L Plates should be featherweight. Why no $12 plastic / polymer L Plates?

I appreciate the value of an L plate. I'd really like to be able to leave it on

all the time. But only 5% of my shooting is with a tripod, so it makes no sense

to add that huge amount of weight to my otherwise lightweight D80.

 

I don't understand why nobody makes a plastic (polymer,

whatever) "backpacker's" L plate that weighs just a fraction of one ounce.

 

It's possible that there would be a measurable vibration/isolation

disadvantage, but that's truly inconsequential to many of us, who are shooting

in situations where the need for a tripod was marginal to begin with.

 

And if anything, the more flexible plastic would provide MORE drop damage

protection. (Think of rigid steel cages versus crumple zones in cars.)

 

In sum, an economy line of L plates should be made of plastic, cost $12, and

come in packs of three.

 

And I'd think an entrepreneurial hobbyist with some moulds could begin this as

an ebay business.

 

What am I overlooking?

Why not just leave the L plate on the tripod and attach the camera as needed

As a machinist I have made standard plates of Lexan, an almost unbreakable plastic. But I lack the CNC machinery to build the complicated lines of the L plates. Looks like it is possible to me though.

If you believe in the "efficient markets" hypothesis, then you would expect the markets to be awash in alternatives to $100+ metallic L-plates, especially on eBay. But that doesn't seem to be the case! Why?

 

Ah! Maybe there's no demand for them? If you go back to basic principles you can see that the rationale for an L-plate is to be able to reorient your body on a tripod without incurring the vibrational penalty of a 90? flop-drop. The critical element here is that the use of an L-plate is predicated on the use of the tripod.

 

Still, the idea of making lighter L-plates is attractive if it can be done more cheaply and with no vibrational penalties. It may be, however, that those conditions can't be met. For example, Lexan may be tough enough but is it as vibration-resistant as aircraft aluminum? I don't know, I'm just asking.

Hi Gentleman,

 

Well, it sounds like the question wasn't completely without merit.

 

Frank -- re: just leaving the bracket on the tripod -- That is indeed an improvement. Limitations include multiple cameras used on the tripod (so dedicating the tripod to one L-plate is awkward), and the plate's unnecessary weight is transferred to the tripod, which I still have to carry sometimes, rather than eliminated.

 

Curt -- you've made plates out of Lexan. If there was going to be a vibrational problem, you'd have experienced it. Was there?

 

Bruce -- you write: "the rationale for an L-plate is to be able to reorient your body on a tripod without incurring the vibrational penalty of a 90 degree flop-drop". I guess priorities differ. For me, the key function of an L-plate is different. It's that it frees me from the need to recompose a scene after a flop-drop.

 

I don't often lose shots to subtle vibrational differences; usually, in my photography, whether to use a tripod at ALL is a judgment call. So I'm doubtful that introducing a bit of thick lexan into the mix would create enough vibration to ruin many photos. Of course, different photographers working at different tolerances. I can easily imagine photographers who needed to eliminate every measurable difference in vibration.

An L plate in portrait mode vibrates more than a ballhead flopped over. At least according to my tests...

 

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l_bracket_vertical_test

 

That was with an RRS L bracket. A shooter later contacted me, reporting the same problem with a Kirk L bracket. He was troubled with blurry tripod mounted images and never understood why until he ran across my test images. Suprisingly, he was using a short focal length Nikkor 17-55DX.

 

A lexan bottom plate *might* make sense, but I would think Lexan would be even more "springy" due to the vibration issues inherent in an L configuration. I have also noticed that my high grade aluminum plate rails get nicked over time. They take a lot of abuse. How would lexan hold up? They would be more disposable in nature and would have to be very cheap to be worthwhile in the long run.

 

There is nothing wrong with product choice, but don't underestimate the need for rigidity in an L bracket (and the need to use MLU for slow shutter speeds in portrait mode). If you use an L you should reproduce my tests with your lenses at different shutter speeds so you know when you need to use MLU.

 

Personally I don't like having to mount and dismount plates; that is the advantage of a good plate system. Everything is always ready to go. Despite my tests on a D2H, I bought an L for my new D200 because, among other things, especially in that body style, I find an L bracket to be more comfortable while hand holding than a bottom plate because the relatively sharp (albeit rounded) corners of the bottom plate dig into my palm. An L bracket is continuous around the edge of the body; no termination point that digs into the palm.

 

Regards,

Neil

That's very interesting Neil.

 

I also prefer having an L-plate on my main camera all the time and therefore always ready-to-go. No need to screw or unscrew anything. I LIKE the added BULK in my hand, like you do.

 

...I just can't tolerate the substantial added WEIGHT.

 

So for me, the risk of a bit more vibration from a stiff, featherweight, plastic L-plate would be well worth the trade-off.

 

It would allow me to leave the L-plate on 24/7, which is wonderful.

 

I'm doubtful the difference in vibration would create a major problem for the kind of tripod shots I do. And there are some very rigid lightweight plastics -- think: orthodontic devices, orthopedic devices, etc. I think those things wear exceedingly well, too. So it wouldn't necessarily need to be disposable.

 

A much more ambitious solution would be for the camera manufacturers to add a tiny secondary anchor point on the side of the camera bodies. End of portrait vibration problems, whether the plate is plastic or metal.

 

Well, a plastic L bracket probably will never happen...but who knows... somebody might be listening in... :-)

I use RRS "L" plates on a D2X & D70 & like them very well. The camera base plates I make are of either Lexan or black Delrin. They must be machined just as the ones built of aircraft aluminum. If there is a vibration issue I have not noticed it.

However. These could be inexpensively made of an injection moulded plastic. Probably not three for $12 as Ari suggested, but way less then the $55 or so for the machined Alu ones.

Plastic for "L" plates just seems a bit wobbly to me, but that is my opinion. www.pbase.com/cwphoto

Also consider that there is a reason that the side plate of the L brackets are completely machined out, leaving a thin side wall ring rather than a flat plate. That is required if you want access to the port doors on the side of all Nikon bodies. Not saying it won't work, I'm not a machinist, but it has to be considered in all this speculation :-)

I have a couple of thoughts on this.

 

Plastic is not stiff enough for an L bracket. Even fiberglass reinforced plastic would need a

far greater cross section (read thicker) to approach the stiffness of a machined aluminum L

bracket. Without stiffness the bracket would be junk IMO. Experiences garnered from

making conventional bottom plates doesn't transfer. It's comparing pineapples and

pinatas. I've made Arca type plates from phenolic and even hard maple that work fine but

these would not suffice for a L plate.

 

Start up cost is another major issue. Writing a CNC program to machine an L plate is

relatively inexpensive. Producing an injection mold for a plastic L bracket is quite

expensive. The demand for these is in question. How many do they sell? I suspect not too

many.

Ari,

 

Your idea of a second mounting point on the side of the camera would probably rectify the

stiffness deficiency of a plastic L bracket though the likelihood of a camera maker

incorporating this is probably nil. A more likely scenario considering the popularity of Arca

type mounts is incorporating the dovetails into the body of the camera. Likely to only

happen on the highest end of cameras, if ever.

A question to Neil Rothschild:

 

In your test, where - left to right - was the top of the mirror when it slapped at exposure? If you had slid the L-bracket (with camera) so that the mirror slap point was right above the center screw of the ballhead, your tests would have come out more meaningful and would have bested the flopped camera picture. If not, we look at a misunderstood test result.

 

Sorry, but do orient your top "mirror felt" to be vertically above the mount point of the tripodhead for best results. If you move the camera way to the left (or right, less so), you will see even worse movement.

Ari said:

 

"I guess priorities differ. For me, the key function of an L-plate is different. It's that it frees me from the need to recompose a scene after a flop-drop."

 

That's irrelevant -- vibration/stability and composition are the paired arguments advanced for using an L-plate:

 

http://reallyrightstuff.com/tutorials/L_plates/index.html

 

Either argument presupposes the use of tripod, whereas you say "only 5% of my shooting is with a tripod".

 

Although I'm a full-time RRS L-plate user, I rarely compose in landscape mode and then re-orient to portrait mode, and even when I do I still have to recompose. I try to compose in whatever orientation I plan to shoot, but freely concede other folk may work differently.

 

Re: landscape mode vibration on L-plates: As I understand prior posts on this point, it occurs under specific, delimited conditions. Can't say that I've observed it myself but I don't question its existence. But I can't deal with it until I run into it.

 

I primarily use monopods in bird/nature photography, and I find L-plate shifts easier and more stable than flop-drops. But I can see that's a subjective factor -- others may prefer the flop-drop, and I don't see that there is a canonical way of doing it.

 

I must say this thread has become interesting precisely because posters have liberally ignored the topic and expanded on more interesting ancillary issues!

Curt,

 

As a machinist who's worked with Lexan, how does its material and manufacturing costs compare with aircraft aluminum?

 

We have to remember that L-plate users are a distinctly niche market for a minority of SLR users (who themselves are an minority elite of all photograpy users), so the profit margin may be the largest single component of its price. That would mean that the final prices of L-plates made from the two material might be very similar.

As I recall the discussion (by Peter White?), the L-plate portrait vibration discoverer felt that the vibration problem might be due to undampened mirror motion resonances when used in portrait mode orientation. I specifically asked him whether providing a solid connection between the unanchored side-arm and the body would mitigate the problem, and he said no because the Kirk L-plate has such a connection and the problem was about as bad on it as on the RRS L-plate.

 

However, if I gotten this point wrong (a distinct possibility from a memory at least 6-months old!), please correct it.

How heavy do people think L plates are? Three packs of lexam plates? Naw. I'll stick with aluminum that you buy once.

Frank,

 

What, exactly, are the engineering principles that you are relying upon to dismiss my tests out of hand? While I test your hypothesis, please explain exactly why the location of the mirror stop relative to the ball stem has anything to do with the lateral forces imparted by the mirror slap on the upright, causing the upright to vibrate, similar to a hinge, albeit a stiff hinge.

 

Regards,

Neil

I have added a new test image and comments to my L Bracket gallery.

 

http://www.pbase.com/nrothschild/l_bracket_vertical_test

 

To summarize, placement of the camera relative to the clamp (per Frank above) made little or no difference. Any differences I can see suggest that placing the right angle side of the plate closest to the clamp may make a minor improvement but probably nothing worth bothering with. Placing the mirror stop over the ball stem results in the camera plate offset to the right, to the extent that with a normal 50 or 60mm clamp, the plate does not even make full contact with the clamp. There is little "wiggle room" with a standard clamp. I suspect that placing the right angle bend closer to the clamp stiffens the bracket, but that is only speculation and my experience is that speculation is often wrong.

 

As can be clearly seen in the images, with the camera mounted by the base plate and the ball flopped, the images are superior to any of the L bracket vertical mode images. The MLU image, of course, is superior to either configuration without MLU.

 

Although I didn't make this clear in my comments above, my gallery comments discuss the fact that not all of my L bracket configurations result in excessive mirror slap. My D2H behaves much better than my D70 and D200. My Gitzo G1410 makes the L Bracket behave very well. The problem with my gear is the G1228, and is worst when there is no weight hung from the hook and when all the legs are extended. Hanging 6Lbs of weight or retracting all the legs eliminates much if not all the vibrations.

 

I will also point out that my resolution charts are very crude, printed with a 1200DPI laser printer on copy paper. They are fine for testing gross vibration issues but I suspect that cases where I see little or no vibration might more seriously degrade real world images, which have natural fine detail and contrast that is difficult to simulate in home made test charts.

 

Everyone needs to do these tests themselves with their own gear. I have never tested short focal length and/or small/light lenses. There are almost infinite variables. It is much easier just to use MLU and not worry about it, as I concluded after my first round of tests.

 

Regards,

Neil

I did a test along the lines of what Neil is describing when I first bought an RRS L plate for my 20D. The results were quite different from Neil's (and this is in no way intended to cast doubt on Neil's results -- the results may well be different with different gear).

 

I conducted the test using my 20D and Canon 180mm macro. For the purposes of the test, I did not use the lens-mounted tripod bracket that comes with the 180, but instead used the L-plate on the camera body to secure the lens to the tripod. The ball head was a RRS BH-55. The 3-way head that I tested in flopped-over position for the vertical test was a Bogen 3029. I tested with two sets of tripod legs: Gitzo 1348 and Manfrotto 190MF3.

 

On the Gitzo legs, there was no difference that I could see (viewing at 100%) between either of the configurations (L-plate in vertical vs horizontal position; 3-way head upright or flopped over). But on the less stable Manfrotto legs, the L-plate had a *big* advantage over the flopped over 3-way head when shooting vertically. Locking the mirror improved matters somewhat, but did not eliminate the L-plate's advantage. With the L-plate on the BH-55 on the Manfrotto legs, I could see no difference in stability between the vertical and horizontal positions.

 

My conclusion at the time was that, on stable legs such as the 1348, the big advantage of the L-plate would be convenience, not stability, whereas on less sturdy legs there would be a stability advantage too. From this thread, though, I'm starting to think that things might be more complex than that.

Gerry,

 

There is, indeed, a complex set of variables at work, which is why I stressed that my results are not indicative of other configurations and even in my case I reported very different results with different leg sets. All other things equal, flopping a head over is inherently more unstable than using it upright since it places the load well off the center of gravity of the legs. Good legs probably handle that better than lesser legs. Ditto the head. So you have several sources of instability working together- the flex in the bracket plus the stress on both major components of the off center configuration, plus likely other issues that may not be as obvious. Your final image only shows the net result of all these stresses on the system. We're flying blind here, of course, without seeing the test images.

 

The fact that MLU apparently did not fully cure the vibrations with the Manfrotto/Tilt head combination tells you something important about that combination. If I understand you correctly, you were unable to get a fully sharp image even with MLU while using the Manfrotto/Tilt head flopped over. That implies that the problems were severe enough that just the shutter movement, or possibly the operation of the remote caused those vibrations and indicated a very shaky configuration. MLU normally cures all evils.

 

In my case, I was surprised that the less massive G1228 legs appear to trigger vibrations in the bracket. I would have expected the bracket to either vibrate or not vibrate. I would have expected the less stiff G1228 legs to simply add incrementally more vibration (in either landscape or portrait mode) than the vibration observed with the G1410 legs. But that was not the case and it illustrates the dangers of speculating on how these parts interact with each other.

 

Regards,

Neil

The best would be to have both vertical and horizontal mounts on the camera body (either 1/4' screw socket or QR dovetail) - like Canon 1-series have vertical and horizontal grips.

Denis Veretov wrote "The best would be to have both vertical and horizontal mounts on the camera body (either 1/4' screw socket or QR dovetail) - like Canon 1-series have vertical and horizontal grips."

 

Denis, most press cameras have two tripod sockets, one on the bottom and the other on the side. Users often whine about wanting a rotating back. Can't please everyone, I guess.

 

Folks, L-plates are the minimalist's reply to the Stroboframe Vertaflip.

Dan Fromm said:

 

"Folks, L-plates are the minimalist's reply to the Stroboframe Vertaflip."

 

Well, the good thing about being fairly new to a past-time is that its easy to learn your one new thing a day!

 

Its cheaper and bulkier than an L-plate. Doesn't look like its something you could keep on your body permanently, but it is something to think about:

 

http://tinyurl.com/2b62d6

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=6998&A=details&Q=&sku=52783&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

 

Thanks!