Bottom Plate Attachment Concerns

[Washington]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is not my desire to start a whole new "something to worry about" thread.

But due to a discussion in another thread dealing with this topic I believed some

thought was necessary.

A poster was concerned with the strength of the bottom plate attachment as he

was wanting to use a heavy handle grip bottom mounted flash unit on his M-9.

He questioned the strength of the tab and slot attachment now used and rightfully

so as it turns out as, indeed, there have been bottom plate failures in the past.

The failures (as several other posters pointed out) seem to be due to stress

cracks originating in the sharp corners of the bottom plate. As any metal-worker

knows, sharp corners are NOT a good way to do things. (this is why round holes

are drilled at the end of a stress fracture to prevent further cracking)

So, the upshot of all of this, if this be a concern, is to use a swiss pattern

needle file to round out the ends of the slots.

Note: the round 5.5 mm studs (with a flat) and bottom plates in the older M cameras

had no such failures. (to my knowledge) cheers!

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[250swb]

I haven't seen any reports of M9 bottom plates breaking, but would be interested in a link as it could be a big problem. But it doesn't seem to be at the level of the reported M8 breaks where the bodyshell cracked and caused the bottom plate to come off. I think there were five cameras in that instance, unless the number has gone up since.

 

But regarding engineering solutions, a file will introduce stress raisers in the metalwork, small grooves that become the starting point of cracks. So it would be a good idea to carefully polish all the file marks out of the area to prevent this.

 

Steve

[jaapv]

It probably was a casting flaw in the bodyshells.

[Washington]

Cratex abrasive points in a Dremel motor tool again…. not only polish the surface of

the slot but add a slight radius to the edges which is good too.

[vanhulsenbeek]

Reports re this subject have been nonexistent since about two years now.

Looks it was a casting flaw indeed, or we all suddenly became very careful.

[Nicoleica]

It probably was a casting flaw in the bodyshells.

 

I have seen mention of a few cracks and breakages. Of note is the below image of a comment on the Leicatime website.

 

If my understanding of stress forces is correct, the M8/9 baseplate should be pretty strong in handling loads along the long axis of the base. (Such as those involved when fitting a flash bracket.) Where I suspect any weakness exists, would be in a bending moment fore and aft, such as fitting a heavy long lens and using a tripod fitted to the camera mount instead of mounting the lens to the tripod. Another possibility for damage could be when the lug is not engaged correctly when refitting the baseplate. In this respect, I found that the M8/9 does not always mate so easily as the design used in film M cameras.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes-but this plate has been weakened by the door. And it wasn't the baseplate that broke, but the bodyshell.

[Washington]

I did not know about these until swamiji mentioned them…. now here is a well made

and strong baseplate!

http://reallyrightstuff.com/mmrrs/Others/LeicaM8-M9.pdf

[ho_co]

Nicole, to my knowledge, that copy by Leicatime is incorrect, as Jaap pointed out.

 

There were a very small number of broken castings reported here, but I never saw a report that the baseplate had failed. I think Leicatime might want to back up or modify their copy, "... where some break of the normal baseplates has been reported."

 

I agree with you on the matter of stress points. A couple times, I've successfully engaged the closure key on my M8 baseplate only to find that the other end had not engaged.

[Washington]

I'm not a fan of the tab either. But, we do not hear about everything that goes on

with Leica cameras. So, I do have to wonder why a company with a fine reputation

for strength and quality as RRS has, went to the enormous trouble of developing

that lovely plate if there were no need for such?

[250swb]

I'm not a fan of the tab either. But, we do not hear about everything that goes on

with Leica cameras. So, I do have to wonder why a company with a fine reputation

for strength and quality as RRS has, went to the enormous trouble of developing

that lovely plate if there were no need for such?

 

Which would then imply that RRS have some inside information? Intriguing! Or are they simply reinventing the wheel? Lets all run around waving our arms about, there are no reports of failures in M9 baseplates, but heck what if one happened, we need to worry NOW!

 

Steve

[Washington]

The subject of these posts deals with the concern of those who wish to hang heavy

equipment from the bottom of their M-9 cameras. It is not, and has not implied that

the standard base plate is not perfectly fine for everything else. This is why I started

this thread noting this is not another "something to be afraid of" post.

The RRS plate is designed for this purpose not as a general replacement. The

RRS plate bottom has good machined in dovetail which also adds much strength

to the plate. There are numerous RSS quick release dovetail adapters which would

make a very strong connection for heavy flash units…. which is what this is all about.

It also serves to sell those pretty expensive quick releases for the benefit of RSS.

There is a long thread from this site some time ago loaded with praise for this

arrangement. Though it had mostly to do with tripod clamping a heavy flash is

the same idea.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Washington, Steve,

 

I bought an early L-plate from RRS that wasn't practical to take off.

Members of this forum got in touch with RRS and requested they design from scratch the base plate, etc. they are now selling.

Thanks to RRS for their willingness to develop and offer that plate.

The initial request had nothing to do with base plate failure modes, IIRC.

 

Best, K-H.

[Washington]

K-H,

Interesting! Again, I see the stock plate having no problems for average use…

but for heavy loading and/or secure mounting the RRS seems excellent.

So, from what you know of the origins of the project: what were the concerns

of the Leica owners who influenced RRS to build it?

[pico]

It is not my desire to start a whole new "something to worry about" thread.

But due to a discussion in another thread dealing with this topic I believed some

thought was necessary.

A poster was concerned with the strength of the bottom plate attachment as he

was wanting to use a heavy handle grip bottom mounted flash unit on his M-9. [... snip good article..]

 

Clearly, Leica's design for the tripod mount considered that it was suitable to their own design target, and not to be coupled to some foreign monster hammer-head unit of which they have no control.

 

I'm on Leica's' side here. You want to make it work, then look to outside resources. Do not blame Leica when you want to hang a monster on their camera.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Washington,

 

The original generic L-plate for M8 and then M9, when attached to the bottom plate, interfered with one side of the camera. So, in order to get to the battery or memory card one had to take off the L-plate before one could take off the bottom plate. Very cumbersome.

 

Folks wanted a good working L-plate so that they could take portrait rather than landscape shots.

The heaviest lens I mount on the M9+plate is the TE 135/4.

For heavier lenses I have a plate on the lens attached to a tripod and then the M9 is attached to the lens.

 

Best, K-H.

[Washington]

Then that would be a good thing for these big bottom mounted flash brackets too.

Instead of having to unscrew the mounting plate a quick-release would provide

instant entry for battery or card change. Thanks again.

[k-hawinkler]

Hi Washington,

 

Correct.

 

I still wouldn't mount a really heavy lens via the M9 attached to a tripod.

If the lens is approaching or exceeding the weight on an M9, I attach the lens to the tripod.

Works for me.

 

Best, K-H.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[tdtaylor]

I have both Luigi's Mate-2 and the RSS plate. No problems with any of them. Luigi's plate concerned me in the beginning, but has held up well. It is definitely lighter, compromised but the doors, but I don't use it on a tripod. I go to the RSS l plate on a tripod, and the RSS plate is more robust than the OEM.

 

Won't hesitate to mount anything to the RSS plate- solid. Although, on second thought, you can't mount anything to it except if it has the proper mounting grooves !

[elgenper]

OK, me again (the guy that started this row, that is...).

 

I feel most of the discussion has gone off on a tangent, so let me clarify my concerns:

 

I´m NOT primarily worrying about either the bottom plate itself or the visible portion of the tongue that holds it. I can see the possibility of fatigue around the slot ends in the bottom plate, but since I don´t vibrate the setup (I´m not THAT excited while shooting), metal fatigue isn´t a major threat. The RSS plate would certainly be sturdier, but it still attaches on that same tongue. And the tongue end is far stronger than the slot in the cover.

 

What I AM worried about, however, is the way the forces from that tongue, and from the locking mechanism, is transferred to the body casting. I can´t see, inspect and judge the area where this happens (Mark Norton, among others, know). But any insufficiency there might crack or damage the body casting, resulting in an extremely expensive repair. And those expenses will be on me, not Leica; I have no illusions there.