Smiert Spionam Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
bitmaker wrote:
Smiert Spionam wrote:
bitmaker, do you have any evidence or citations of the "plate separation" problem you've described?
The evidence would be the people who've had their gear hit the ground? Because Piece A (holding the camera gear) separated from Piece B (that stayed attached to the legs). What other evidence is needed that the design is flawed? The fact that the base plate is made of two pieces insures that there will always be the chance the pieces could separate from each other.
Additionally, the current two piece design wouldn't be as bad if it utilized some form of redundancy to the force of the clamp ring (although, I'd still like to see a single piece base plate...just my personal preference). But with only one method for securing the two pieces together (the clamping force of the ring) once that force is compromised away goes all that camera gear.
By "two piece" do you mean that the removable plate and the spider are the two pieces? The way you're using the term, it implies that the plate itself is separating in two, leaving a portion of the plate locked in place -- something I've never heard of occurring. What's happening is that it's coming out of its fitting, as its designed to do.
I don't think it's fair to fault a feature (removable, interchangeable plates to accommodate video bowls, columns, etc.) that a user didn't tighten down.
I do think that a better design would have some extra safety tab in case it's not tightened.
|