QR Plates

[steve_young9]

<p>Who makes the best QR Arca Swiss style plates? Is there much difference between any of them?<br>

So far, I have seen Arca Swiss, Acratech, Kirk, Markins, and RRS brands. Prices seem to be the same (and sometimes the item number, also), except Acratech are much cheaper. <br>

How critical is it that I use a plate specifically designed for my camera, versus a more generic plate? Can I get a decent-fitting camera plate that will have the anti-rotation lip that is not camera specific?<br>

And, finally, do I need to get a "L" bracket plate for most versitility?<br>

I appreciate folks reading this and conveying their thoughts.<br>

Steve Young</p>

<p> </p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>There are minor differences in size between manufacturers. This is generally not a problem if you use a screw-type clamp. RRS and Kirk make plates to fit a wide range of cameras. Arca is very limited in this respect.</p>

<p>A fitted plate will not rotate on the screw, even with moderate tension. IMO, that is the only way to go. Arca-type plates are very thin and can remain in place. Plates with simple lips and slotted screw holes are a poor choice, since they tend to loosen and rotate.</p>

<p>As with plates, the best L-brackets are made for a particular camera. RRS makes a universal L-plate that clamps to any standard plate. It works well, but is bulky and hard to fit in any case, whether attached to the camera or not. L-brackets keep the lens centered over the head, and are very useful when you shoot a lot in the vertical position. Over half of my shots are vertical.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>A well-made camera specific plate has an advantage in not stressing the camera body. Although I liked RRS plates in the past, they now use the same non-L plate (the BP-CS) for several Nikons: at least the D50, D80 and D90. You have to attach these to the camera very carefully to make sure the lip doesn't crack the camera's outer shell. You should make sure of what they do for your camera. L-plates are better if you can put up with the extra size. They are more stable for vertical shots, because the camera's center of gravity is over the tripod head and not off to one side.<em> </em></p>

[trevor_martin]

<p>I think you'd do fine with any of the brands listed above, I have an RRS plate and am quite happy with it, it's light and unobtrusive yet securely holds onto the camera. When I was looking into buying a new tripod setup I was disturbed by the relative height cost of the camera-specific arca style quick release plates, especially since if I bought a new camera in the future I might need to buy a new plate as well. But in the end I went with a camera specific plate as it really doesn't cost all that much more than a generic plate, and I read mixed reviews of the generic ones anyways. Right now I am quite happy that I purchased a camera-specific plate, not having the plate twisting all over the place was a real eye-opener, and I appriciate it far more than I though I would.<br>

I though about an L-plate but decided not to go with it. Knowing myself I think I would be annoyed by it's extra size and weight, although this is based purely on photos as I have never had a chance to actually handle one. So far I find that I rarely use my camera in a verticle orientation on my tripod, and when I do I find that my ballhead holds my camera vertically just fine, but I do not have any really heavy lenses. If you think you'll use your camera in a vertical orientation often then an L-plate might be worth your while. If you use a heavy lens I'd guess that an L-plate would be far more stable then tilting your ball into a drop slot</p>

[michaelbrochstein]

<p>While everyone has their own opinion and there is probably not any one perfect answer, here is what I have found out through trial and error. I started out using the Manfrotto 484RC2 QR system and found that while inexpensive, it did have its limitations. After realizing that I needed/wanted an Arca Swiss style plate system I needed to first decide on a ballhead. Why is that? You see, I prefer "lever release" style clamps as opposed to the ones that use a screw. I prefer them because they are faster to use in the field (IMHO). Screw type clamps are more variable while lever-release type clamps have little tolerance for different plate sizes.</p>

<p>After much research I decided on the RRS ballhead. It turns out that RRS and Wimberley plates are similar enough that either would work in a RRS ballhead lever-release clamps but that other manufacturers won't. I then needed to buy plates etc.</p>

<p>I tried both "L" and straight plates and the ease of flipping a camera from horizontal to vertical with a "L" plate was extremely useful to me so I have only bought "L" plates after my initial experiment. I've use generic camera plates but they do not match up to a camera body's shape anywhere near as well as a camera specific plate. If you want perfect fit and no rotation then go for a camera body specific plate.</p>

<p>Over the last three years I have bought all three RRS ballheads (each is used in a different scenario) and RRS plates for all my camera bodies and long lenses. I also use their "Wedding Pro Flash bracket" and love it.</p>

<p>One useful article I would highly recommend is http://www.bythom.com/support.htm</p>

[akajohndoe]

<p>Arca-Swiss quick-release style all the way. I am not fond of obtrusive plates; those that fit like they belong are better. That said, L-Plates feel obtrusive to me, so I do not use them. Other folks have other opinions. The Really Right Stuff plates have the best build, feel, and form. Again, other folks have other opinions.</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Steve, the answer to your questions can be influenced by the type of head you get.</p>

<p>For Ball heads L bracket are very good because they help keep the lens directly over the head where it is most stable. It also allows you to get a vertical and horizontal shot without moving the head. I have the Bogan 410 mini gear head and it only takes a couple of seconds to change it from horizontal to verical and level it with no loose in stability. If I want to go back to the original horizontal position I will only loose a couple of seconds which is generally OK for the landscape photography I do. I personally don't have a need for a L bracket. </p>

<p>A fitted plate, as others have stated will not rotate. This is a big plus on a ball head since you are always grabbing the camera when you repoint it. If the tension on the ball is to high when you try to reposition the camera, the plate can come loose if it is not a fitted one. On the 410 gear head you never grab the camera to reposition it. You grab the gear controls instead. The 410 only comes with a Bogen quick release plate which is not fitted. However since I am not applying any force on the body when positioning it, I never slips. The last time I removed the plate from my camera and then reinstalled it was 6 months ago and it hasn't needed any retightening since then.</p>

<p>If you decide to get a ball head you are probably better off getting a fittted plate for your camera. Since most are offered on the popular Arca-Swiss style plates the ball head will need to accept it. Some people like the L brackets, some don't. So I would not get a L bracket until you have had a chance to test your head camera setup. If you find it would be helpful, get one. </p>

<p>I haven't had a need for a L bracket or fitted plate on the 410 gear head. But it does weigh about 1 lb more. However if you add in the weight and cost of a L bracket and fitted plate much of the weight advantage of ball heads may be lost. I personally heven't had any issue with the weight of my head on day hikes of up to (and occationally beyond) 10 miles.</p>

[zml]

<p>Use camera-specific plates, they don't twist which is important esp. when mounting the camera vertically. I use Acratech for bodies (cheaper and as good as the more expensive stuff) and Wimberley for lenses: Wimberley has stopper screws in addition to the anti-twist lip and holes for a flash bracket. I buy lens plates that are 1-2" longer than the lens foot so I can balance the lens by sliding the plate back and forth in the clamp. And speaking of clamps, clamps IMO are more important than the plates - I prefer lever-type (fast!) but some people swear by the screw-type clamps. And I don't like L plates: unless you mount your camera vertically a lot or do a lot of panoramas with complex setups,avoid L plates: too cumbersome and bulky IMO.</p>

[john_hanlon3]

<p>Hello Steve,</p>

<p>I use a Wimberley P5 plate. It never slips and can be used on any camera.</p>

[graham_line]

<p>Generic plates can slip and can get in the way of vital pieces, like, um, rewind buttons if you're shooting film. The good custom plates fit very precisely and make for a very solid mounting. My preference is the Acratech heads and plates. They have very good customer service.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Using a ball head with the tension set but not locked puts a lot of stress on the plate as you point the camera. I must use a generic plate on my Hasselblad, with a lip and slotted hole, which must be re-positioned and tightened from time to time. Fitted plates for my Nikons have never loosened after years of use.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I've been experimenting recently with home-made plates for the Manfrotto hex system, in order to mount various cameras, lenses and scopes to a ball head. This setup is unique in that there is a hole in the head that allows the mounting screw on the plate to protrude, so the plate itself can be a single thickness without recesses on the bottom. This makes it fairly easy to fabricate home made plates if you have the ability to cut aluminum with moderate accuracy.</p>

<p>Anyway, I've been making the plates with a milled recess for the camera or tripod foot, and find that a simple recess around 1/16 of an inch (or a ledge of that height) is sufficient to hold a camera quite securely against rotating without having to over-tighten the screw. One possibility for generic plates would be either to mill/file/grind a recess in one, or to add a ledge at the back, attached with small screws or rivets. My point in all this is that if the barrier to rotation is solid, it need not be large or deep in order to prevent the camera unscrewing itself.</p>

<p>Here are some plates, from left to right for Nikon F3 (single rear ledge), Nikon F (milled recess), Nikon 400/5.6 lens (milled recess), and in the rear a plate for a spotting scope, with a pin to engage a slot milled in the scope's base. There is no need for padding to increase grip, and only the F plate has a little padding, mostly to hide the sloppy machining of the recess.</p>

<p>Edited to add: you'll notice that the rear ends of the camera plates are clipped off. This is largely to make them easier to put into my foam-lined case, and also to eliminate the sharp point toward the operator. They fit the head fine this way</p><div></div>