Reading mode: Light Dark

Is D700 tripod mount too far back?

Go to last post
A

Andy Cam

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
463
Reaction score
256
Location
US
Has anybody else experienced this problem (better still, has anybody else found a way to overcome this problem?) > > >

When using small footprint tripod-heads I find, no matter how tight I do them up, there just isn't enough grip to compensate the front weight of the D700 which, mainly when shooting vertically, slowly tilts forward.
The other problem is that the rubber on the base of the camera comes away.
It seems to me the tripod thread should be more central.

I realise an easy solution is to buy tripod heads with larger mounts, but for travel and trek purposes I'm trying to minimise weight. Besides, I'm fed up with having to throw money at problems.
 
there are other places you can't. If your tripod head does not do well with your D700 you need to replace it. What is the sense of lugging a tripod around if it does not hold the camera steady.

You need to "throw" money into another head!
--
Greg Gebhardt in
Jacksonville, Florida
 
Andy Cam said:
Has anybody else experienced this problem (better still, has anybody else found a way to overcome this problem?) > > >
Click to expand...
Yes, with a poor quality, $200 Manfrotto setup ... 190CLB + 486RC2 head. No matter how I tightened the head and clamp system, the whole thing just sagged when I had anything long-ish on the front of the D70s ....

My solution was the Feisol 3471 and Markins M20L ... I highly recommend you look into those lines ... even the smaller equipment by each manufacturer is well above what you are using today ...
Andy Cam said:
When using small footprint tripod-heads I find, no matter how tight I do them up, there just isn't enough grip to compensate the front weight of the D700 which, mainly when shooting vertically, slowly tilts forward.
Click to expand...
That's what junky tripods and heads do ... the only escape is quality ...
Andy Cam said:
The other problem is that the rubber on the base of the camera comes away.
It seems to me the tripod thread should be more central.
Click to expand...
It sounds like you are threading the cam onto the tripod when you mount. Yuck.

Use a mounting system with a plate or bracket (I always buy L brackets now) on the cam body and a clamp (arca style is the only way) on the ball head.
Andy Cam said:
I realise an easy solution is to buy tripod heads with larger mounts, but for travel and trek purposes I'm trying to minimise weight. Besides, I'm fed up with having to throw money at problems.
Click to expand...
You can buy decent small and light equipment ... but it does not come cheap. You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear ... cheap tripods will not do the job.

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Well, thanks for the advice -

Funnily enough I can use any of my 15-25 yr old heads without problem (but they all have pan/tilt handles so they 're too bulky for travel). Just looks like I bought modern consumer crap again (made by Manfrotto, and it wasn't cheap)

I'll look into those brackets some of you kindly pointed out.
 
Ultimately a quality head is in order but even so, sagging is a common problem when using heavy lenses.
Here's a possible solution for the sagging.

 
Kim Letkeman said:
Sagging is not common at all with pro heads like Markins, Kirk and RRS ... if a head sags, it is either misadjusted or it is ... well ... junk.
Click to expand...
The head doesn't sag - it locks tight. It's the camera that sags on the mount.

I know you people sometimes find words against Nikon amount to blashphemy - but this problem is largely caused by the crappy rubber bit on the bottom of the camera, which is not stuck down well (a problem, I'm told by my local dealer, with many Nikon's)

Anyway, I've now switched to a square, rather than round, mount which hopefully reduces the problem.
 
Andy Cam said:
Andy Cam said:
Sagging is not common at all with pro heads like Markins, Kirk and RRS ... if a head sags, it is either misadjusted or it is ... well ... junk.
Click to expand...
The head doesn't sag - it locks tight. It's the camera that sags on the mount.

I know you people sometimes find words against Nikon amount to blashphemy - but this problem is largely caused by the crappy rubber bit on the bottom of the camera, which is not stuck down well (a problem, I'm told by my local dealer, with many Nikon's)

Anyway, I've now switched to a square, rather than round, mount which hopefully reduces the problem.
Click to expand...
Are you mounting the camera directly to the tripod head? If so, the solution is a good Arca type plate that fits the D700. I personally recommend an L style plate. That combined with a high quality clamp mounted on your head should solve your problems with the added benefit of being able to mount your camera quickly and in the case of the L plate change from horizontal to vertical very quickly. If you have invested the money in the D700 and some good lenses you need to bite the bullet one more time.
--
Regards,

JR
 
Andy Cam said:
The head doesn't sag - it locks tight. It's the camera that sags on the mount.

I know you people sometimes find words against Nikon amount to blashphemy - but this problem is largely caused by the crappy rubber bit on the bottom of the camera, which is not stuck down well (a problem, I'm told by my local dealer, with many Nikon's)
Click to expand...
That makes no sense to me. You're saying that the camera sags in relation to the threaded metal socket in the bottom of the camera? Your sagging problem is not being caused by the rubber not being stuck down well. If anything your sagging problem sounds like it is coming from compression of the rubber on the bottom of the camera over time due to the tripod mounting plate being too small. By the same token the sag could be coming from the compression of the rubber/cork on the tripod mounting plate.

At the risk of sounding like a Nikon fanboy in your eyes it sounds to me like the problem is exactly as others have posted. You are not using a head/mounting plate that is adequate to the job.

--
Mike Dawson
 
I tried using a small travel tripod (giottos) with a small Manfrotto ball head. The ballhead came with a small camera plate. The setup wasn't really that inexpensive.

In Hawaii last December the volcano was really active and some great shots possible of the lava entering the ocean with it lighting up the sky at sunset. I was totally discouraged. The dam setup was lousy and I didn't get the shots I wanted when the scene was beautiful. The dam camera kept falling forward in a large crowd with me laying on the lava trying to sturdy the camera ugh!!!!!

I will stick with my Carbonone Manfrotto tripod (model 441) with the Kirk B1 ball head and Kirk camera mount for my travels. This setup cost me approximately $600+ dollars, but is a wonderful way to not miss shots that don't come often. The tripod goes into my carry on bag and the ball head into my camera bag.

Let's face it, anything small and light will not do the job when it comes to sturdying a fairly heavy DSLR.

Larry
 
Andy Cam said:
Andy Cam said:
Sagging is not common at all with pro heads like Markins, Kirk and RRS ... if a head sags, it is either misadjusted or it is ... well ... junk.
Click to expand...
The head doesn't sag - it locks tight. It's the camera that sags on the mount.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but that does not wash ... I've owned cheap tripods ... the whole system sags, from the crappy mount to the crappy head ...
Andy Cam said:
I know you people sometimes find words against Nikon amount to blashphemy -
Click to expand...
"you people?" :-)

"words against Nikon?" :-)

You have a strange way of making a point ... the camera does not sag when you have a proper mount on it. If you are just screwing in a crappy Manfrotto RC2, then that is not ... repeat not a proper mount. It is junk.
Andy Cam said:
but this problem is largely caused by the crappy rubber bit on the bottom of the camera, which is not stuck down well (a problem, I'm told by my local dealer, with many Nikon's)
Click to expand...
Baloney ... your local dealer is trying to sell you another camera. Never assume that he is trying to give you sage advice ...

That rubber bit on bottom of the camera does not come into play when you get either:

(a) A proper body plate to match the camera -- they do not sag or twist; or

(b) An L-Bracket. If you don't know what that is, look it up.
Andy Cam said:
Anyway, I've now switched to a square, rather than round, mount which hopefully reduces the problem.
Click to expand...
A round mount is a total joke ... a square mount that is not Arca Swiss is probably the same ...

Get some decent equipment (does not have to horribly expensive) and see the difference ... the plate or L-Bracket is like it is bonded with the camera when screwed in tightly and the clamp and plate have perfect positive lock when the screw is tightened.

Further, a professional ball head does not need tightening down ... it can be set to be movable easily while staying exactly where it is put when you have it where you want it. This is an amazing thing once you see it and use it ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
If the tripod thread hole was placed farther forward, there would be even less stability for long lenses, which would tend to make the camera droop even more severely. Use a MB unit to help ..... gives a larger footprint.
 
funnelwebmaster said:
It's light, strong, easy to use, and quite affordable, if not downright cheap. And made by a well known Italian company. Many would consider it the "Ferrary" of mounting systems. I've had mine for three yeasrs without a problem. Check it out!
http://www.amazon.com/Manfrotto-322RC2-Joystick-Head-Short/dp/B000184N22
Click to expand...
Hmmm ... don't take this the wrong way, but:

(a) The Manfrotto RC2 clamps do not bond with the camera at all, and the quick lock mechanism comes free at the slightest provocation.

(b) And while the pistol grip is wonderful for the kind of control it affords while lining up the cam, it is relying on spring pressure to hold the camera in place instead of a quality ball head's large ball and finely adjustable pressure mechanism for "sweet spot" maneuver of the camera without the need to use springs or knobs or anything while shooting.

It's all a little crude to be considered a Ferrari ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
Not only that but the load capacity is 5.5 lb in the vertical direction. I don't think I'd want to try using that with my D3 and the 28-70 f/2.8 or even my 300 f/4.
--
Mike Dawson
 
michaeladawson said:
Not only that but the load capacity is 5.5 lb in the vertical direction. I don't think I'd want to try using that with my D3 and the 28-70 f/2.8 or even my 300 f/4.
Click to expand...
True ... forgot to mention that ... load capacity is a torsional thing, and sag is too. So a small load capacity makes for a pretty saggy experience.

5.5 pounds is nothing when the camera has any weight that is not directly above the center of the tripod. And that happens all the time. The Markins M20L has 100lbs resistance ... even their smallest and lightest Q3 Traveler has 65lbs!

We're talking $309 versus $140 for a new pistol grip, but doubling the price here returns vastly more than double the performance. And I don't like using superlatives ... in this case, though, there is no question ...

--
http://kimletkeman.blogspot.com
http://letkeman.net/Photos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top