jaapv Posted March 7, 2011 Share #21 Posted March 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) The four or five cracked bodyshells of M8 cameras that fell off tripods etc, there was one small batch with the problem apparently, were repaired by Leica free of chargel Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 7, 2011 Posted March 7, 2011 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Bottom Plate Attachment Concerns. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Shootist Posted March 7, 2011 Share #22 Posted March 7, 2011 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. Actually the body casting broke on the other end, the locking end. Not the hook end. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted March 7, 2011 Share #23 Posted March 7, 2011 The four or five cracked bodyshells of M8 cameras that fell off tripods etc, there was one small batch with the problem apparently, were repaired by Leica free of chargel There were some that did NOT FALL OFF tripods. The body casing failed when the camera was on a tripod. Leica's suggestion was not to use it on a tripod!!!!! Then don't put a threaded socket in the base plate. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 7, 2011 Share #24 Posted March 7, 2011 Ok the others are covered under my "etc." - but the point was that it was clearly a casting failure, not a baseplate breaking. We did not see any similar reports after this small run, so I think there has been an intensifying of the checking of the castings. And yes, that reaction by somebody at Leica was pretty dumb. Unless it was an attempt at a German joke... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted March 7, 2011 Share #25 Posted March 7, 2011 Perhaps one could mount a large flash as Leica did with the SELSY - horizontally below the camera. I don't have a picture of the SELSY, but I'll bet there is one here somewhere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share #26 Posted March 7, 2011 Concerning tripod mounting: unless I am using a reasonably light lens I never use the plate attachment myself. In fact I don't do this with any camera. Other than over stressing the camera, a heavy lens throughs off the balance making the rig hard to adjust and stay that way during picture framing. Good long (heavy) lenses have their own mounts for just these reasons. The heavy Leica gear has 3/8' or 1/4" threads for just this. The Visoflex housing, which is a super strong casting has a very strong mount as do the long lens adapters…. and I mean strong! So, it is true that Leica and other companies do not intend the body mount to be tortured in the first place. I guess this whole thing should have been framed as: "if I have to use to body mount for something, what can I reasonably expect to get away with safely?" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share #27 Posted March 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Per, You know after rereading this myself I realize I did indeed frame my original concern incorrectly by using your concern as an example of my own… I apologize for this as my wording should have been that your concern is similar to my own. I have been wondering about the best way to mount a bracket from the body for that contraption I built for long range fill-flash. And, as I said above, I wondering what the practical limits might be in terms of body bottom plate connection strength. In this regard, the RRS plate was something I learned about due to this thread and that is good in that it offers a usable option to consider. Thanks and cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted March 7, 2011 Share #28 Posted March 7, 2011 Per, You know after rereading this myself I realize I did indeed frame my original concern incorrectly by using your concern as an example of my own… I apologize for this as my wording should have been that your concern is similar to my own. No problem at all. There are several ways to skin a Leica, and my personal way probably isn´t the most common one nowadays. It´s just that I felt a bit alone worrying about the body casting instead of just the plate itself. I have been wondering about the best way to mount a bracket from the body forthat contraption I built for long range fill-flash. And, as I said above, I wondering what the practical limits might be in terms of body bottom plate connection strength. In this regard, the RRS plate was something I learned about due to this thread and that is good in that it offers a usable option to consider. Thanks and cheers. I looked long and hard at those RRS plates, and they certainly look sturdy. But, as I perceive it, the vertical mount plate and the handgrip (both optional add-ons) don´t actually ´grab´ the ends of the camera body in such a way that they can help with spreading the torque forces over a larger part of the body casting. But I haven´t seen one in the flesh, so I may be wrong. Maybe a reinforced Luigi half case with integrated flash bracket would be what I need... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share #29 Posted March 7, 2011 This may serve to demonstrate my own flash mounting concerns. The total weight of the flash and extender do not seem to be so heavy as to cause camera body/plate failure…. but is is enough to flex the flimsy bottom mounted flash bracket downward. To me, the RRS set-up may be the best answer as the plate can be quickly be removed on the tripod for battery/card access and, most of all the flash mount is strong. 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/145695-bottom-plate-attachment-concerns/?do=findComment&comment=1609317'>More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted March 7, 2011 Share #30 Posted March 7, 2011 Washington I think that you DID start a thread on a new thing to worry about A tiny handful of reports in the past does not prove a deficiency in the design. Tens of thousands of M8 and M9 cameras out there . From memory the tab in any case was not part of the failures shown. It was the edge of the body casting where it was engaged by the rotating lock mechanism. But the reason that the RRS plate (and its optional L bracket) exists of course is to provide the quick release surfaces to work with their ball heads. The particular design was after input from a lot of users. It is much more rigid than the original which may or may not be relevant or even better considering the way the plate is cammed into position by the locking mechanism. Very well made, sure. Tighter fit than the original, sure. A viable replacement if you want to preserve the original, sure. It is heavier and a little larger (thicker) as a trade off. Remember that if you attach the RRS base plate it engages on the body in exactly the same way and to the same surfaces as the standard base, except that it is under more tension and is more rigid. 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? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 7, 2011 Author Share #31 Posted March 7, 2011 hoppyman: you speak true, Kemosabe! Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted March 8, 2011 Share #32 Posted March 8, 2011 This may serve to demonstrate my own flash mounting concerns.The total weight of the flash and extender do not seem to be so heavy as to cause camera body/plate failure…. but is is enough to flex the flimsy bottom mounted flash bracket downward. To me, the RRS set-up may be the best answer as the plate can be quickly be removed on the tripod for battery/card access and, most of all the flash mount is strong. Washington, you never cease to amaze me- please keep up your fascinating explorations . I may not follow in the M realm, but I get there in the Nikon realm (probably the whimp realm). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdtaylor Posted March 8, 2011 Share #33 Posted March 8, 2011 By the way, I see the dust free environmental bag experiment in the background- haven't heard the latest. Did it work as expected? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 8, 2011 Author Share #34 Posted March 8, 2011 I have not as yet added a better exterior filter/blower system to the thing - so there will be more room within the "bag" to work. I think it might be ok. We will see….. eventually. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicoleica Posted March 8, 2011 Share #35 Posted March 8, 2011 This may serve to demonstrate my own flash mounting concerns.The total weight of the flash and extender do not seem to be so heavy as to cause camera body/plate failure…. but is is enough to flex the flimsy bottom mounted flash bracket downward. To me, the RRS set-up may be the best answer as the plate can be quickly be removed on the tripod for battery/card access and, most of all the flash mount is strong. With the arrangement illustrated, you could use a plate/bar between the lens and camera tripod mounts. This would transfer some of loads away from the baseplate and into the tripod. Perhaps one of those cheap flash-bracket bars could be used if your tripod head has a long enough thread. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 9, 2011 Author Share #36 Posted March 9, 2011 Nicole, That's the trouble…. I am using a cheap flash bracket and the bottom is ok it's the upright portion that holds the flash shoes that flexes forward! Partially due to the bend transition from flat bottom plate to upright. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Washington Posted March 10, 2011 Author Share #37 Posted March 10, 2011 Update: The RSS bottom plate and bracket are on the way and I look forward to a rugged solution. I'll post a picture when all is done. (I don't know which RSS quick release mount I need yet as that will depend on the rig and flash fit when I fit it). Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgenper Posted March 10, 2011 Share #38 Posted March 10, 2011 Update: The RSS bottom plate and bracket are on the way and I look forward to a rugged solution. I'll post a picture when all is done. (I don't know which RSS quick release mount I need yet as that will depend on the rig and flash fit when I fit it). Cheers. Great! Please let us know if it does grab the camera body ends in any way, or if it still depends on the same mounting points as the original bottom plate! (Btw, I´m a bit miffed at you, Washington..... Your various posts have made me want a Visoflex badly.... ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 10, 2011 Share #39 Posted March 10, 2011 Update:The RSS bottom plate and bracket are on the way and I look forward to a rugged solution. I'll post a picture when all is done. (I don't know which RSS quick release mount I need yet as that will depend on the rig and flash fit when I fit it). Cheers. I'm still mystified how a more rugged baseplate is going to strengthen the bodyshell. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
archi4 Posted March 10, 2011 Share #40 Posted March 10, 2011 Jaap Of course it won't - on the contrary. To add to my post in another thread: The stress when you have the flash mounted on the bracket providing the camera is not tilted up or down will result in compression at one end and tension at the other end which I assume the body casting can take. (my assumption!!) However, torque (a moment) in the axis of the lens or as you will at right angles to the length of the base plate will give much greater stress as the arm is much smaller (1/2 the width of the base plate). Which is probably why a heavy lens on a tripod combined maybe with trying to point the camera body up or down caused the problems. Just my guesswork. maurice Adding to that that in my opinion The moment in the axis of the lens or as you will at right angles to the length of the base plate will result in a moment (torsion) in the body shell at right angles to the body shell's length resulting in tension and compression forces and shear. Because the shell is made of a much more brittle material than steel, it cannot deform as much and could crack. I would prefer the baseplate to deform easily than having it transfer the full torque immediately to the body casting. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.