5D III Camera Plate
/forum/topic/1103460/0

1
       2       3              17       18       end

Mike Pearson
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Total Posts: 237
Country: United States

Has anyone found a camera plate for the 5D III (plain camera - no grip) that fits well? I ordered one from Really Right Stuff and I am not at all happy with the fit. Their standards seem to have slipped badly. Below is a picture showing the gap between the plate and the camera at the rear of the plate/camera when looking from the side. On the phone they tell me there should be no gap and I just have to screw the screw tighter, though it is as tight as I have ever tightened on any camera. In their email they tell me "those gaps are completely normal."



Mike Pearson
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Total Posts: 237
Country: United States

Another view



AGeoJO
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 12041
Country: United States

Oh, no! I just ordered mine today for tomorrow's shipment. That doesn't look good at all .



4x4rock
Registered: May 04, 2005
Total Posts: 1571
Country: United States

Have you shown them the pics of the gaps? I'm thinking of pick one up for the 5D3 too.

The plate I had for the 1ds2 was really tight.



rsg_1
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Total Posts: 1083
Country: United States

If you tighten more on the screw, it will dig in to the body. Not something you want to do.

*crap*

I just ordered one as well. Maybe I should cancel.



AGeoJO
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 12041
Country: United States

I just shot an email to Casey, I provided a link of this particular thread and I will follow up with a phone call in several minutes.



rsg_1
Registered: Aug 24, 2005
Total Posts: 1083
Country: United States

Please let us know.



Mike Pearson
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Total Posts: 237
Country: United States

4x4rock wrote:
Have you shown them the pics of the gaps? I'm thinking of pick one up for the 5D3 too.

The plate I had for the 1ds2 was really tight.


Yes, I ended up sending them four pics. The top picture was the first pic I sent them. They asked for more that were not just silhouette. I think they wanted to make sure I had it right way around and it was the right plate on the right camera but were too polite to put it in those terms.

I don't think Kirk has theirs out yet. Is there anyone else?



4x4rock
Registered: May 04, 2005
Total Posts: 1571
Country: United States

There's another thread with the plate
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1103339

I really hope they sent you the wrong one and everything is good at the end.



AGeoJO
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 12041
Country: United States

I just got off the phone with Matt, the engineer at RRS that designed the plate. He explained the situation to me that did make me feel more at ease. He would contact their PR person and they will explain that in details here on FM. It is better to hear it directly from the horse's mouth. Stay tuned!



DeepShadows
Registered: Sep 06, 2008
Total Posts: 381
Country: Canada

Mine is in the mail as we speak, hope it turns out alright before my trip to Hawaii!!!



geniousc
Registered: May 08, 2005
Total Posts: 1837
Country: United States

He better have a good explanation. I just removed mine, from one day of usage, the raised rear support part of the plate has a shiny spot worn on the edge of my brand new body. In view of this, there is no explanation. I have not had a camera plate damage my camera body yet. The rear part of the plate is the pressure point of the plate instead of the camera bottom. The rear angular part of the plate is a straight angle instead of being milled with a rounded end mill leaving a flat surface instead of a curved surface. Unacceptable!

gene



Mike Pearson
Registered: Jan 26, 2007
Total Posts: 237
Country: United States

I should clarify. The plate attaches firmly. There is no wiggle at all. It will work just fine, even if it is not perfectly parallel to the camera bottom. I am just not fond of having the point of a 90 degree hard edge digging into my camera. And when I pay $55 for a couple of dollars of metal I am actually paying for the custom fit like the fit of my RRS plates on my 20D, 5D classic and 1D Mk IV. None of those plates have gaps or edges making contact with the camera. If I can find a better fitting plate I will get it. If not I can live with this plate though I will feel I have paid $45 too much.



mrbig
Registered: Jul 24, 2010
Total Posts: 61
Country: United States

geniousc wrote:
The rear angular part of the plate is a straight angle instead of being milled with a rounded end mill leaving a flat surface instead of a curved surface. Unacceptable!

gene


Does yours have the same gap between the plate and body as in the above photos or does your camera lie flat?



jdben622
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Total Posts: 4020
Country: United States

Now that is interesting. I just posted that I liked mine, but it was mainly due to the increased width they decided to use. I didn't view it at the angle you did. I have the same gap and SH!T a nice permanent mark running down the length of the body. Tightening it further will NOT fix this propblem.

I don't know why flange rests on an elevated ridge. It's that ridge that digs into the camera. If the ridge was gone and the flange adjusted outward by a tiny bit, it would seem the problem would be gone. So not only is the plate cutting into the body of the camera, it's causing the camera to point slightly downward when clamped.

Not sure what PR explanation is going to make me feel better about this.



geniousc
Registered: May 08, 2005
Total Posts: 1837
Country: United States

mrbig wrote:
geniousc wrote:
The rear angular part of the plate is a straight angle instead of being milled with a rounded end mill leaving a flat surface instead of a curved surface. Unacceptable!

gene


Does yours have the same gap between the plate and body as in the above photos or does your camera lie flat?


Yes, and the rear anti-rotation ledge is pressing hard on the edge of the body. It could actually crack the plastic I suppose. It should be contoured to fit the camera body not press hard on it.



geniousc
Registered: May 08, 2005
Total Posts: 1837
Country: United States

jdben622 wrote:
Now that is interesting. I just posted that I liked mine, but it was mainly due to the increased width they decided to use. I didn't view it at the angle you did. I have the same gap and SH!T a nice permanent mark running down the length of the body. Tightening it further will NOT fix this propblem.

I don't know why flange rests on an elevated ridge. It's that ridge that digs into the camera. If the ridge was gone and the flange adjusted outward by a tiny bit, it would seem the problem would be gone. So not only is the plate cutting into the body of the camera, it's causing the camera to point slightly downward when clamped.

Not sure what PR explanation is going to make me feel better about this.


Mines going back John. No engineering explanation can make this right.



jdben622
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Total Posts: 4020
Country: United States

geniousc wrote:
mrbig wrote:
geniousc wrote:
The rear angular part of the plate is a straight angle instead of being milled with a rounded end mill leaving a flat surface instead of a curved surface. Unacceptable!

gene


Does yours have the same gap between the plate and body as in the above photos or does your camera lie flat?


Yes, and the rear anti-rotation ledge is pressing hard on the edge of the body. It could actually crack the plastic I suppose. It should be contoured to fit the camera body not press hard on it.


Well the 5DII plate is a wedge versus a nice rounded flange that the 1-series plate use. It's completely straight, so I don't know why RRS adopted that design and it's something I noticed when I had my 5DII. However, it worked so I really didn't care.

This 5DIII plate issue I definitely care about.



jdben622
Registered: Apr 20, 2003
Total Posts: 4020
Country: United States

jdben622 wrote:
Now that is interesting. I just posted that I liked mine, but it was mainly due to the increased width they decided to use. I didn't view it at the angle you did. I have the same gap and SH!T a nice permanent mark running down the length of the body. Tightening it further will NOT fix this propblem.

I don't know why flange rests on an elevated ridge. It's that ridge that digs into the camera. If the ridge was gone and the flange adjusted outward by a tiny bit, it would seem the problem would be gone. So not only is the plate cutting into the body of the camera, it's causing the camera to point slightly downward when clamped.

Not sure what PR explanation is going to make me feel better about this.

geniousc wrote:
Mines going back John. No engineering explanation can make this right.


I agree. I'm not looking for an explanation as it's clearly defective. Even if there was some design rationale, it's impossible to explain how a camera plate that un-levels a level platform is somehow "OK". I'm looking at what RRS is going to do to fix it. I'm definitely not thrilled with the marks on the camera. I know many people felt that Canon gouged us with the price of the 5DIII, but I didn't expect RRS to "gouge" me too!!!



AGeoJO
Registered: Jul 08, 2003
Total Posts: 12041
Country: United States

geniousc wrote:
Yes, and the rear anti-rotation ledge is pressing hard on the edge of the body. It could actually crack the plastic I suppose. It should be contoured to fit the camera body not press hard on it.


I am letting the cat a little out of the bag... the keyword is indeed "anti-rotation" but it is not supposed to mar up the body... . Not sure what to make out of this but actual users seem to have a point and their camera shows some kind of "indentation". I am considering of just rejecting the shipment tomorrow . Dang, I was looking forward to this actually...



1
       2       3              17       18       end