sml_photo Posted January 20, 2016 Share #1 Posted January 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I have a couple of tripods and RRS ("Really Right Stuff") ballheads, clamps, and camera plates that I use with my Canon gear. I'd like to use my tripod setups with my M-P (240). Though my Leica won't be used with a tripod as much as my Canon gear. I just want it for the flexibility when the occasion may arise. I've heard and read mixed results with the M (Type 240) plate made by RRS. Apparently, there's the chance that things won't align properly with the magnet. Though they said that some people have not had issues. At this moment, they do not have a M-P specific, dedicated plate. So, I am investigating.... I've found very little in the Leica Forum about this issue. Inconclusive. I have also spoken with RRS and they had a couple of suggestions: http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/B6-Bidirectional-plate-with-one-1-4-20-screw And, a friend suggested this from Peak Design: https://www.peakdesign.com/product/clips/proplate I also saw that some "older" posts mention the Arca-Swiss brackets. Does anyone have any practical experience with any of these alternatives? Thanks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 20, 2016 Posted January 20, 2016 Hi sml_photo, Take a look here Using a tripod with M-P (240)?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Jeff S Posted January 20, 2016 Share #2 Posted January 20, 2016 I've had no problem at all using the M240 replacement baseplate from RRS. I put it on the terrific and compact TQC-14 tripod with BH-30 head and QR plate. A friend of mine uses the same setup with success. Funny, but I may be going in the opposite direction....considering adding a Canon DSLR for more dedicated and flexible landscape work. (I gave up my medium and large format film cameras years ago, and miss some of that more contemplative approach.) If so, although the TQC-14 might work fine, I'd probably be inclined to get the TVC-24L with the BH55 QR head....same friend uses this with great success.....we've had good luck with RRS. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share #3 Posted January 20, 2016 Thanks for your feedback, Jeff. I wonder how many people are having problems with the M240 plate on the M-P 240 body. The guy on the phone at RRS told me they need a M-P body to use to measure and test. I will still be using my tripod mostly with the Canon gear as I have for years...mostly with landscapes, but also with some portraits, etc. That's why I'm thinking a simple quick fixes (as in my post above) may do the trick in the short term. Of course, though, the convenience of the L-plate is fantastic! I have the BH-40 and 25 and both work fine. My longest lens that I've used with them is a 70-200. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 20, 2016 Share #4 Posted January 20, 2016 I should clarify that I have the original M240, not the P version.....but I don't know why that would make a difference. I'm curious about your BH40 head with the 70-200. Do you notice any slippage at all? My friend switched to the BH55 after having some occasional slippage issues. I wonder, though, if that's solely due to his lack of L-plate use (until I recently suggested he try it), having instead tilted the ballhead down for verticals. He uses the 70-300L, which is relatively compact and light (2.3lb)....lighter than the 70-200 f2.8L, but heavier than the f4 L version. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 20, 2016 Share #5 Posted January 20, 2016 I use the Acratech 2137 plate with my M-P. http://www.acratech.net/quick-release-plates/2137/ It fits nicely and works well with the RRS or Acratech clamps. If you want to stick with RRS, I'd go with the B6 or B9 plates. Both work fine. The full bottom-plate replacement, to me, is overly expensive for what I want out of a camera plate. I normally keep the M-P in a leather half-case so that kind of plate isn't useful for me anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShawnK Posted January 20, 2016 Share #6 Posted January 20, 2016 Hi, I have my M(240) firmly attached to R.R.S base plate with hand grip and I love it. I haven't had any problem with it at all. Use it with when I need to w/BH-55. Am a quite a happy shooter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 20, 2016 Share #7 Posted January 20, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The full bottom-plate replacement, to me, is overly expensive for what I want out of a camera plate. I normally keep the M-P in a leather half-case so that kind of plate isn't useful for me anyway. Leather half-case?....overly expensive...adds bulk...and gets in the way....for me. Naked Ms....for 4 decades now. Different strokes.... Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share #8 Posted January 20, 2016 I should clarify that I have the original M240, not the P version.....but I don't know why that would make a difference. I'm curious about your BH40 head with the 70-200. Do you notice any slippage at all? My friend switched to the BH55 after having some occasional slippage issues. I wonder, though, if that's solely due to his lack of L-plate use (until I recently suggested he try it), having instead tilted the ballhead down for verticals. He uses the 70-300L, which is relatively compact and light (2.3lb)....lighter than the 70-200 f2.8L, but heavier than the f4 L version. Jeff I have never had any slippage issue with the BH-40 and my heavy 70-200mm Canon lens. When I got the ballhead a few years ago, I called RRS and asked for a recommendation with the assumption that the 70-200IS would be my heaviest lens. They suggested the BH40 and said that the BH55 was only needed for very heavy and very long lenses. I know that the BH-40 is rated to handle a lot of weight, though I don't recall the stats. By the way...now I'm thinking I have the BH-40 and BH-30 on my tripods. Not the 25. I think the 25 is on my table top tripod! I'll have to check later!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 20, 2016 Author Share #9 Posted January 20, 2016 I use the Acratech 2137 plate with my M-P. http://www.acratech.net/quick-release-plates/2137/ It fits nicely and works well with the RRS or Acratech clamps. If you want to stick with RRS, I'd go with the B6 or B9 plates. Both work fine. The full bottom-plate replacement, to me, is overly expensive for what I want out of a camera plate. I normally keep the M-P in a leather half-case so that kind of plate isn't useful for me anyway. Yes...B6 is what RRS recommended. I'll look at the B9 later, too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted January 20, 2016 Share #10 Posted January 20, 2016 Leather half-case?....overly expensive...adds bulk...and gets in the way....for me. Naked Ms....for 4 decades now. Different strokes.... To me, a half-case gives me a better grip, doesn't feel bulky, and isn't as slippery as the naked M body. Yes, it's expensive. So yes, different strokes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 20, 2016 Share #11 Posted January 20, 2016 The BM240 L set never caused any problem at all for me. I would have liked to be able to mount the L piece on the opposite end where the grip can go as I am left eyed but the locations are not interchangeable. I never saw a single problem with the B9-B & L piece with my M9. The very first production units proved to be a bight tight on some cameras (including mine) but RRS replaced them for free. As far as I am aware there is no base plate design difference at all between the M (Typ 240) models? I have used both the BH-40 and BH-30 heads for some time with M cameras, the BH-30 being on a compact travel tripod. I also used the BH-40 with the panorama clamp and bar etc. It all just worked perfectly. Now I use the BH-40 with the S. I have never experienced any slippage with that head even with the bigger heavier S personally. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share #12 Posted January 21, 2016 As far as I am aware there is no base plate design difference at all between the M (Typ 240) models? Interesting...glad to hear. It was the people at RRS (and a couple of posters on this site in an earlier thread) who suggested that "some people are having problems and some not" with the M (240) bracket on the M-P (240) body. I found that surprising since I had thought they were the same. But, apparently, the magnet doesn't line up properly for some and the camera "thinks" the bottom is not on the camera. So far, no one seems "here" seems to have had that problem. That's good! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bocaburger Posted January 21, 2016 Share #13 Posted January 21, 2016 I have a few small (about 1.25" square) Kirk Enterprises Arca plates lying around which work perfectly on the M240. Have a couple Arca ballheads, and a couple other heads with permanently (loctite blue) attached Kirk clamps. And sometimes I just use a Leica ballhead screwed into the socket. They all work fine. For tripods I have a small CF Gitzo and also a few of the Leica table tripods which I find sufficient for the M240. I do have a couple larger pods including a CF Gitzo but as the Leica is my travel kit I find those larger pods too cumbersome. 90% of the time the table pod does the trick, usually braced against some solid vertical object. Typically I use these for slow shutter speeds not bulb exposures. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Black Posted January 21, 2016 Share #14 Posted January 21, 2016 I bought my RRS M plate for the M-240 in 2013 and use it with the M-P issue all the time - zero issues. If there is a fitment issue, I never noticed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share #15 Posted January 21, 2016 90% of the time the table pod does the trick, usually braced against some solid vertical object. Typically I use these for slow shutter speeds not bulb exposures. Similar experience....though I don't find it works for me 90% of the time. That's why I'm shopping. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sml_photo Posted January 21, 2016 Author Share #16 Posted January 21, 2016 I bought my RRS M plate for the M-240 in 2013 and use it with the M-P issue all the time - zero issues. If there is a fitment issue, I never noticed. So far, no one in this thread has expressed any negative experience! I think I'm going to let RRS know that.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted January 21, 2016 Share #17 Posted January 21, 2016 Interesting...glad to hear. It was the people at RRS (and a couple of posters on this site in an earlier thread) who suggested that "some people are having problems and some not" with the M (240) bracket on the M-P (240) body. I found that surprising since I had thought they were the same. But, apparently, the magnet doesn't line up properly for some and the camera "thinks" the bottom is not on the camera. So far, no one seems "here" seems to have had that problem. That's good! Ok that is interesting. I guess it is possible that there is some dimension variability (tolerances?) with the different models. That happened with the first introduction of the M9 as I mentioned. The dimensions of the RRS base plates were some thousandths of an inch tighter than the original baseplate of my M9 as I recall. You could also call that a better fit ;-) . I am going to guess that the magnet location varies a little on the original baseplate? Of course during assembly the items would have been matched. That is any that did not work on the particular body would have been swapped? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Branch Posted January 21, 2016 Share #18 Posted January 21, 2016 I am using a Gitzo Traveller tripod, GK2580TQD, with a Gitzo GS5370D quick release plate. This tripod has been superseded but with my M240 it works very well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke_Miller Posted January 21, 2016 Share #19 Posted January 21, 2016 Regarding the RRS baseplate for the M-240 and M-P. I recently received one for my M-240 and it is properly recognized my the body. I noted that the one I received was different than the one shown on the RRS website. The magnetic material fitted to the inside of my baseplate covers a larger area than in the one illustrated. My assumption is this is done to accommodate the change to the M-P body. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevieg Posted January 21, 2016 Share #20 Posted January 21, 2016 My RRS L-plate and handle arrived before the M240! My leica baseplate has never left the original packaging box!! No issues since 2013 or whenever I got the camera. Used on Arca D4 and Gitzo (with Arca insert adaptor plate) heads, with no problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.