Metal vs Plastic mounts

Another interesting (as always) article by Roger Cicala:

Assumptions, Expectations, and Plastic Mounts

I never realized the 24-70 Mark I had a plastic mount. Not that that makes any difference, apparently.

Roger Cicala says in that article, " you are calling the mount what I refer to as the bayonet. Bayonet’s, with a very few exceptions are always metal."

Unfortunately Roger has just pronounced the source of the debate behind the 'not metal mount' nature of his article, vs. what the common photographer is referring to!:
For longer than I have been alive (and I have been an avid photographer for over 45 years) the industry has referred to 'Canon mount' or 'breechlock mount', or to 'Pentax mount' or 'M42 mount', or 'Exakta mount', or 'Minolta mount' lenses, or 'C mount' (movie camera lenses) -- referring to the connection between body and lens. And 'bayonet' is NOT the right term simply because 'M42 mount' is not a 'bayonet', it is a SCREW in.

Wilt wrote in post #16579279
Roger Cicala says in that article, " you are calling the mount what I refer to as the bayonet. Bayonet’s, with a very few exceptions are always metal."

Unfortunately Roger has just pronounced the source of the debate behind the 'not metal mount' nature of his article, vs. what the common photographer is referring to!:
For longer than I have been alive (and I have been an avid photographer for over 45 years) the industry has referred to 'Canon mount' or 'breechlock mount', or to 'Pentax mount' or 'M42 mount', or 'Exakta mount', or 'Minolta mount' lenses, or 'C mount' (movie camera lenses) -- referring to the connection between body and lens. And 'bayonet' is NOT the right term simply because 'M42 mount' is not a 'bayonet', it is a SCREW in.

I would have to say that he is using it as a generic term. Calling the part of the lens that attached to the camera body the "bayonet" as a universal part. Im sure he knows that there are specific names for different lenses.

But he brings up a valid argument, it barely matters what that mount/threads are made of, if under them is just a few short screws in plastic. The idea of these mounts failing more often make sense in my head, but LensRentals certainly does enough business and lens repairs to produce an article like this. I would say that the majority of this article is accurate because of the source.

Hell, 'metal mounts' (according to Roger's terminology) largely disappeared when all-metal lenses largely vanished decades ago.

I do not fear plastic 'bayonet' extension tubes, as you point out the plastic barrel is attached to metal lens mounts orto plastic lens mounts, with metal screws. And I understand the 'bayonet' term he speaks is in a generic sense. But it still goes against the industry vernacular long established and used by just about everyone!

And people, if you exchange posts on POTN, are fearful about the plastic connection between the body and lens, whether or not you call it 'mount' or 'bayonet'. Not fearful about holes that the screws' threads go into.