D4 and 70-200 mounted on Tripod by body safe

<p>Well, I pulled another bonehead move. I was in a hurry to grab some shots and didn't realize that I had removed my RRS tripod collar on the 70-200 to use on my 300 f4. I then mounted the 70-200 on my D4 and mounted that to my tripod using an RRS L bracket.</p>

<p>I took my shots and left the camera on the tripod overnight. So the camera (with flash attached) sits on the tripod with the 70-200 hanging out there with no support.</p>

<p>I know this D4 is built like a tank and the camera with the flash on it actually weighs more than the lens, but with the length of that lens I'm concerned that I may have twisted the mount to some tiny degree. Clearly the lens comes with a tripod collar for a reason.</p>

<p>Thoughts?</p>

<p>You should send your D4 and 70-200mm lens to me. I'll test them thoroughly in the next three months to determine whether there is any damage due to negligance on your part.</p>

<p>I'm sure you would. lol. Seriously, though. What do you think?</p>

<p>There's really no point in having Shun test that unless you get a second opinion. No disrespect to Shun, of course, but it really is part of best practices in a case like this. So, Shun can send the body and lens to me when he's done, and I'll check it out, too. That should only take a month, though, as my facility is much quicker than Shun's - he's very busy.<br /><br />Honestly? I'm sure you're just fine. Yes, better to use the lens mount ... but with those two very, very well-built items, that's more about it not being nose-heavy on the tripod. I wouldn't give it another thought. <br /><br />At least, not until after Shun and I have each tested it for you. :-)</p>

<p>I feel like a first class fool. I was just in such a hurry and wasn't thinking. I hope you're right. </p>

<p>Even thought that is a fair amount of torque, my gut tells me it will be fine, the whole body is metal construction and I'm aware that the old 80-200 lens which is about the same length and weight didn't even have a tripod collar. That would seem to indicate to me that, while it's better to have it mounted by the collar, it shouldn't cause any actual damage to do so. Even for 14 hours like I did.</p>

<p>I'm a bit OCD when it comes to stuff like this. I'm sitting here wondering if now my focal plane will be ever so slightly off and all the painstaking steps I take with my gear and technique (this instance excluded) are then mitigated by some small tweak to the lens mount that I have no practical way to test for. I need help. lol</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/2.8 ain't that heavy, and more to the point it's not a particularly long lens. The strain put on a lens mount is about leverage as much as sheer weight. You probably wouldn't want a 400mm f/4 or f/2.8 hanging off the front of the camera unsupported for too long, but the 70-200 won't make the camera sweat very much. Plus you've lightened the load by not including the tripod collar!</p>

<p>Edit: If you're still worried - mount the lens again, but this time turn the camera upside down on the tripod overnight to reverse the effect.</p>

<p>Interesting idea Rodeo Joe. I would, however be concerned about just weakening that area. You never know how exactly something is going to bend even if it happens to be in the exact opposite direction.</p>

<p>I don't think it is a good idea to set your camera upside down with that 70-200mm mounted overnight.</p>

<p>What you should do is to get the new 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR. Since it is a much lighter lens, next time you make this same error, I am quite sure that the lighter f4 version will not damage your D4.</p>

<p>BTW, the service I offered earlier is completely free; you are only responsible for round-trip shipping. Since I do a much more thorough job than Matt, it takes me longer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Since I do a much more thorough job than Matt, it takes me longer.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ah, but I tie the body and the lens to one of my dogs, send them out after rabbits, and <em>really</em> field test the rig. It's sort of like an episode of Top Gear, only more horrifying. <br>

<br />Really, Chris, I would completely forget about the incident ... because that doesn't even qualify as an incident. Dropping your bag with the lens mounted? Sure, shoot some brick walls and give the results a look, just to satisfy yourself. But you've got no worries, here.</p>

<p>Chris - don't worry about it. There are worse things you can do to mess up your system.</p>

<p>Like the time I set down my D300 with 70-200 f/2.8 to go chase down some escaped sheep. 2 hours later I'd forgotten all about my camera. This was on a Saturday morning. The next Monday morning when I went to grab my camera it was missing. After some thinking (sometimes hurts) and backtracking, I found it on the hay wagon out behind the barn, right where I placed it when I went after the sheep escape artists. It had rained (gently) from Saturday afternoon through Sunday evening. Everything was still pretty wet when I found it the next Monday morning. After drying everything out for a day or two, everything still works, except for the tendency to eat batteries when left in the camera. My workaround is to pull the batteries from the camera/grip after every use. Still works like new.</p>

<p>This is why I'm hoping for a D400-type camera. I'm not sure the D600/D800/D7000 would have survived being left out in the rain all weekend.</p>

 

<p>Wow, that's quite a story Mark! Yeah, I certainly didn't put the camera through that torture.</p>

<p>I just saw that the old 80-200's at 1000 grams (vs 1500 for my lens) didn't even come with a tripod collar. I have to imagine given the full metal construction of this camera that an extra 1 lb in lens weight would not cause any issues.</p>

<p>Further, I just found this elsewhere:</p>

<p>In the manual for the Panasonic GH1 the maximum recommend lens weight carried by the mount alone was 1kg. The Nikon F mount is bigger than the m43 mount so I would expect it to take at least this figure if not more.<br>

<br>

<br>

1kg is 35 ounces. So although my lens weighs 54 Ounces, I have to believe the F-mount and camera body on the D4 is at least moderately stronger than the GH-1.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I took my shots and left the camera on the tripod overnight. So the camera (with flash attached) sits on the tripod with the 70-200 hanging out there with no support</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I guess you have no boisterous pets or children? Forget the collar aspect, I'm not sure I'd leave mine mounted on a tripod overnight!</p>

<p>It's really nice to see everybody playing together so well. :)</p>

<p>So far no need for any "time outs".</p>

<p>Mounting your lens and camera on a tripod this way is a little like kissing a Religious:<br>

it's likely to be OK so long as you don't get into the habit.</p>

<p>JDM - I think part of the definition of photographer = 'bonehead.' I'm a Joe Mcnally fan. His version of 'bonehead' is 'numnuts.' Now, if you were to leave my camera out in the rain all weekend...we'd have some serious problems<g>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... because that doesn't even qualify as an incident.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Believe Matt. I have hung an AF-S 80-200 on my D2x on an 'L' bracket more times than I can count. I have a Kirk lens collar as well, but it's not always with me. Sometimes I aim the rig at a target and leave it there overnight and the truth is I've never even stopped to consider it could be harmful. <br>

When I read your post I was assumming the whole thing had taken a nosedive on to the lens from some height and for that I would have been concerned as well.</p>

<p><< Ah, but I tie the body and the lens to one of my dogs, send them out after rabbits, and <em>really</em> field test the rig. It's sort of like an episode of Top Gear, only more horrifying. >></p>

<p>My dog can do a pretty credible snow-resistance test. ;D</p>

<p>I do that kind of things too - never worried about them unless/until something happens. Perhaps not the greatest philosophy but I won't lose sleep over it. </p><div></div>

<p>The things people worry about..I have to say I am astonished. Just don't waste any time thinking about this sort of thing. Take pictures and be happy.</p>

<p>Your concern would be perhaps more adequate for Nikon lower end cameras, where the lens mounting metal ring is attached to made of plastic mirror box/cage, ... like in D7000, D5100,D3100.</p>

Robin - Thanks for the candid reply. My concern, as with all things, roots itself in the idea that we all try so hard to get the best possible

images. I save money for long periods of time to buy expensive gear, study it, apply technique and vision then apply the best possible

post processing practices. All to produce the finest images I can. I sometimes get concerned that some unknown flaw has introduced

itself into my image chain. Something that I may not be able to fully identify or even notice on many occasions, but there nonetheless.

Something like this possibility (an ever so slight misalignment of the mount causing a misaligned focal plan), gets stuck in my head. I

think this concern is valid, even though it may not have actually done any damage. As others have pointed out, I think the possibility of

damage would be higher with a D600 or D7000 type semi-plastic body.

I attended a rugby match yesterday and saw many pro's running around the field with their 70-200's hanging off the front

of their cameras, swinging around, sometimes bouncing up and down while they moved quickly. All while they hung off a

normal camera strap attached to the body only. I was somewhat comforted by this site, assuming that this type of

pressure and torque was common place on the mount. I have to believe that many instances of this type of carry caused

higher degrees or torque on the mount then simply mounting the camera on a tripod by the body. Well at least I can try

and convince myself of as much :)

<p>Well, the worst case for the mount is to have the lens pointing straight out at 90 degrees (hanging the lens off the camera isn't so bad), but I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over this. I'd have mentioned the footless 80-200 if you'd not already found it. Some lenses come with a "don't lift this by your camera" warning - my 200 f/2 does, for example - but I've never heard this for the 70-200. If you're not safe, I'll be astonished (and if there's a problem, you get a tilt lens for free).<br />

<br />

Though if the reference to rugby means you're in Europe and you'd like a more local representative of Shun's service, feel free to treat me as a UK test centre.</p>