A question for all: Has anyone here on the UHH tried to or have replaced the plastic lens mount on any Nikkor lens with a metal one?

Background: I asked Nikon Support if they could replace the plastic lens mounts on my AF G type lenses with a metal mount.

Here is their response "Thank you for contacting Nikon. I am happy to help you today with your inquiry if we could replace plastic lens mounts with metal lens mounts on your two lenses.
At this time, we do not have metal lens mounts on our Nikon store. I do apologize for the inconvenience. The lenses are made with Nikkon specific technology, materials, workmanship and products.
If you need any more assistance, feel free to call or email us. Please Click the "Update My Question" link on the email to respond. For any other questions, please contact us via email or call us at 1-800-NikonUS or 1-800-645-6687 from 9:00 a.m to 8:00 p.m. EST.
Sincerely,
Diana
Nikon Technical Support Team"

Thanks in advance for any help regarding this matter you can provide. chase

P.S. For all you "just Google it first" folks, I thought it better to ask here first rather
than find some obtuse reference on the internet about this subject.

I've been sort of drifting back to film, specifically B&W. Picked up a Pentax LX (the top of line ca. 1980) and several lenses. Took a bunch of nice pics at a Cowboy Action Shooting match. Ended up digitizing them and sending to the participants. Decided I might want to try 120 film, so just got a 1970 Mamiya RB67 w/127 lens and 120 back. Picked it up from Fleabay for $199 shipped from Japan. Bought it on 11/13, arrived on 11/17. It's a monster, all mechanical and metal, weighs 6 pounds. B&H has 120 film. Will dig out my heavy tripod, Gossen meter and shoot some landscapes. At least I'll get out of the house with a specific purpose. Will post results in a while.

Beats having to wait (and pay for) for a Nikon 850; duh!

Church Key

I bought my Rollei back in 1956 and I seem to remember that the only Zeiss lenses available then were East German Jena made. I'm not even sure there was a 2.8 Planar then but I do know that all 3.5 Tessars were from "The Worker's Paradise." I didn't want any East German camera gear back then because I was aware of the fact that the Soviets had removed so much Zeiss machinery to Kiev, and supplied essentially inferior raw materials and lubricants that the quality of products severely deteriorated. In the '60s, I did use old Exacta lenses on a reversal ring to make stunning macro shots with a Pentax LX.

Despite my reluctance to buy USSR Occupied German gear, I did later acquire a Contax D, with Biogon lens, and several Exakta cameras with Zeiss glass. My prejudices against East German products was bang on where the cameras were concerned but the lenses weren't bad at all. I wasn't surprised at the pathetic showing of the Contax D, but, I was seriously disappointed about the Exaktas. When I was a teen ager - back in the Late Stone Age - I deeply lusted for an Exakta. They were pretty expensive then; thank God I was never able to scrape together enough money to buy one. When faced with their reality instead of my dream, I might have had has to lay my head on the railroad track and let the 5:15 pacify my weary mind.

Enough of the twist! ... Will this work better in Landscape Orientation, or in Portrait Orientation? ... Let's suppose there's an AFFORDABLE square format DSLR ... FF, APS-C, MFT ... whatever ... and, what I mean by affordable - is that you could buy it out of pocket, and NOT something you'd have to mortgage your house to acquire. ... I suppose you realize that one that shall remain nameless - you could actually buy a whole house in Quebec - for less!!!! .... But, let's think about it ... no more twisting backs (literal, as in RB/RZ land, nor - doing so, in a physical sense) in order to get the right perspective. All that would be done away with, wouldn't it? ... with a nice little square-format eye-level DSLR. Wouldn't it be a gas?