J
JasonTheBirder
Guest
Well I dunno. People here have admitted to leaving the D5's on the roof of cars, dropping 300 f/2.8's into mudholes, and running over their teleconverters.... so I wouldn't think it too unlikely. hahaha
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Recently Got 500mm PF - Foot Question
- Thread starter FreemanB
- Start date
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
Plus 10.
Maybe - but for those who are unable to "handle this lens sensibly" an alternative foot is an option.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
There are reasons that so many people have problems with the original Nikon foot for the 500mm PF. After mine had fallen to the ground and some friends mentioned Steve Perry's review video, I started communicating with him. By then, it was like 9 months since his original video was posted, and he told me that quite a few people had gotten in tough with him on that very issue.
I think it is fair to say that Nikon foot is kind of iffy to suspend the weight of the 500mm PF. In my case I also had a heavy D5 attached to it. IMO using a foot that is screwed onto the tripod collar is a far more secure arrangement. $70 or so is a small price to pay when you are getting a $3700 lens. In particular, the Nikon foot has no Arca-Swiss-style dove tail. You'll need something anyway if you want to use it as a quick release on a tripod or, as in my case, on a shoulder strap.
Leonard Shepherd
Forum Pro
My view is simple - - your lens did not "just fall to the ground".
The locking knob had to be loose - and the quick release (which does not release if the knob is tight) has to be pressed before the lens can separate from the collar.
With a basic technique similar to ensuring a lens is firmly attached to a tripod head, the tripod head is firmly locked in position and the tripod feet are splayed sufficiently apart for the shooting conditions - camera and/or lens combinations do not "just fall to the ground" - but they can - or the tripod can topple over - if one does not ensure all knobs etc are appropriately tight.
The same collar is used on the 70-200 FL from 2017, the 70-200 S - and either the same "safety measure" or something very similar was used on the 70-200 VR II from 2009 - a long time ago.
Does that mean a "quite a few people" did not check the locking knob was tightly locked?
--
Leonard Shepherd
In lots of ways good photography is much more about how equipment is used rather than anything else.
Last edited:
DAVID MANZE
Veteran Member
This is a nonsense Leonard !!
I think the "Nikon protection squad" is out in full force in this thread ...... defending to the hilt that Nikon could possibly have designed a poor tripod foot system ...
......... lens feet where you have to check tightness on a daily basis is simply a flawed design ....... quick release buttons millimetres away from where your hand is supporting the camera/ lens is simply a flawed design ..........
....... in short the foot is an accident waiting to happen ....... and testimonies here show the wait was short lived ....... all at the owners expense ...... doubly increased by the fact that he is obliged to buy another manufacturers foot so as to not risk it's re-occurrence.
....... Nikon's tripod feet have always been the subject of DPR threads.
......... it's a crap design ... simply ........ please stop defending the indefensible !!
--
Dave's clichés
Last edited:
shuncheung
Veteran Member
You are entitled to your view, but that is merely your speculation. Only I was there when it happened to me and only I know all the facts.
In my case, I cannot say that my knob was 100% tight, but certainly nobody pressed on the quick release. After two hours of shooting with the 500 PF with a D5 attached, that set up was suspended by a Kirk SS-1 strap over my shoulder while I was talking to a friend, who was inside his car and witnessed the entire episode. The 500 PF foot just suddenly separated from the collar, and my 500 PF + D5 fell to the ground.
Actually Nikon started using that tripod foot QR mechanism since at least 2003 with the first version of the 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR. I have both versions 1 and 2 of the 70-200, and I bought them in 2004 and 2010, respectively. In 2004 I bought the RRS replacement foot with that same QR mechanism and later on moved that foot to version 2 of the lens.
As in most RRS products, that RRS replacement foot is better made than Nikon's original but is also expensive. I have never had any issues with the RRS foot, but the 70-200/2.8 is a smaller and lighter lens, and I don't stress its tripod foot nearly as much. Since that is a smaller lens, I just mount it on the body and use the strap on the camera body.
If owners need to check that locking knob is tight once in a while, IMO that is a bad design. I have no need to "quick release" the 500mm PF foot at all. The Hejnar and Wimberley feet are screwed onto the tripod collar with a hex tool. I put that on once, tighten it and can simply forget about it forever.
Incidentally I bought the Wimberley replacement foot, but that foot needs a small pin to jam it in place. That is also not a good design. I have never seen the Hejnar foot, but I understand it is a much better fit.
A few months after my 500 PF incident, another friend of mine also bought a 500mm PF. After I mentioned it, he immediately noticed that his Nikon tripod foot was not that secure and bought the Hejnar replacement, which he is happy with.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
Very well said David.
Steve Perry is a long-time Nikon user and respected pro photographer with some fine instruction videos on YouTube. While my name should not be mentioned in the same sentence as Steve's, I have been using Nikon cameras since 1977 and currently own 40+ Nikkor lenses. Obviously generally I am happy with Nikon or I wouldn't be using so many of their products for over 40 years, but I also wouldn't hesitate to point out their cons.
After my D5 (attached to the 500 PF) hit the ground (concrete), the prism area cracked. I thought the repair bill could easily be over $1000, but "fortunately" it was only $600. Steve Perry asked me whether Nikon offered to pay for the repair; I didn't even bother to ask Nikon.
The 500mm PF is otherwise a great lens and that was precisely why it was on very short supply for like 2 years, even before the Covid-19 pandemic that is affecting manufacturing. Since plenty of owners want to get a Arca-Swiss QR foot anyway, I hope that they can some ideas from my bad experience and replace it with a foot that is securely screwed onto the collar.
DAVID MANZE
Veteran Member
Hi shuncheung !
You were lucky that this "poorly designed tripod foot incident" didn't cost you a lot more than 600 dollars (fortunately) ...... not that that could excuse their issue.
........ unfortunately folk here "want it to be your fault"! ....... rather than being sympathetic to the event ..... and turn round and accuse you of being incapable .......
...... so you get double the punishment .......... yeah nice !!
...... they know who they are !!
PS. ...... and no service advisories from Nikon ??
--
Dave's clichés
Last edited:
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
Hi David,
I am sympathetic to all who had an accident, any kind. I, and others, do not want to "make something into Suncheung's fault" or anyone else's.
One doesn't have to be a 'defender of Nikon" to use equipment properly, any brand of equipment. The simple fact is, as many users of this particular foot can attest to, that the foot only releases the lens if the locking nut is not tightened as it should be.
Yes, our highly esteemed colleague Steve Perry dropped his camera. This doesn't constitute to a design fault. It just shows that he can be making simple mistakes too. I feel sympathetic to Steve and everyone else who screwed up, sorry for the plain language, then made it to be a design fault.
Think about other equipment, like a motorcycle. I can put my bike into first gear and it will not move. Why? The clutch needs to be released. It is similar with the foot too, you want to release it and it just doesn't release. Why? The locking mechanism doesn't let it go. It only will release if the locking knob is loosened up. So what is wrong with the design? The locking knob untied itself? Or perhaps the operator never locked it.
Staying with the motorcycle example, nobody puts the bike into gear without making sure that the clutch is preventing it from jerking into motion while grinding the gears. There are two functions that need to be used in conjunction to operate the machine. Same with the tripod collar. There is a quick release for convenience and. a locking knob to assure that convenience doesn't turn into accident.
So, there is nothing political here and there is no brand defending here for the sake of being a brand defender. I would say that this is a matter of education nothing else. By pointing it out how the mechanism is to be used correctly is a form of help. User errors can always happen, we learn of those too and it can be costly in some cases.
Best regards, AIK
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
.....................My view is simple - - your lens did not "just fall to the ground".
You named the cause of the issue properly. Unfortunately, as I see it from other posts, folks with one hundred and eighty degrees different view are not acknowledging simple mechanical facts. Instead of they take aim at you, saying that you are not sympathetic to others, defender of the brand and so forth. Well that is how it is here.
I like Nikon equipment, have been using Nikon for decades. However, if something outright stupid would be brought to market by them I would not get into the ring to fight for it. This foot is not to my liking one hundred percent. However, the release mechanism is not the reason for my total approval. I'd like the foot to be bigger so that I could grab it with my hand, not with just two fingers. Then of course the perennial "non Arca Swiss" compatibility.
I just noted these things here to make it clear that I have no Nikon defender blood in my veins. However, the foot release issue is a non issue for me, the foot doesn't jut release by accident if properly used by the operator.
Best regards, AIK
Leonard,
You named the cause of the issue properly. Unfortunately, as I see it from other posts, folks with one hundred and eighty degrees different view are not acknowledging simple mechanical facts. Instead of they take aim at you, saying that you are not sympathetic to others, defender of the brand and so forth. Well that is how it is here.
I like Nikon equipment, have been using Nikon for decades. However, if something outright stupid would be brought to market by them I would not get into the ring to fight for it. This foot is not to my liking one hundred percent. However, the release mechanism is not the reason for my total approval. I'd like the foot to be bigger so that I could grab it with my hand, not with just two fingers. Then of course the perennial "non Arca Swiss" compatibility.
I just noted these things here to make it clear that I have no Nikon defender blood in my veins. However, the foot release issue is a non issue for me, the foot doesn't jut release by accident if properly used by the operator.
Best regards, AIK
shuncheung
Veteran Member
Of course I bare some responsibility that my lens foot detached from the lens. There is always a chance that I did not tighten the knob sufficient enough.
Professional photographers accidentally drop equipment once in a while. We all make mistakes, but I don't think Steve Perry would blame Nikon's lens foot if it were his own fault. I certainly wouldn't. But knowing the circumstance that my 500 PF foot came off by itself all of a sudden, I would not depend on Nikon's stock foot again. As I pointed out before, I had a D5 attached. That is as heavy a body as you can get so that the foot was suspending a pretty heavy load. I am sure that was a contributing factor.
The point is that a good design will hold up even though a user makes a small mistake; that can and will happen on a regular basis. A design that requires every user to be extremely careful and inspect their set up regularly is a bad design in my book.
DAVID MANZE
Veteran Member
It should not be possible be for any reason to have a tripod foot fall off .... not any!
All that is very well........ but lens feet continue to part ............
...... how many uneducated owners unaware of this problem will be sending their cameras/ lenses in for repair at their cost ....... in the meantime ?
.... simply this shouldn't happen on a £3,500 lens ..... there''s no way that could happen on the £1,200 Tamron 150-600mm G2 .... it can't come off ...... ever .... ever ......
...... until you remove the lens ....... and by the way it is an excellent robust Arcaswiss mount foot ..... with zero problems !!
--
Dave's clichés
Last edited:
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
I respect your opinion.
I hear your concern. That said, there here is no need to be extremely careful or constantly checking. I only use my locking knob if I take the foot off or reinstall it. Once it is tightened it will not get loose on its own.
Anyhow, I do understand that we all see things differently and use our gear differently. I also understand that you may not trust the original foot any more since you had a bad experience with it. In your case I totally agree that a replacement foot from RRS or Kirk will give you peace of mind.
As I mentioned in another post I shall replace mine too but for different reasons. I'd like to have a larger foot and with built in Arca-Swiss compatibility.
All the best, AIK
Antal I Kozma wrote:
"I like Nikon equipment, have been using Nikon for decades. However, if something outright stupid would be brought to market by them I would not get into the ring to fight for it. This foot is not to my liking one hundred percent. However, the release mechanism is not the reason for my total approval. I'd like the foot to be bigger so that I could grab it with my hand, not with just two fingers. Then of course the perennial "non Arca Swiss" compatibility."
Antal: At least you admit that the foot is not to your liking "100 percent". To me, the foot is more like a 2 or 3 out of a 10 for a perfect foot (and not worthy of this fantastic lens). it is extremely short and uncomfortable to use. The knob to tighten the foot (as well as the collar) are very small and cheap, say compared to the RRS knob on their replacement foot (I have a RRS replacement foot for my 70-200mm f/2.8 and the knob is so much better). And as you noted Nikon still insists on not adding the Arca compatibility as Tamron did on their most recent 150-600mm. Even the foot on the much cheaper 200-500mm lens is for me, much nicer.
As someone who holds the lens by the foot quite a bit, I could see easily accidentally releasing the foot since my fingers are always touching the release knob. And if traveling, waking up early for a morning shoot with little sleep, could easily see forgetting to check that the knob was fully tightened. Luckily I did not drop my lens, having seen Steve Perry's review and ordering a replacement foot to have on hand within days of receipt of my 500mm f/5.6 (since I wanted the Arca compatibility it was something I would have done anyway).
For those purchasing the 500mm f/5.6, this picture just shows how small the Nikon foot is compared to the Hejnar foot. I could barely get two fingers under the Nikon foot.
"I like Nikon equipment, have been using Nikon for decades. However, if something outright stupid would be brought to market by them I would not get into the ring to fight for it. This foot is not to my liking one hundred percent. However, the release mechanism is not the reason for my total approval. I'd like the foot to be bigger so that I could grab it with my hand, not with just two fingers. Then of course the perennial "non Arca Swiss" compatibility."
Antal: At least you admit that the foot is not to your liking "100 percent". To me, the foot is more like a 2 or 3 out of a 10 for a perfect foot (and not worthy of this fantastic lens). it is extremely short and uncomfortable to use. The knob to tighten the foot (as well as the collar) are very small and cheap, say compared to the RRS knob on their replacement foot (I have a RRS replacement foot for my 70-200mm f/2.8 and the knob is so much better). And as you noted Nikon still insists on not adding the Arca compatibility as Tamron did on their most recent 150-600mm. Even the foot on the much cheaper 200-500mm lens is for me, much nicer.
As someone who holds the lens by the foot quite a bit, I could see easily accidentally releasing the foot since my fingers are always touching the release knob. And if traveling, waking up early for a morning shoot with little sleep, could easily see forgetting to check that the knob was fully tightened. Luckily I did not drop my lens, having seen Steve Perry's review and ordering a replacement foot to have on hand within days of receipt of my 500mm f/5.6 (since I wanted the Arca compatibility it was something I would have done anyway).
For those purchasing the 500mm f/5.6, this picture just shows how small the Nikon foot is compared to the Hejnar foot. I could barely get two fingers under the Nikon foot.
Last edited:
Dbltfarmer
Senior Member
I'm sure this thread is going nowhere and soon will be locked. Design is also about functionality and ease of use. If an extra step has to be completed to secure the lens so that the foot will not come off then that is poor design. That flaw has been shown time and time again not only by professional photographer but also by the number of purchases of the Hejnar and Wimberely foots.
I work in and industry where missing a step can get people hurt or will tear up equipment.. We take every step seriously and when we can eliminate a step we do it to help protect ourselves and our equipment. If we have to put a guard on a chain drive or a Pto drive that the manufacture doesn't then we do it. Many times it will make another job more difficult but we realize what is at stake. We are meticulous and if the manufacturer doesn't then we let them know about their poor design.
My biggest question to Nikon is why did they put a detachable foot on this lens? No other lens over 200mm in focal length has a removable foot. The foot does nothing to hurt mobility and adds very little weight.
I spend 300 dollars a year on insurance for my cameras and lenses. While this insurance would cover damage from dropping a body or the lens i would rather not have that happen and find that a more secure foot gives me peace of mind knowing that the foot won't come off of the lens. That peace of mind cost me only 60 bucks plus I have a wimberly foot that gives me a quick release when I put my 500 pf on a tripod.
Roy Kikuta
Senior Member
Just how tight is "sufficient enough"? In my case, I "sufficiently" tightened the knob - then depressed the release lever and tried to slide the foot off. To my utter amazement, the foot slid off with "sufficient" pressure - detaching from the lens. Someone in another post mentioned needing to "really crank" on the knob (sometimes with a tool) to properly ensure the foot-lens connection was secure - I think that speaks to either poor design or poor manufacturing tolerances when more than "sufficient" force is required. Yes - the release lever was depressed in my test - but with such a short foot, it's inevitable that any hand carrying by the foot would easily cause contact with the release lever - again, a poor ergonomic design. Right after my experience with the inadvertent release, I bought the Hejnar foot - and have been using it for over 2 years without worrying. We've all experienced variability in lens build/performance - and considering the differing experiences some of us have had - I have no doubt that there was a production batch or two that had parts assembled in production with the wrong manufacturing tolerance issues adding up to less than secure operation.
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
Well, interesting how you put it that "at least I admit"........... It is not about admitting.... If something is not to my liking I say it out straight. Admitting something would imply a kind of grudgingly coming out with the ugly truth that one would have liked hiding.
No, I say what I do not like about the foot but it doesn't mean that I found everything wrong with the foot. The foot release system is not on my dislike list. Only the size of the foot from a hand holding point of view and the missing Arca-Swiss compatibility as my second gripe. I even find my Tamron 150-600 G2's foot a bit small. Short to be exact. I have rather large hands.
Now, any time I hear about the "cheap" release system I pick up my lens and give a second look at it. Do I miss something? Is it really a cheap piece of something that I overlooked? Well, I still find it quite reliable and well built. I cannot find mechanically faulty defects in it. And I push that release button hard, it doesn't even squeak. The knob finger tightened but not over tightened to strip it. There is one thing that I say though. The knob is proportionally small to the small foot.
So, if I were in the Nikon design team I would advocate to enlarge the foot, make it one inch or so longer and half of an inch taller. That would allow for clearance for the fingers between the lens barrel and the foot and four fingers could wrap around it. I just had a quick look at the foot and have come up with these numbers as a starting point.
Then of course Arca-Swiss compatibility would be the second change implemented. Now, with a physically enlarged foot the locking knob could be made proportionally larger for easier finger tightening. Alternatively the release system could be re-designed, although as I said earlier I am fine with the present one as well. If one of my colleagues would come up with an easy to implement but stupid proof new design then I would vote yes for it.
One thing I mention here though. Yes, there are a number of folks who dropped their gear because their locking knob wasn't locked in. That would imply that the foot is not good. However, nobody talks about the rest of us who never had an issue of dropping the gear because we locked that knob, since that is what it is for. So I wonder, is there a silent majority out there who just doesn't bother about saying that "hey we never had an issue with the foot"? I would think so. I wonder what the percentage is of total lenses in use versus lenses dropped by users.
All the best, AIK
Antal I Kozma
Senior Member
I principally agree with you. Both on design considerations and on the future of this thread. This forum is not the one where academic arguments are conducted. It usually ends up as trench warfare in the Great War.
I also worked in a design team where we had to solve fairly complex mechanical, pneumatic and electrical issues. I agree with the aim for designing durable, functional and aesthetically pleasing products. The team I was part of achieved some milestone designs, worthy of being proud of and internationally acclaimed by peers.
That said, I can look back and say that I would do some things differently if I could redo the project. There is always something better, things can be improved upon.
The after market industry exists because they do not have to come up with a complete and very complex design. They simply have to find a part that they can improve upon, manufacture that single part and offer it as a value added component.
Anyhow, I enjoyed your input and I am sure that we could conduct good conversations about design and photography.
All the best, AIK
I would agree with this vocal minority that says the foot is not good (hence my rating of 2 out of 10, to me a failing grade). I can't imagine using it to handhold the lens, it is so small and uncomfortable. Plus why risk having it release accidentally. Again, Nikon's ability to manufacture to requisite specs seems not always to be up to the task. I know this from the knob on my collar on this lens. It is impossible to tighten sufficiently that you can't turn the lens. So it seems quite reasonable that some people have dropped their lens due to the knob on the foot not completely locking without undue pressure. I don't understand why you and others so easily dismiss these people who have dropped their lens because others haven't. Even if this is only 1 percent or less of the people with the lens, this is a not a good foot. I would wonder what percentage of people with this lens have replaced the foot.
Last edited:
vbuhay
Veteran Member
Not just the foot, also the Tripod Collar Rotation Lock Knob (too tight and it gets slippery).... Kirk use to make them but it has been discontinued...
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum