Weight of D600 and 70-200 2.8 too much stress on Mounts?

<p>Hi,</p>

<p>Just received my D600. I'm using it with the 70-200 f2.8 which weighs about 48 Ounces, I believe. I use a Black Rapid R strap, and it's connected to the lens collar, not the camera. <strong>I very often grip the camera pull it up and shoot with only one hand. </strong>Providing no support for the lens.</p>

<p><strong>Will this cause any bending or tweaking of the mounts</strong>? I've never been concerned with my D700 or D4, but this combo, for some reason, feels like it's putting more torque on the mounts.</p>

<p>I have a tough time believing that it would because this method is the preferred method of most sports shooters who carry this combo in this way to supplement their 300 or 400 on a monopod.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Have the same set-up (600 and 70-200) ... I'm not thrilled with the REGULAR habit of no lens support - the body takes it all. It IS a lot of weight ... The BR Strap is very useful ... I'm going to be a little careful swinging the thing into action by the body only.</p>

<p><em>I very often grip the camera pull it up and shoot with only one hand. </em></p>

<p>Why would you do that? The stability would likely be very poor and focus, sharpness, precise composition etc. suffer.</p>

<p>If you have a lens that is long enough to have a tripod mount on it, you should support the weight of the rig from mainly the lens, not the camera.</p>

<p>Agreed, but it's not always possible in fast moving situations like a football game where I'm swinging the 400 on the monopod around over my left shoulder and reaching and using the D600.</p>

<p>I would be concerned no matter what body you are using. Not only are the screws that hold the mount to the camera small but deforming it in any way will affect sharpness.</p>

<p>Nikon has not advertised the D600 as 'built just like a Nikon D4' -- so it might be wise to treat it like you would a D7000 body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Pistol grip attached to lens tripod mount?</p>

<p>It is very doubtful that you'll get very good images using the D600 with a 70-200mm/f2.8 the way the OP describes. For one thing the D600's AF is not quite as good as that on the D4 or even D700. And since the D600 has 24MP instead of 16MP on the D4 and 12MP on the D700, while it is not as extreme as the 36MP D800, all the flaws (out of focus, camera shake, etc.) will be greatly magnified under 24MP.</p>

<p>One hand for the camera, one hand under the long lens--surely that is the best technique for getting high quality shots handheld.</p>

<p>If you're using a monopod instead of shooting handheld, I would not be putting that kind of stress on the mount unless I really had to--and I would never have to.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Jerry,<br>

Can you please explain what you mean by "so it might be wise to treat it like you would a D7000 body" I have a D7000 and the same Black Rapid Strap</p>

<p>Definitely not a good idea - too much stress on the lens mount of the D4, let alone the D600.<br>

Eric, I suspect that Jerry is guilty of sarcasm!</p>

<p>I don't doubt that pro sports shooters treat their cameras that way but I'm equally sure that the lens mounts will be buckling. I guess it's a question of how often you replace your equipment.</p>

<p>A D600 for fast action sports at 5.5 fps? Interesting.</p>

<p>Don't think it's built to be used as described. I think the new D4 or the older D3 series are the only 'tanks' around.</p>

<p>There was a posting recently about how 'Pros' treat their kit......:-)</p>

<p>While the lens mount ring on both the D7000 and D600 is a metal part it is set into a plastic front plate! That's actually the one reason why I went with a D800 instead of a 600 - as a mechanical engineer with some background in precision engineering and optics I wouldn't trust a large plastic part to keep the optical path critically aligned even in normal use. I know what modern plastic materials can do (and yes, they're pretty amazing); I also know where still <em>not</em> to use them ...</p>

<p>Many years ago, perhaps in the mid 1990's, once I went to the tennis US Open in New York, where I saw a "pro" with two cameras hanging off the same shoulder. Those cameras had something like a 300mm/f2.8 and a 80-200mm/f2.8 on them, respectively. As he was walking along, the two cameras/lenses kept banging against each other.</p>

<p>Needless to say, there were a lot of dings on those lenses. I assume those cameras didn't belong to him personally.</p>

<p>I think the OP is better off using the D700 instead of D600 that way. 24MP is quite meaningless without good camera support, and the D700 has better AF (and can reach 8 fps).</p>

<p>I may be wrong, but from what I have seen, cameras like the D4, D800 and D700 have a "monobloc" type chassis made in magnesium alloy. The lens mount looks directly attached to this metal chassis.</p>

<p>On the D7000 and D600, there is a semi-chassis system, top, back and maybe bottom made in magnesium alloy, while the front panel is made in polycarbonate. I`m not sure at all, but it looks like the mount is attached to this plastic panel.</p>

<p>I have seen pros using their cameras in the way Chris describes. Polycarbonate is a good and strong material; but if the mount screws are certainly attached to the polycarbonate front panel, I`d avoid exteme torques on it; fastly lifting a 70-200 from the grip seem to me a high torque.</p>

<p>It is difficult to know, because on the D4, D800 and D700 cameras the screws could be attached to polycarbonate, or to use any other system for protection (I`m speaking from web and brochure images). Looks like it doesn`t. But anyway, this cameras have a front magnesium panel, supposedly included for better rigidity and strenght.</p>

<p>The D4 is a full metal construction, grip included, while on the D700/D800 the grip area is polycarbonate. On the D4 it makes sense, as it is a much larger camera.</p>

<p>In a game of camera conkers, I'd put the D800 and D700 up against the so-called "pro-quality" F4 any day. I've seen the flimsy plastic top of an F4 stoved in by a relatively small knock, which consequently rendered the camera unusable until the frame-counter was unbent. The D700 and 800 appear to me to have an outer shell that's substantially metal.</p>

<p>Until we get one of those "strip down a D600 in under 20 seconds" videos on Youtube, it's probably anyone's guess how well it's constructed.</p>

<p>I've dangled my 80-200 f/2.8 off the mount of my D700 - for an overhead shot of the Olympic torch going past - but carefully and not willingly (my other hand was holding an umbrella over both, since rain damage would have been even more likely); however, the old 80-200 with the same optics didn't have a lens mount, so I figure it must cope. I've seen someone in a camera store try to pick up a 300 f/2.8 by the camera, too.<br />

<br />

Generally, even supporting a Sigma 150mm worries me - except for getting it out of the carry case (where I'm at least pulling briefly and evenly on the mount, not at an angle, until I can get a hand on it) it's not even an option for something like my 200 f/2. This is why I get so annoyed that Nikon insist on putting controls where I can't reach them right-handed. My feeling is that there's a big difference between lifting the camera off a belt (with the lens dangling) and trying to cantilever the lens horizontally off the mount - lift it one-handed, yes; position it one-handed, no. But then, my 200 f/2 came with a specific "don't lift me by the camera" warning - does the 70-200? It's a little heavier and longer than the 80-200, so it might cross the limits, though I suspect it's still okay if you're gentle.<br />

<br />

That said, I'd be more confident that a plastic camera would return to its original shape if bent - if the mount gets tweaked on my D700 or D800, I'd expect the metal to remain bent. This is one reason for pro lenses getting more plastic.</p>

<p><em>I've seen someone in a camera store try to pick up a 300 f/2.8 by the camera, too.</em></p>

<p>Uhh ... nice. This is why I would not necessarily want to buy a display copy of such a lens, as I don't really care for the way some people mishandle the big lenses (without realizing).</p>

<p>The first AF 80-200 and AF D did not have a tripod mount so from that we can deduce that at the time Nikon felt it was not a problem to mount it from the camera to a tripod (however it required a well designed head to work in practice; and some got third party mounts). However, I think it depends on what you do with it. E.g. if you run with the camera hanging from the shoulder with 80-200 attached, this may gradually damage the mount. </p>

<p>Personally I avoid letting the 70-200 hang from the camera. (Andrew: no, I don't think there is any warning against this in the manual for the 70-200.) I have the camera strap around my neck and hold the lens with my hand when I'm walking around. I don't know if my concern is real, but I try to take the best care of the equipment I use. In this age of high-resolution sensors, any mount misalignment should be easier to see in the picture.</p>

<blockquote>Uhh ... nice. This is why I would not necessarily want to buy a display copy of such a lens, as I don't really care for the way some people mishandle the big lenses (without realizing).</blockquote>

 

<p>Quite. And, to clarify, it was the sales assistant doing this when I asked to look at the lens. I've lost track of the number of lenses left with their rear caps off, or DSLRs left with the body caps off, on show stands, even in relatively reputable dealers, too. I'd really want to clean any before first use. I wonder if this is why my D800 and D700 needed cleaning so soon after purchase.<br />

<br />

This thread does raise a related question: as I alluded to above, I tend to put my D700/800 on my 200 f/2 (vr, mk 1 in case this has changed) while it's still in its carry case (the padded soft bag thing that's as big as many camera bags), then gently lift it far enough to get a grip on the lens so I can fully remove it - i.e. a few inches. Pulling the 200 f/2 out of its case by the straps pulls everything sideways, and seems bad for the case (even once I can get at the strap, which is necessarily a bit tangled behind the padding). I'm always a bit nervous about the mount while doing this, which is why I left gently and straight up, rather than cantilevering. Still, how likely is it that I'm damaging something? It's awkward to get the lens out of the case in any other way, unless I'm just being incompetent.<br />

<br />

The problem may have gone away now I've picked up a Think Tank bag that's big enough to hold the 200 f/2 safely, so I may stop resorting to the official case, but it'd be nice to know if my mount abuse is normal. :-)</p>

<p>I don't think you will have any problems. I used an 80-200/2.8 on the D100 and D200 in the same manner, and never had any issues. In fact, I always sling the camera/tele combo over my should with the lens hanging down. The only way I ever bring it to eye level is to grab the camera grip with my right hand and lift it up to eye level.</p>

<p>They are tougher than they look.</p>

<p>If you pull the 200/2 out of the Nikon soft case from the camera, then you're adding the force required to get it out of the bag to the forca required to lift the lens itself, so it should have more effect than just lifting it... from the camera. When the 200/2 is in the case, I just grab the lens (from the barrel) and pull it out (no camera attached at this point). But I don't use the Nikon case all that often since my camera backpack has a slot for the 200/2.</p>

<p>(Apologies for hijacking the thread.)</p>

 

<blockquote>If you pull the 200/2 out of the Nikon soft case from the camera, then you're adding the force required to get it out of the bag to the forca required to lift the lens itself, so it should have more effect than just lifting it... from the camera. When the 200/2 is in the case, I just grab the lens (from the barrel) and pull it out (no camera attached at this point). But I don't use the Nikon case all that often since my camera backpack has a slot for the 200/2.</blockquote>

 

<p>Agreed about the weight + friction, although I don't think the grip that the soft case has is very significant compared with the weight of the lens. I'd kind of like to sit the lens on the camera (squashing the mount) and pull the bag off, but I suspect I'd at least damage the LCD cover, and keeping the camera level so I don't put torque on the mount would probably be difficult. My problem has been that I can't easily get at the barrel while the lens is in the case, because the zip portion doesn't open very far and I've usually had to wrap the strap around the barrel so as to get it into the case in the first place - especially since there isn't much barrel left after you've got the annoying bag cap over the hood! But I'll take that as disapproval, and seek the respect of my peers by taking longer trying to untangle it all in the future. (But likewise, I probably won't need that case much any more anyway. I'm a bit disappointed that Think Tank have discontinued the Accelerator 2 that I bought, especially since I had some suggestions.)<br />

<br />

I doubt I've damaged anything, compared with the torque that a cantilevered lens could put on the mount, but I'll not risk it again.<br />

<br />

Speaking of small screws holding the mount on, having seen how little is required to replace the tripod foot on some lenses, I'm now a bit scared that I tend to use them as handles...</p>

<p>After a brief search on the web, I have found several samples of mount breakages... ;) Looks like it`s up to the user if he wants to have the lens or the camera damaged; if you prefer to break the camera (interesting for 200/2 users and such), use a plastic mount (<a href="00GOkQ">D100</a>, <a href="http://www.jrcompton.com/photos/d7000pix/d7kJ.html">D7000</a>). If you prefer to "keep" the camera, use a metal mount (<a href="00acFU">D700</a>); anyway, nothing is guaranteed against "improper use". No doubt that something, lens or camera, will break...<br /> ---<br /> Seriously speaking, I think we can use a <em>rule of weights</em>; the camera will hold easily a lens of a similar weight; that is, if the D700 is near one kilo, any lens of a similar weight can be used even for juggling. Check that big lenses without feet use to be under this weight (24-70, 14-24... ).</p>

<p>If the lens` weight exceed the camera`s weight, be careful; you could not break the mount (lens or camera) but you`ll be probably stressing that mount. Most lenses over one kilo have lens feet (I know, usually long lenses that obviously need a tripod).</p>

<p>The only exception is the 80-200 series, that started without feet at less than 1300 grams (remember that the F4 and F5 were also heavy cameras), but Nikon added a feet in the third version, still with the same weight. Current versions are near 1500 grams. BTW, the previous AiS version had tripod feet (1900 grams), the F3 was a much lighter, all metal camera (760 grams).</p>

<p>The D600 is 760 grams, so current 70-200 lenses double that weight. Lifting, turning and others add forces to that weight.</p>