Reading mode: Light Dark

Just discovered something about Nikkor Z 70-200mm and 100-400mm

Go to last post
sandy b said:
Ok. Curious why they don't.
Click to expand...
They do not need to, their foot is entirely functional for the capabilities it has changing these adds risk, cost and weight and it increases stock holding issues.
sandy b said:
Maybe in different parts of the globe ARCA is not as widely used. Maybe Manfrotto is. I don't know. It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
Disagree. They have no need to.

Please note in recent Nikon documents the intention to partner more frequently -- this is precisely where 3rd party suppliers - Kirk, RRS, Wimberley, iShoot and now many many others at a wide range of prices fill the gap.

What is fleetingly irritating is when ones new Lens Arrives and none of the existing replacement feet fit -- this has happened to me 4 times now - the design of the foot attachment has changed in all Nikkor Z-mount lenses with removable feet to those Nikkor F-mount lenses with removable feet. Fleeting - because one can always bolt on a plate.

Given the observations from so many about use of replacement feet - WHY didn't Nikon reach out to 3 or 4 or more of the feet manufacturers well before it started shipping lenses so these folk could have made replacement feet in time for "us" to buy them and fit them to our new lenses?

--
areallygrumpyoldsod
 
Last edited:
sandy b said:
Ok. Curious why they don't. Maybe in different parts of the globe ARCA is not as widely used. Maybe Manfrotto is. I don't know. It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
The point is that ARCA grooves in the foot doesn´t change the fact that you can add a Manfrotto - or whatever - plate, and the demand is by an overwhelming margin for an ARCA comp foot.

Sigma, Tamron, Olympus - to name some - do it.

After all, it is very easy to do.

(The other problem is that Nikon isn´t exactly known for making good tripod foots....)
 
Last edited:
Ernie Misner said:
greendog said:
shuncheung said:
The Hejnar foot is screwed onto the 100-400 and 70-200's tripod collar and IMO is a lot more secure. Should you need to take it off, just unscrew with an Allen wrench.

Hejnar NFR-001 Foot on 100-400 S. It also fits the 70-200/2.8 S.
Hejnar NFR-001 Foot on 100-400 S. It also fits the 70-200/2.8 S.
Click to expand...
Well you all have gotten me nervous for my Z 100- 400 :-) and I just purchased this foot replacement. Thank you for the suggestion.
Click to expand...
Nice! Does this foot bypass (get rid of) the 4 tiny screws on the mounting block? That would be nice. Those screws keep coming loose for me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. Those 4 tiny screws fasten the mounting block, which is the male side of the dovetail, onto the tripod collar. The Hejnar foot has the female side of the dovetail that goes onto the mounting block, same way as the original Nikon foot goes onto the mounting block.

The big difference is that the Nikon foot has the type of quick release that caused my 500mm PF to fall. The Hejnar foot uses a larger screw and also has the A/S-style dovetail.
 
shuncheung said:
Ernie Misner said:
greendog said:
shuncheung said:
The Hejnar foot is screwed onto the 100-400 and 70-200's tripod collar and IMO is a lot more secure. Should you need to take it off, just unscrew with an Allen wrench.

Hejnar NFR-001 Foot on 100-400 S. It also fits the 70-200/2.8 S.
Hejnar NFR-001 Foot on 100-400 S. It also fits the 70-200/2.8 S.
Click to expand...
Well you all have gotten me nervous for my Z 100- 400 :-) and I just purchased this foot replacement. Thank you for the suggestion.
Click to expand...
Nice! Does this foot bypass (get rid of) the 4 tiny screws on the mounting block? That would be nice. Those screws keep coming loose for me.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but no. Those 4 tiny screws fasten the mounting block, which is the male side of the dovetail, onto the tripod collar. The Hejnar foot has the female side of the dovetail that goes onto the mounting block, same way as the original Nikon foot goes onto the mounting block.

The big difference is that the Nikon foot has the type of quick release that caused my 500mm PF to fall. The Hejnar foot uses a larger screw and also has the A/S-style dovetail.
Click to expand...
Go order JIT pattern cross head screwdrivers (they’re not Phillips!) and some low torque threadlocker. Pull two screws at a time and thoroughly clean them and their holes, apply a very small amount of the threadlocker and tighten. Repeat with the other two. Don’t overtighten!

--
Ken in New Hampshire
Railroad Action: http://www.pbase.com/kjford
Candids: http://www.pbase.com/kjford/other
 
sandy b said:
None of the big 3 mfg provides ARCA. As far as I know, it's not a standard.
Click to expand...
It's what I'd call a "weak standard".

This has a lot to do with a company that I usually refer to as "Really Wrong Stuff". They started out doing a half-assed job of measuring ARCA gear, and ended up making their first ARCA stuff too wide. This isn't much of a problem with most screw clamps (I did use Neewer clamps on a machine vision rig that would not work with Mr. Wrong's plates) but it's a major pain with lever operated quick releases. Mr. Wrong's competitor, back in the day, was a Star Trek themed company, something like Mr. Spock's photo equipment. Mr. Spock, being a methodical type of person, measured ARCA equipment more accurately than Mr. Wrong, so his stuff is completely interoperable with genuine ARCA gear and anyone else who makes stuff properly compatible with genuine ARCA gear, like Acratech and Markins. I have Mr. Spock's foot on my 70-200mm f/2.8, and his plates on my 300mm f/2.8 and 300mm f/4 micro-Nikkor.

As an interesting aside, Sunway Photo makes a lot of their plates in both sizes, so stock numbers ending in R are compatible with wrong equipment, and numbers without an R are compatible with, well, everyone else.

The moral of the story, ARCA can be a standard, if it's not in the Wrong hands.
 
Ellis Vener said:
While not an official standard, many photographers who use a quick release system prefer the speed, security, and versatility of using the Arca-Swiss system. Others may feel like it is either overkill or that quick release systems are not useful. I disagree with both of those view points but that’s just my opinion based on my experience based on using various QR systems (Arca-Swiss, various Manfrotto, Sachtler, Hasselblad, Novoflex (which looks like the Arca-Swiss design but has a smaller width), and Linhof), and none at all.

It would not cost Canon, Nikon, or Sony lens teams anything to incorporate an Arca-Swiss plate into their long lens tripod mounts and at most would add minimum weight and bulk to the foot. As long as the foot is tapped for standard tripod screws (1/4”-20 and 3/8”-16), people who want to use other QR systems or none at all will have that option.
Click to expand...
It would be great but it isn't going to happen, for me if it doesn't have a QD I would still need to change it anyway.

They have all been asked many times their answers are always a combination of:

It isn't a standard and there are lot's of variations they don't want to deal with.

Arca swiss own the IP and don't license it. They have never enforced it but that isn't the same thing.

Other mounting systems would say it stifled competition.

In Nikon's case, their own branded tripods, use Manfrotto mount so their tripods would be incompatible with their lenses.
 
Last edited:
sandy b said:
Ok. Curious why they don't. Maybe in different parts of the globe ARCA is not as widely used.
Click to expand...
No. It's pretty popular across the entire workd.
sandy b said:
Maybe Manfrotto is.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto has six different quick release plates, none of which interoperate with each other. Some of them are bloody huge, 3 times the size of an ARCA plate, although less secure than the smaller ARCA.

Manfrotto also makes a line of heads that have an ARCA clamp, although being a big company, they don't actually say "ARCA", they call it the "top lock". They (and by they, I mean "me") also discovered that one of Manfrotto's existing systems, the RC2, was close enough to ARCA dimensions to interoperate if you got a little clever. The RC2 uses cast plates with a 30 degree dovetail angle, while ARCA uses a 45 degree dovetail. The obvious effect of putting a 45 degree plate in a 30 degree clamp is that the plate only engages at the bottom edge of the bevel, which isn't the strongest situation. It's a lot better if you put a 30 degree plate in a 45 degree clamp. The contact point is at the top, closest to the edge between the plate bottom and the dovetail.

Manfrotto has never so much as thanked me for pointing out this comparability. They just launched the product like it was their own idea. That's OK by me: although I said early on it was "possible", I also said that it was "a bad idea (tm)". Especially since Manfrotto still casts everything instead of machining it the way their competitors do.
sandy b said:
I don't know. It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
"Certainly". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There aren't just "a couple of different styles". There's two common sizes of "ARCA" plate, along with six Manfrotto plates, and proprietary plats from a dozen other popular manufacturers.

Then there's the issue of intellectual property. I mean, if the IP is a handfull of small machine shop operators it's hardly worth the effort to go after them in court. Ditto for larger Chinese companies like Benro or Sunway. Suing Chinese companies for IP violations is a complex international shell-game.

There's also the issue of incompatible safety systems between different plate manufacturers.

And if it's an option not in the box, then it's a distribution problem, too.
 
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
sandy b said:
Ok. Curious why they don't. Maybe in different parts of the globe ARCA is not as widely used.
Click to expand...
No. It's pretty popular across the entire workd.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
Maybe Manfrotto is.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto has six different quick release plates, none of which interoperate with each other. Some of them are bloody huge, 3 times the size of an ARCA plate, although less secure than the smaller ARCA.

Manfrotto also makes a line of heads that have an ARCA clamp, although being a big company, they don't actually say "ARCA", they call it the "top lock". They (and by they, I mean "me") also discovered that one of Manfrotto's existing systems, the RC2, was close enough to ARCA dimensions to interoperate if you got a little clever. The RC2 uses cast plates with a 30 degree dovetail angle, while ARCA uses a 45 degree dovetail. The obvious effect of putting a 45 degree plate in a 30 degree clamp is that the plate only engages at the bottom edge of the bevel, which isn't the strongest situation. It's a lot better if you put a 30 degree plate in a 45 degree clamp. The contact point is at the top, closest to the edge between the plate bottom and the dovetail.

Manfrotto has never so much as thanked me for pointing out this comparability. They just launched the product like it was their own idea. That's OK by me: although I said early on it was "possible", I also said that it was "a bad idea (tm)". Especially since Manfrotto still casts everything instead of machining it the way their competitors do.
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
I don't know. It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
"Certainly". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There aren't just "a couple of different styles". There's two common sizes of "ARCA" plate, along with six Manfrotto plates, and proprietary plats from a dozen other popular manufacturers.

Then there's the issue of intellectual property. I mean, if the IP is a handfull of small machine shop operators it's hardly worth the effort to go after them in court. Ditto for larger Chinese companies like Benro or Sunway. Suing Chinese companies for IP violations is a complex international shell-game.

There's also the issue of incompatible safety systems between different plate manufacturers.

And if it's an option not in the box, then it's a distribution problem, too.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto‘s inability to standardize on one QD across their line is what finally made me switch years back. That, and so many of their QD plates were so small.
 
HeavyDuty said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
sandy b said:
Ok. Curious why they don't. Maybe in different parts of the globe ARCA is not as widely used.
Click to expand...
No. It's pretty popular across the entire workd.
HeavyDuty said:
Maybe Manfrotto is.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto has six different quick release plates, none of which interoperate with each other. Some of them are bloody huge, 3 times the size of an ARCA plate, although less secure than the smaller ARCA.

Manfrotto also makes a line of heads that have an ARCA clamp, although being a big company, they don't actually say "ARCA", they call it the "top lock". They (and by they, I mean "me") also discovered that one of Manfrotto's existing systems, the RC2, was close enough to ARCA dimensions to interoperate if you got a little clever. The RC2 uses cast plates with a 30 degree dovetail angle, while ARCA uses a 45 degree dovetail. The obvious effect of putting a 45 degree plate in a 30 degree clamp is that the plate only engages at the bottom edge of the bevel, which isn't the strongest situation. It's a lot better if you put a 30 degree plate in a 45 degree clamp. The contact point is at the top, closest to the edge between the plate bottom and the dovetail.

Manfrotto has never so much as thanked me for pointing out this comparability. They just launched the product like it was their own idea. That's OK by me: although I said early on it was "possible", I also said that it was "a bad idea (tm)". Especially since Manfrotto still casts everything instead of machining it the way their competitors do.
HeavyDuty said:
I don't know. It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
"Certainly". You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

There aren't just "a couple of different styles". There's two common sizes of "ARCA" plate, along with six Manfrotto plates, and proprietary plats from a dozen other popular manufacturers.

Then there's the issue of intellectual property. I mean, if the IP is a handfull of small machine shop operators it's hardly worth the effort to go after them in court. Ditto for larger Chinese companies like Benro or Sunway. Suing Chinese companies for IP violations is a complex international shell-game.

There's also the issue of incompatible safety systems between different plate manufacturers.

And if it's an option not in the box, then it's a distribution problem, too.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto‘s inability to standardize on one QD across their line is what finally made me switch years back. That, and so many of their QD plates were so small.
Click to expand...
+1
 
sandy b said:
It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
That certainly does present difficulties for Nikon, et.al:

- both style would need to be designed and manufactured.

- both styles would need to be stocked and shipped from factories, distributors, and retailers.

- both styles will need to be marketed.

To me, what would make sense is for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and other lens manufacturers to follow Sigma and Tamron’s lead and make one style of foot: one with Arca-Swiss conforming (width and angle) bevels on the sides, and tapped with 3/8”-16 and a 1/4”-20 threaded receivers . The sockets and straight edges on the sides and ends would allow users to attach other QR systems, a Magpul type QD for a sling strap or accommodate those who just want to screw the heads to the head or other support.

--
Ellis Vener
A working photographer since 1984.
To see my work, please visit http://www.ellisvener.com
Or on Instagram @EllisVenerStudio
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
HeavyDuty said:
Ordered for my 70-200S Wednesday, arrived today. It mounted right up, as expected. Beautifully made, too. Thanks for bringing these to my attention, @shuncheung!
Click to expand...
Always glad to help you spend your hard-earned $$. :-D

Seriously, Hejnar is doing a good job. The two feet fit my 100-400 S and 70-200 S like hand in glove. I feel a lot more comfortable since there is no more quick release.

Hejnar also has a "low-profile" version of that same foot, but the plate is much closer to the lens barrel. Since I like to hold the lens with my fingers wrapping around the foot, I need that space between the foot and the lens barrel.
 
HeavyDuty said:
Joseph S Wisniewski said:
HeavyDuty said:
Maybe Manfrotto is.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto has six different quick release plates, none of which interoperate with each other. Some of them are bloody huge, 3 times the size of an ARCA plate, although less secure than the smaller ARCA.

Then there's the issue of intellectual property. I mean, if the IP is a handfull of small machine shop operators it's hardly worth the effort to go after them in court. Ditto for larger Chinese companies like Benro or Sunway. Suing Chinese companies for IP violations is a complex international shell-game.

There's also the issue of incompatible safety systems between different plate manufacturers.

And if it's an option not in the box, then it's a distribution problem, too.
Click to expand...
Manfrotto‘s inability to standardize on one QD across their line is what finally made me switch years back. That, and so many of their QD plates were so small.
Click to expand...
Well, in Manfrotto's defense: they're old and they're European. They're heavily invested in the high-volume, low-cost, medium precision technology of their day: crudely cast aluminum. Many other companies followed suit. Angles on dovetails and locking cams were typically 30 degrees, which is "casting friendly". Cam mechanisms and safety mechanisms had long throws. Product lines lingered for years longer than other countries, because Europe. And cameras spanned an insane range from 1/2 frame "point and shoot" to 30lb video cameras and even 200lb TV cameras. You can't make a "one size fits all" release for that.

At the time, ARCA releases were only made by one company: ARCA Swiss, using the low-volume, high cost, high precision technology of their day: machined extruded aluminum. Harder, stronger, and more precise than what Manfrotto and the cast of casters could produce, but far, far more expensive: which is why we saw it only on the world's most expensive view-camera line. The dovetail angle was 45 degrees, hella stronger than 30 degrees, as suited very heavy gear.

Then came the 90s, and Mr. Wrong and Mr. Spock noticed there was a convergence: the availability of lower-cost CNC mills + better CAD + a possible market for higher cost, higher precision tripod heads and release systems than what we were getting from the cast of casters. And this was good.

They chose the ARCA Swiss dovetail, and this was also good, except... the ARCA dovetail had no real "safety system" and it was difficult to make something as "foolproof" as a Manfrotto RC-4 plate and clamp. They improvised, but it was real hack-work. People who jumped on the ARCA bandwagon years later also tried to improvise better safety systems, which resulted in a bunch of incompatible offerings. (I prefer the pop-up pin used by Acratech and Markins. More foolproof and much stronger than what Mr. Wrong and Mr. Spock did)

Now, countries like China can set up giant shops filled with CNC mills and churn out affordable Benro, Sunway, etc. ARCA plates, but I'm not sure Europe is at that point yet. So until Manfrotto becomes a marketing company, farming all the manufacturing out to the east, they're going to have their six incompatible release systems.

--
Christine Fleischer 1947-2014.
My soulmate. There are no other words.
-----
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008.
Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed.
----
Ciao! Joseph
www.swissarmyfork.com
 
Ellis Vener said:
Ellis Vener said:
It certainly would not be difficult for Nikon to supply a couple of different styles with the higher end lens, either in the box or as an option.
Click to expand...
That certainly does present difficulties for Nikon, et.al:

- both style would need to be designed and manufactured.

- both styles would need to be stocked and shipped from factories, distributors, and retailers.

- both styles will need to be marketed.
Click to expand...
Valid points.
Ellis Vener said:
To me, what would make sense is for Canon, Nikon, Sony, and other lens manufacturers to follow Sigma and Tamron’s lead and make one style of foot: one with Arca-Swiss conforming (width and angle) bevels on the sides, and tapped with 3/8”-16 and a 1/4”-20 threaded receivers .
Click to expand...
Did Sigma and Tamron do that? Which "ARCA Swiss conforming" width did they choose: RRS about 0.5mm off, or the one Kirk/Acratech/etc. use that is actually ARCA compatible?

I mean, this is a problem for the whole industry. I have Sunway DPG-39 plates on some stuff: Sunway makes a DPG-39R in RRS width and a DPG-39 (without the "R") in actual ARCA width. Because of Mr. Wrong, manufacturers either have to pick a side or make twice as many different models.
 
I just ordered a second Hejnar NFR001 for the 100-400 I just ordered. I really like his stuff!
 
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