L-bracket for 7D -- Kirk vs. RRS

<p>I'm after an L-plate for my Canon EOS 7D body (w/o a vertical grip). The two obvious contestants are <a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/L-Bracket_for_Canon_7D.html">Kirk's BL-7D </a> and <a href="http://reallyrightstuff.com/rrs/Itemdesc.asp?ic=B7D-L">Really Right Stuff's B7D-L </a> , so was wondering if you guys would have any feedback on them that could help me decide which one to get (?)</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

-Tomek<br /> </p>

<p>I have Kirk L plates for my 40D, 50D, and EOS film bodies, so I wouldn't hesitate to recommend them.</p>

<p>But I think the RRS L bracket has the edge in this model!</p>

<p>If you do any panoramic work, the RRS plates and corresponding brackets have markings which are useful for properly aligning the centre of the frame with the panning axis.</p>

<p>I've seen a lot of "Kirk v RSS" discussions on this and other boards. It seems to me that the conclusion to be drawn from the collective experiences of those who use both is... that they are happy with whichever brand they have. (I happen to have RSS and I'm happy with both of the L plates I own... but I'm certain that I'd be just as happy with Kirk.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>is anybody using Kirks or RRS L plates with the Novoflex focusing racks (CASTEL -Q)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>CASTEL-Q</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All L-plates and standard mounting plates will fit because the bracket is adjustable. I've used Wimberley, Kirk and Acratech plates w/o any iussues with the Novoflex A/S compatible rail. I would not buy anything from RRS due to the owner's medieval social and political stance supported by big $$ contributions to causes patently alien to me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would not buy anything from RRS due to the owner's medieval social and political stance supported by big $$ contributions to causes patently alien to me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Link?</p>

<p>The owners of RSS contributed a significant amount of money to the Prop. 8 (anti gay marriage) initiative in California. I wrote to them, was impressed that they wrote back, but unimpressed with their logic and their position on the issue... but in the end decided that it is problematic to make a blanket decision to not purchase products from anyone in the world I may disagree with. I purchased their L bracket for the 5D2. In fact, if I had not done so it might have been interpreted as the same sort of intolerant behavior that I called them on. (I also realized that I don't know the political views of the folks running Kirk...)</p>

<p>Life is complicated.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>You can't go wrong with either, I have always used Kirk and always been happy<br>

Ross</p>

<p>Probably best to use the RRS L-plate in conjunction with their quick release lever clamp.<br>

Why RRS made a political contribution in the name of the company and not in to the name of the owner for an issue that is entirely unrelated to the business is beyond me. It does make their customers feel that they contribute to this cause. "Part of the proceeds of this purchase go to...". Obviously, it is their free choice to do so.</p>

<p>Cheers for your feedback, guys!</p>

<p>Just looking at the pictures of the two brackets, it seems to me that:</p>

<p>1/. Kirk is bulkier on the side -- notice how much further out it sticks (guess that eliminates the need to reposition the plate for tethering, but I'm not doing that anyway, so no upside for me there; prefer slimmer profile)</p>

<p>2/. RRS bottom dovetail mount/rail is 'bidirectional' = 1½" square, so it's very short -- shorter than my clamp -- and is not compatible with with safety stops screws. I can't see why anyone would want to mount a camera sideways, but I do see the need for safety stops, so that's a definite negative for me (!) <br /> Don't know whether Kirk sports safety stops, or if they can be added on customer's request for some additional charge (?)</p>

<p>3/. 'frame' vs. solid plate bottom construction: reckon frame is better in that there will be less water getting between the plate and the camera body -- I once undone a plate on my EOS-3 months after it got wet in rain and to my astonishment water was still sitting there :O Don't think smaller contact surface area affects plate's holding power.<br /> </p>

<p>4/. RRS has the flange raised much higher at the back, which I like, but the front is flat; Kirk appears to have lower flanges but on both back and front. Not too sure what are the pros / cons of these two approaches.<br>

<br /> </p><div></div>

<p>I've used the Kirk L plates on my Canon 30D and now Canon 5D2. They are well thought-out (they don't impede access to the camera functions or connections at all) and beautifully made (smooth and comfortable in the hand). I have had zero problems with flexing or vibration under load.</p>

<p>A nice benefit of the wider plate on the bottom is that the camera can be set down and trusted not to tip to the side. I'm not sure if the narrow plate would be as comfortable to hold as the Kirk.</p>

<p>There are no safety stop screws on the 5D2 plate, nor are there holes to take them. I don't think they would be useful because the plate is not so long that you would be interested in sliding it in the mount.</p>

<p>I had a Kirk plate on my 20D and the 7D has a RSS plate.<br>

They are both of similer quality, for the 7D the main difference is the RSS plate has the feature of the square bottom mount.<br>

This is intended to allow it to be mounted in either direction on the QR jaws, a down side is the camera does not rest stabily if put down on the plate lower side. On this basis I could do without this feature.<br>

In the UK RSS do not have a distributer and they are nearly twice as expensive as Kirk plus you have all the hastle and delay of paying the import duty.<br>

If Kirk had has a pre-order at the time of the release of the camera I would have happily got their plate.<br>

For people in the UK and possibly Europe I suggest you go for Kirk from their local distributor.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I've used the Kirk L plates on my Canon 30D and now Canon 5D2. They are well thought-out (they don't impede access to the camera functions or connections at all) and beautifully made (smooth and comfortable in the hand). I have had zero problems with flexing or vibration under load.</em><br>

<em>A nice benefit of the wider plate on the bottom is that the camera can be set down and trusted not to tip to the side. I'm not sure if the narrow plate would be as comfortable to hold as the Kirk.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not going to recommend one over the other - though my RSS units work well for me - but I want to use this as an opportunity to point out why it is hard, if not impossible, to come up with a definitive answer to the "which is best?" question.</p>

<p>Basically, everything in the quoted text regarding the Kirk unit mirrors my experience with the RSS units: don't impede access/functionality, beautifully made, no flex/vibration problems, can set camera down with plate attached, comfortable to hold.</p>

<p>Basically, we have the pleasant though difficult task of choosing from two very fine alternatives.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who thinks that this is one reason why the RSS donation to the Prop. 8 vote was such a strange decision for them. In a situation in which their product is every bit as good as the competition, and where consumers are looking for any small detail to distinguish between them, this gives some consumers such a distinction - though I suppose that RSS's calculation may have been that as many might choose them as might avoid them over such a divisive issue.)</p>

<p>I'm a fan of Really Right Stuff. Love their laser etching marks for easier panorama photography.</p>

<p>Their/ My PCL-1 quick release panorama plate is INSANE !</p>

<p>I agree you have two really good choices, and both made is USA, but it looks like RRS has further innovated their 7D L Plate design with additional neck strap attachments. I don't understand the benefit of the bi-directional plate at 7D L-Plate's base. Sometimes I got to digest product specs before I get it and understand the feature's benefits.</p>

<p>I only use my 5D classic's L plate when I do pano shots and copy stand work and product shots with my wimberley gimbal head, RRS MPR-192 w/ mini clamps and 100mm usm macro. Out and about I tend not to carry a tripod so it all remains in the car, & the L Plate tends to not be mounted on my camera unless I need it. The additional 1/4-20 threaded screw mount for my copy stand is very handy, and the laser etching is something I really like alot, a beneficial feature especially for Panos. Their Yin Yang RRS Logo etchings just make me smile.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The benefit of a bi-directional plate is for times when you're using your tripod and switching lenses from one with a mount (i.e. 70-200) to one without (24-70) in which case, you'd use the camera's base. Then you don't have to rotate your head 90 degrees (and if you spent time to level it, that might save a sliver of time. Otherwise, I don't see much of a benefit.<br>

Aloha,<br>

Keoni</p>

<p>I sent an e-mail to the folks at RRS and asked about the bi-directional mounting feature of their L- Bracket. They said that the fore/aft orientation of the Arca Swiss dovetail "grooves" allows the use of the bracket with video tripod heads. Since the 7D is video-capable, they were thinking that many 7D owners may find themselves using video heads at some point.<br>

Not having a video head myself, I hadn't realized that their mounting clamps are oriented with the "grooves" running fore/aft, but it's true!<br>

Hope that helps! Stu</p>

<p>As to the political slant of the owners of RRS, that doesn't pertain to their business, and I use many of their products. The fact is that they did NOT contribute in the name of the business. Someone looked up their names and found personal contributions made by them and used the info to exploit THEIR slanted opinion. That is unfair to the owners of RRS, as what they do with their money is their business, not ours.<br>

I will continue to buy their products, and not consider personal issues when I do. I wish someone else had done the same, rather than try to ruin the reputations of two fine people.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The fact is that they did NOT contribute in the name of the business</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Same difference, money ends up in the same place, from the same source, ie business earning.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I will continue to buy their products, and not consider personal issues when I do</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is your right. Other people has right not to buy their products if they disagree with the owner.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wish someone else had done the same, rather than try to ruin the reputations of two fine people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So stating a <strong>fact </strong>about how a business owner spends their money is wrong? How is reputation being ruined this way? Unless the fact stated was incorrect, I don't see how this is wrong. People is smart enough to discern which information is important to them. <br /> <br /></p>

<p>I just thought I'd chime in that I am in this exact scenario & I have just dealt with both these companies.<br /> <br /> <br>

I'm not sure how intentional or not but... RRS took me on a complicated & much more expensive route to solve the simple problem I had of mounting my camera vertically on top of my ABR800 mount for my ringflash.<br>

I was told it COULD NOT be done with just a release clamp & the B7D-L, that I HAD TO have a 3rd piece running my costs up to over 300$. I expressed that I had a hard time seeing where the 3rd piece was needed but he insisted the clamp alone couldn't be mounted on a standard tripod or stand screw directly. (exactly the same screw the mount of the ABR800 uses)<br />Now this guy is super intelligent (a lot smarter than I I'll admit), I sent him photos & called him so I am 100% confident he knew exactly what I was trying to achieve & he too was confident.<br /><br /> <br />I then sent my same email query to Kirk Photo who sent me a simple response:<br>

"The BL-7D & a QRC-2 will do the job". </p>

<p>So with Kirk it's just that simple? <br />like I was thinking in the first place, just one clamp & the L-Bracket?<br>

<br /><br /><br>

So my findings are either:<br />1) more parts are required to mount a camera in my simple scenario with RRS.<br />2) Kirk Photo is wrong & I will need more pieces for this basic scenario.<br />3) (at the risk of sounding accusatory) the gentleman RRS smelt blood in the water in my L-bracket naivety & tried to upsell me. <br /><br /> <br>

Either way I have to say it makes me lean toward Kirk...<br />Simpler & therefore cheaper (or perhaps more honest?).</p>

 

<p>Can anyone please tell me if either the rss or kirk will fit my tripod head? i have a cullmann 525m 3 way panhead tripod that has a 4cm square camera plate. there is no slide ability, so the rss or kirk has to be 4cm square to fit on my tripod.<br>

thanks.</p>

<p>Can anyone please tell me if either the rrs or kirk will fit my tripod head? i have a cullmann 525m 3 way panhead tripod that has a 4cm square camera plate. there is no slide ability, so the rrs or kirk has to be 4cm square to fit on my tripod.<br />thanks.</p><div></div>

I have purchased both Kirk and RRS plates. Now knowing the views of RRS' owners, future purchases will

be from Kirk.

Since I can't see any responses on page 2 ...

 

If you shoot a long lens, the AS rail tends to run front/back, rather than side/side. At least that is how I have my long lenses.

So, switching between the long lens mounting on the lens and a short lens mounting on the body, a front/back rail on the body eliminates the need to rotate the head 90 degrees when you switch lenses.

 

Having said that, I still prefer a side/side rail on the body.

Can anyone please tell me if either the rss or kirk will fit my tripod head?

 

I don't think so. I use Kirk and Joba plates. The head you have works differently. Arca Swiss style plates fit into a V groove on 2 sides.