Bogen/Manfrotto quick release plates

[edward_kimball]

I am going to be getting a Manfrotto tripod for Christmas and am

contemplating heads. Some of the heads have a pentagonal plate and

others have a rectangular plate. Is one more stable than the other?

I will be putting a CC400 on it. All of the tripods and heads I have

been looking at a rated to at least 6 kg /13 lbs. If the rectangle

is stable enough I will be getting a 3021 with the 3030 head.

[skygzr]

I�ve used both and I think the rectangular plate is a little easier to deal with. The hexagonal plate takes up a great deal of room (vertically) whereas the rectangular plate has a low profile and a flat bottom. I don�t know that there�s a clear winner for stability.

[edward_kimball]

The others are six sided? I could of sworn they were five sided. Oh well, my mistake.

[tim_curry]

They are hexagon in shape. Available with fasteners in both 1/4" & 3/8".

[._._z]

I have two of the hex plates, one of them the "architectural" plate with the lip than

ensures that my 35mm body can't slip when put in vertical position. It's a good, if

somewhat bulky, plate, and I like the positive click when locking it in.

 

Here's an old webpage on the plates, which shows the old-style cork-topped hex

plates (which were supplanted by rubber-topped ones):

 

http://www.wildpicture.com/pages/photography/hexplates.htm

[bert_krages1]

I have not used the hex plates but do use the rectangular plates with a CC400. If you replace the OEM bolt with a 1/2-inch long 1/4"-20 bolt, e.g., the kind from a hardware store, the rectanglar plate fits nicely within the base for the CC400 and can be secured better. I can get a little bit of wiggle with the older style cork plate if I try to move the camera but otherwise the connection is stable. However, this plate is worn and a newer would likely fit better.

[pvp]

The hexagonal plates, because they are larger, are stiffer than the rectangular plates. I prefer the rectangular ones, and have no issues with them on lenses up to a 300mm with a 2X TC on 35mm, or my Tachihara 4x5.

[james_forbes]

I use the hexagonal plates to mount a Sinar P (both 4x5 and 8x10) on a 3047 head with no problems. I have no experience with the rectangular plates but would expect them to be some what easier to align. The 4x5 P weighs 16 lbs not counting lens, shutter and film cartridge. Hope this helps. Jim

[shotz]

THose hex plates are gigantic bulges attached to the bottom of the camera when the camera is not mounted on the tripod. To me, the idea of the qucik-mount is to be able to have multiple cameras you can switch between. The ones not on the tripod cannot be set down on a flat surface and do not pack well with this lump in place.

 

The rectangular ones work better for this. The Stroboframe quick release is really small, flat, secure and easy to use. Light weight, too. But it is an accessory, not built in. Of the built-in, I prefer the rectangular. For a real big, heavy camera, I'd go with the hex.

 

Peter

[edward_kimball]

Thanks for all the help. It seems as though the rectangle will do. That will save some money for my wife because it seems the hex plates are only used on the ball heads. I am really looking forward to the new tripod. A while back I broke one of the leg clips on my tripod and since have only been able to extend it to about 3.5-4 ft. It is a cheap Vivitar video tripod.

[jerry_flynn1]

For what it's worth, it is possible to get the hexagonal plates without the large, protruding thumb screw/jam nut assembly. They are plates that have a flush standard slotted-head screw -- I leave mine permanently attached to my Sinar.

[edward_kimball]

My wife only bought the legset for my present and I have finally got around to buying a head. I decided on the 3030 head - actually the 141RC but they are the same thing. Thanks for all the advice.