentioned that a month before the "totally unacceptable Canon quality control failure" that he'd been fiddling with the flange screws "but he'd made sure they were tight because he'd never do anything so stupid as to leave the flange screws loose let alone forget to put any of them back in."
Right. Uh-huh. Sure.
The psychology at work which makes some people slightly uncomfortable about the sheer volume of response posts in the thread they started in an effort to vent frustrations (suspecting full well that the whole problem started with some inappropriate fiddling on their own part) is clear. In many such threads (and they range widely, e.g., about firmware bugs that nobody else has encountered, lenses that just seem to have mysteriously fallen off as if by ancient family curse or a spell cast by a evil witch, a camera maker's warranty service department's refusal to repair something under warranty because the service technician found internal water damage even though - according to the camera owner - "my camera has never been within a thousand miles of water!" etc., etc.), the errant photographers sometimes can't stand the pressure of all that discussion participation and leak some admission of possible culpability late in the online discussion thread.
What I object to most of all is the fact that, for many people, unsubstantiated and (more important) unsubstantiable damage claims and structural weakness claims place an obstacle in the way of making what should otherwise be a perfectly valid purchasing decision which will help get them closer to creative photography as a hobby or passion that is genuinely fulfilling. I'm really just saying that it's more important than ever before to make sure our BS filters are always running on the Full Power setting.