EB-1 wrote:
Did the lens collar fail in some way or was it not tightened?
EBH
Both, in my opinion. But it was not tightened snug. There's only one screw that both adjusts the tension and disconnects the collar. You have to loosen the screw quite a bit to allow the camera to rotate easily. To remove the collar you have to pull the knob away from the lens against spring tension to release the collar. Even with the screw loosened up you would think the tripod collar would stay attached because there is a spring pushing the detent down in the "locked" position.
The knob was loose enough so the camera would rotate. I went to move about 20yds so I locked the ball head in position but forgot to tighten the tripod collar knob back down. I set the camera over my shoulder and as soon as I felt the weight of the camera on the back of my shoulder I felt the collar let go of the camera. It fell behind my back and the screen landed on a rock.
I've been stopping on the way home from work almost every morning and shooting some sillouette pelicans that land on a pole. Well I got tired of hand holding, waiting on them to make a pose so I brought the monopod yesterday to try the 100-500 on for the first time. I had no problems yesterday but I did snug the screw back down before putting the camera on my shoulder.
This morning I forgot to tighten the screw back down on the collar. So it was my fault for not tightening the screw back down but I feel if it were designed properly it should not have let go even with the screw loosened up. (I mean you have to leave the screw fairly loose to be able to easily rotate the camera).
I just wanted to share this so everyone is aware and hopefully it won't happen to you.
Here's a few images of the pelicans. The last two were from yesterday and that was the first time I tried the monopod on this lens. The wind was wrong so they were facing away from me unfortunately...
Just got home and tried to put the lens back on the collar. Well it turns out I definitely have a collar failure. The collar will tighten down snug but when you start loosening the knob it will RELEASE the collar BEFORE it gets loose enough for the lens to easily rotate inside the collar. I will be taking it back to Calagaz on the way in to work this afternoon and let them look at it...
I share your pain. I had a similar failure on the 100-500 collar 6 months ago. Fortunately I was able to deflect the rig with my foot before crashing into the ground. (It did leave a nasty bruise on the top of my foot, but just one of the sacrifices we make for our gear. I picked up a replacement on Ebay for $50 that included a built in quick release plate. It has worked well and is lower profile than the original.
mbrown wrote:
I share your pain. I had a similar failure on the 100-500 collar 6 months ago. Fortunately I was able to deflect the rig with my foot before crashing into the ground. (It did leave a nasty bruise on the top of my foot, but just one of the sacrifices we make for our gear. I picked up a replacement on Ebay for $50 that included a built in quick release plate. It has worked well and is lower profile than the original.
That's unfortunate but at least your foot "saved" it. I wish I could've tried to save mine but it all happened behind my back, I didn't even see it hit the ground...
For those worried about it not always being secure, you should add a short safety tether from the camera body to the monopod or tripod.
As a semi-paranoid about such things, my strategy with long lenses (and even shorter lenses at times) is to leave the neck strap on the camera, do a single twist of the strap, and then loop that around the base of the tripod head.
Another paranoid tip? When removing the camera from the tripod, always stick your hand through the strap and give it a single twist around your wrist.
I had a similar experience with my 100-500 early on, fortunately it landed on very soft (marshy) ground from a short distance and neither it nor the R5 suffered at all.
My testing afterwards left me thinking it is not so much whether the collar knob is clamped down tight; it is whether the click catch thingy has caught before a person starts tightening down the knob. Please forgive the technical terms.
Never mind whether you managed to get the catch caught, it is a darn poor design. We need a proper replacement from Canon. For free.
I'm sorry to hear about your lens. I just don't get why companies feel the need to replace good designs with inferior ones. Even the 100-400 v1 or EF 70-200 design where the collar only loosens enough to slip off at specific points in the rotation would have been better.
While I'm not a fan of the design, I really think my collar is defective. The repair guy wasn't at the store where I bought the lens from so I'm going to take it back tomorrow and let him look at it. I have replicated what happened multiple times since this morning. Here is a video showing what happened. It should not let go this easily in my opinion.....
Yeah it definitely sounds like something isn't right with your collar. I haven't found any side to side play in mine when loosening just for body rotation. I'm now getting multiple safety straps!
mdees88 wrote:
While I'm not a fan of the design, I really think my collar is defective. The repair guy wasn't at the store where I bought the lens from so I'm going to take it back tomorrow and let him look at it. I have replicated what happened multiple times since this morning. Here is a video showing what happened. It should not let go this easily in my opinion.....
It might fail human factors testing, but is not defective per se. It's just that the range between the lens being loose enough to rotate and when it is loose enough to open is rather small.
I hope there is enough market for someone to develop a better tripod collar solution that also has A-S.
Oh damn! Sorry to see this and trashing your R5 like that. There is no need for this poor design on this level of a lens. I wouldn't even expect that crap on a $800 lens let alone a nearly $3k lens.
I hope you and everyone that has had this critical failure happen are reporting this directly to Canon. That video is priceless. Canon needs to see that video and they need to make this right by replacing your R5 and the lens. Hopefully they address this very soon with a better design because they are likely to sell a ton of these when people get the new R7 in their hands.
Ouch! That's painful. Hope you get some joy from Canon re replacement.
I guess I'm lucky, I really like the new collar design and it has been fine the few times I have used it. But then I rarely use a tripod and never a monopod so it is usually off the lens anyway and stored so risk factor is lower.
Imagemaster wrote:
It is garbage compared to the collar on the EF 100-400.
The only advantage of the 100-500 setup is that the collar can be removed completely while the lens is mounted. The 100-400 II leaves the collar on the lens. The EF 100-400 v1 and the EF 70-200 require dismounting the lens to remove the collar. So I can see what they were trying to achieve, but it's not that important compared to the security offered by the older designs.
I guess it's my fault for not vetting this in my house (though you wouldn't think I'd have to on a $3K L lens). I will rarely ever use this lens on a monopd as it's so light but when your standing watching a pelican on the same pole for 20 minutes as the sun rises behind him, handholding gets tiresome.
The biggest issue is trying to use this in a Wimberley monogimbal style configuration. On a tripod at least the lens is resting on the bottom of the collar.
This is what I'm used to. The EF 100-400 IS II used with a ball head configured like a wimberly monogimbal.
Here is the RF 100-500 collar releasing my lens....
Talked to the master technician at the store I bought the lens from today. It's the first time he's played with this tripod collar. He said he does not like the design compared to previous ones but he also said he thinks my collar is not working like it should. Going to ship it off to Canon tomorrow. Fingers crossed...
I picked up a replacement on Ebay for $50 that included a built in quick release plate. It has worked well and is lower profile than the original.