p.18 #2 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
Lance B wrote:
A selection of shots from a 34 shot sequence of an Osprey being harassed by a Magpie. The earlier shots cropped more than the latter shots, the last with little cropping. I only included the Magpie in the shots that had it close to the Osprey or the Magpie was not partly cut off. The Z9 didn't miss eye focus in any shot.
Z9 + 180-600, all at 600mm f7.1 and 1/3200sec with various ISO's from 1400 to 3600.
p.18 #6 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
I am the very first to defend Nikon. I am not ashamed of being a Nikon fanboy
However, I would like to see an end to Nikon skimping on lens feet and lens collars on the lesser expensive telephotos.
Hey Nikon, how much more would it cost for the lens if you gave us a pro-grade foot and collar? We want good, functional lens feet/collars...... and so I believe that we are all willing to pay extra for them.
And just this morning I asked myself why nobody has mentioned any difficulty they have with rotating the lens within Nikon's stock collar. In. his review, Nicholas Stettler mentions that he has a some difficulty.
Is the rotation fluid? How can it be if the weight is forward? I honestly do not know and it would be helpful for those who own this lens to comment on this.
p.18 #7 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
First video I've seen from Koolbob2. I must say I like his thinking and presentation. Watch the lenses he pulls out from under the desk for comparisons.
At 7:20 Koolbob2 elaborates on the same problem as above.
At about 10:15 he says that "everything about this lens is awesome"...... and then "some "bean counter" decided they needed to save a few bucks... or maybe they're trying to hit a price point" and they made the decision to add this one-piece *removebale* collar... and I really don't care for it."
p.18 #8 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
What are your thoughts about the foot/collar?
How much more would it have cost us for a high-quality foot/collar?
Considering the weight-forward of the supertele zooms, is it even possible to make one that rotates fluidly?
My 200-500 has a Kirk collar on it and it has always been a fight to rotate. I finally discovered ( ) that I need to de-weight (push up from under) the front of "the beast" and then it does rotate acceptably.
p.18 #9 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
What are your thoughts about the foot/collar?
How much more would it have cost us for a high-quality foot/collar?
Considering the weight-forward of the supertele zooms, is it even possible to make one that rotates fluidly?
My 200-500 has a Kirk collar on it and it has always been a fight to rotate. I finally discovered ( ) that I need to de-weight (push up from under) the front of "the beast" and then it does rotate acceptably.
The collar definitely is not as smooth as the one on my Z 100-400. It takes more turns to loosen the collar and even once it's loose it's not as smooth or easy to turn. However, it's still workable just not as good of an experience. The balance is actually pretty good IMO. The balance point is just behind the control ring/focus ring when mounted to my Z8. A Z9 would balance even closer to the body probably very close to the collar.
p.18 #10 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
bs kite wrote:
I am the very first to defend Nikon. I am not ashamed of being a Nikon fanboy
...
And just this morning I asked myself why nobody has mentioned any difficulty they have with rotating the lens within Nikon's stock collar. In. his review, Nicholas Stettler mentions that he has a some difficulty.
Is the rotation fluid? How can it be if the weight is forward? I honestly do not know and it would be helpful for those who own this lens to comment on this.
Thank you much
Robert
Robert, you must not have read the prior threads carefully. Many of us have discussed the issues with the collar, especially as it applies to friction and rotating the lens. I would say that this collar is as bad as the one on the 200-500mm lens.. in some ways better and other worse.
It will cost $250-300 for the Kirk or RRS replacement, I wish Nikon had just baked in the up-charge and use the same collar tech they are using with the 70-200/100-400/4004.5/600PF
p.18 #11 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Robert, you must not have read the prior threads carefully. Many of us have discussed the issues with the collar, especially as it applies to friction and rotating the lens. I would say that this collar is as bad as the one on the 200-500mm lens.. in some ways better and other worse.
It will cost $250-300 for the Kirk or RRS replacement, I wish Nikon had just baked in the up-charge and use the same collar tech they are using with the 70-200/100-400/4004.5/600PF
bruce
The problem is that Nikon could improve the 180-600 in a number of respects, each increasing the price by a few hundred euros or dollars:
1. Wider and smoother rotating tripod collar with removeable foot
2. Nano and ARNEO coatings
3. Dual focusing groups and motors
4. Use Super ED or other ways to improve the optics
Which of these should they add and why not the others? How would these improvements and the increased price affect the number of lenses that they can sell?
I think for this product it was important to hit a price point that is seen as competitive because to get the most out of the lens, you need at least a Z8 which is much more expensive than, e.g., the D500 that people could get for use with the 200-500 for a much lower price. Between those prices (3500€ vs. 8000€) is a big gap that leaves a lot of people on shore. If they increase the price of the lens, it just accentuates the issue and makes the lens only accessible to wealthy amateurs or professionals. Those customers already have a lot of S-line options to choose from.
When the 200-500 was new, the above list could more or less be stated as a wish list (although we didn't know about the possibility of dual motors, the high-end superteles had faster SWM focus speeds than the 200-500), but also
5. Make the lens zoom with less force and with a shorter range
6. Make the lens internal zoom so that it retains balance on a gimbal head or fluid head
Those improvements that Nikon did are significant already, and the price only increased slightly. No question if all of these points were considered in a premium version of the 180-600, the price would be close to 3500-4000€. To the user of the S-line superteles or equivalent F-mount lenses, for sure this doesn't feel too high, but it could mean the loss of 70-80% of customers.
p.18 #12 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem is that Nikon could improve the 180-600 in a number of respects, each increasing the price by a few hundred euros or dollars:
1. Wider and smoother rotating tripod collar with removeable foot
2. Nano and ARNEO coatings
3. Dual focusing groups and motors
4. Use Super ED or other ways to improve the optics
Which of these should they add and why not the others? How would these improvements and the increased price affect the number of lenses that they can sell?
I think for this product it was important to hit a price point that is seen as competitive because to get the most out of the lens, you need at least a Z8 which is much more expensive than, e.g., the D500 that people could get for use with the 200-500 for a much lower price. Between those prices (3500€ vs. 8000€) is a big gap that leaves a lot of people on shore. If they increase the price of the lens, it just accentuates the issue and makes the lens only accessible to wealthy amateurs or professionals. Those customers already have a lot of S-line options to choose from.
When the 200-500 was new, the above list could more or less be stated as a wish list (although we didn't know about the possibility of dual motors, the high-end superteles had faster SWM focus speeds than the 200-500), but also
5. Make the lens zoom with less force and with a shorter range
6. Make the lens internal zoom so that it retains balance on a gimbal head or fluid head
Those improvements that Nikon did are significant already, and the price only increased slightly. No question if all of these points were considered in a premium version of the 180-600, the price would be close to 3500-4000€. To the user of the S-line superteles or equivalent F-mount lenses, for sure this doesn't feel too high, but it could mean the loss of 70-80% of customers.
p.18 #13 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem is that Nikon could improve the 180-600 in a number of respects, each increasing the price by a few hundred euros or dollars:
1. Wider and smoother rotating tripod collar with removeable foot
2. Nano and ARNEO coatings
3. Dual focusing groups and motors
4. Use Super ED or other ways to improve the optics
Which of these should they add and why not the others? How would these improvements and the increased price affect the number of lenses that they can sell?
I think for this product it was important to hit a price point that is seen as competitive because to get the most out of the lens, you need at least a Z8 which is much more expensive than, e.g., the D500 that people could get for use with the 200-500 for a much lower price. Between those prices (3500€ vs. 8000€) is a big gap that leaves a lot of people on shore. If they increase the price of the lens, it just accentuates the issue and makes the lens only accessible to wealthy amateurs or professionals. Those customers already have a lot of S-line options to choose from.
When the 200-500 was new, the above list could more or less be stated as a wish list (although we didn't know about the possibility of dual motors, the high-end superteles had faster SWM focus speeds than the 200-500), but also
5. Make the lens zoom with less force and with a shorter range
6. Make the lens internal zoom so that it retains balance on a gimbal head or fluid head
Those improvements that Nikon did are significant already, and the price only increased slightly. No question if all of these points were considered in a premium version of the 180-600, the price would be close to 3500-4000€. To the user of the S-line superteles or equivalent F-mount lenses, for sure this doesn't feel too high, but it could mean the loss of 70-80% of customers.
Oh... to be clear, I agree with you 100% on this point. I actually think Nikon produced a product that FAR EXCEEDS its price point... I say this in caps because I am that emphatic about it. The lens is a giant leap forward from the once amazing 200-500, and if you include inflation,... priced relatively lower at the time of introduction.
I own and shoot with the 400 f4.5 and 800PF, two of Nikon's best in class optics that approach the quality of the 400 f2.8S and 600 f4S lenses, yet... I WOULD NOT hesitate to take the 180-600 on a once in a life time shoot and rely on it as my primary lens. In fact, I bought 180-600 to accompany me to my planned 2 week winter wildlife trip to Japan. This trip promises ultra-cold temperatures (20F to -15F) and a lot of snow, yet I am confident the lens will deliver. While I plan to pack the 400 f4.5 as a "back-up" and low-light alternative, I am certain that the zoom will get at least 75% of the "telephoto time."
However, unlike others who continue to clamor for sharper and more contrasty lenses, I am one who consistently wants better mechanical design. The 180-600 is sharp enough and contrasty enough. Furthermore, it is more flare resistant than it has any right to be (see my backlit deer earlier in this thread). However, as a lens that reaches 600mm, it will be used (should be) with a tripod to take advantage of its strengths, and the OEM collar is something that could have been improved if it were more thoughtfully designed.
p.18 #14 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
How was the quality of the collars on your 200-400 (s)? Was it smooth or did it bind/stick. ?
Thank you for the clarification Bruce.
Yes, I missed that part of the thread. I pay close attention to all the 180-600 images posted and I read all the information the posters provide about their images. So, on the 180-600 thread, my eyes are looking mostly for images.
And frankly, I do not read long comments. If I had read that part of the thread I would not have "carried on" about the collar myself.
If this collar is like my 200-500 then it's a nightmare. I am still buying the lens because it checks all my the other boxes.
Imo, KoolBob2's comment is spot on.
Personally, I want an aftermarket company to develop a *significantly longer* foot* than they typically do*, and to build fluidity into the collar.
p.18 #15 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
maverick777 wrote:
The collar definitely is not as smooth as the one on my Z 100-400. It takes more turns to loosen the collar and even once it's loose it's not as smooth or easy to turn. However, it's still workable just not as good of an experience. The balance is actually pretty good IMO. The balance point is just behind the control ring/focus ring when mounted to my Z8. A Z9 would balance even closer to the body probably very close to the collar.
Yes, I agree. It took me a long time to learn that even though I further unscrewed the knob on the 2-5 collar...... it did not get smoother. It is workable if I push up on the front of the lens as I rotate it.
Good point you made about the Z9 improving the balance. I wonder if moving that balance point more to the rear allows a smoother rotation.
p.18 #16 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
OwlsEyes wrote:
Oh... to be clear, I agree with you 100% on this point. I actually think Nikon produced a product that FAR EXCEEDS its price point... I say this in caps because I am that emphatic about it. The lens is a giant leap forward from the once amazing 200-500, and if you include inflation,... priced relatively lower at the time of introduction.
I own and shoot with the 400 f4.5 and 800PF, two of Nikon's best in class optics that approach the quality of the 400 f2.8S and 600 f4S lenses, yet... I WOULD NOT hesitate to take the 180-600 on a once in a life time shoot and rely on it as my primary lens. In fact, I bought 180-600 to accompany me to my planned 2 week winter wildlife trip to Japan. This trip promises ultra-cold temperatures (20F to -15F) and a lot of snow, yet I am confident the lens will deliver. While I plan to pack the 400 f4.5 as a "back-up" and low-light alternative, I am certain that the zoom will get at least 75% of the "telephoto time."
However, unlike others who continue to clamor for sharper and more contrasty lenses, I am one who consistently wants better mechanical design. The 180-600 is sharp enough and contrasty enough. Furthermore, it is more flare resistant than it has any right to be (see my backlit deer earlier in this thread). However, as a lens that reaches 600mm, it will be used (should be) with a tripod to take advantage of its strengths, and the OEM collar is something that could have been improved if it were more thoughtfully designed.
My interest in the nano and ARNEO coatings has not to do with higher contrast, but consistent color under all lighting and subject conditions with S-line lenses (almost all of which have at least some nano coated surfaces). I've owned several of the older SIC-coated and following nano+SIC-coated Nikkors and the way the nano-coated lenses render subjects in blue sky + sun is quite different (example: 85/1.4 D AF vs. 85/1.4 G AF-S). One is not necessarily "better" than the other, what I'm simply interested in is consistency across the lenses that I use.
The 180-600 images to my eye (posted in this thread) look pleasing and I have no issue with the optics as images have been presented, it seems very good value and in some way a classical Nikkor where the images are pleasing to look at beyond sharpness or contrast considerations. I don't own the lens though, as so far the lens hasn't been in stock anywhere in my country (some preorders have been reportedly shipped, though) and the quality of the tripod mount is a priority for me and so I purchased the 100-400 instead (other characteristics affected my choice as well). Although it is an extending zoom, it has a counterbalanced zoom mechanism that keeps the center of gravity in almost the same place across the zoom range, so at least on my fluid head, it doesn't require rebalancing after zooming. The experience of using it on a tripod makes me very happy. The hood is way too tight to mount and unmount though, and I find myself afraid I'll drop the lens when I am trying to get the hood to unlock holding the lens with gloves on.
As a Nikon user you should be familiar with how they make stuff that's 85% perfect. Yes, they could have made a better tripod collar, but at least the majority of Nikon tripod collars in new lenses have improved dramatically from what they were like in the mid 1990s to mid 2010's. In one case I've also noticed improvement in the same model of lens's tripod collar without the customers given any notice about the change. I just make my lens choices so that the tripod collar is satisfying and avoid the ones where it is not as to me the frustrations with a few collars in the past simply were maddening. In the wintertime I often have to shoot long lenses at slow shutter speeds (1/4s to 1/80s) and a poor collar can be very annoying if there is a bit of wind or shutter shake. (Shutter shake has been addressed with EFCS and fully electronic shutters as well.) A lot of improvement over the past ten years or so.
p.18 #17 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
The problem is that Nikon could improve the 180-600 in a number of respects, each increasing the price by a few hundred euros or dollars:
1. Wider and smoother rotating tripod collar with removeable foot
2. Nano and ARNEO coatings
3. Dual focusing groups and motors
4. Use Super ED or other ways to improve the optics
Adapting the tripod collar from existing lenses versus coming up with a new (yet vastly inferior) design would have added only pennies - or a few dollars at most - to the cost of this lens.
As for all of the other improvements to the lens itself, I agree they would have added more significantly to the cost of the lens, but it does male one wonder how Sony was able to include so many similar features into their 200-600mm zoom, for only a few dollars more. Perhaps Sony is selling at a low margin and making it up on sales volume, whereas Nikon cut every cost they could in order to make more profit per unit...?
p.18 #18 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
molson wrote:
Adapting the tripod collar from existing lenses versus coming up with a new (yet vastly inferior) design would have added only pennies - or a few dollars at most - to the cost of this lens.
I don't know what it costs for Nikon to make those, all we have for reference is what the Kirk replacement collar costs ($325). Of course, the actual manufacturing cost is lower than the retail price.
My guess is that the manufacturer either makes these things with CNC or Nikon's case probably by casting (to get the wrinkly finish) and machining the contact surfaces. I think the making of these parts could be surprisingly expensive. For sure it doesn't cost Nikon as much as Kirk as Nikon can expect to sell more copies than Kirk for a purpose-made collar for this one lens. Even if a better collar would cost $20 for Nikon to actually make, it might still increase the lens price by $100-150.
The removable collar design has the advantage that all of it can be removed if the user will never use it on a tripod or monopod. I suspect that this includes a number of fredmiranda active posters who never use a tripod. The removable foot design has the advantage that the foot can be easily removed and attached all the while the lens is mounted on a camera. Quicker and more convenient for those who frequently alternate between hand-held and tripod-based shooting. Also it allows third-party screw-on feet (Hejnar) if the user wants the foot never to come off. A very customisable design but no doubt a bit more expensive to make. The Z 100-400's collar rotates smoothly and so probably it has some soft inner lining material which has to be attached to the collar.
As for all of the other improvements to the lens itself, I agree they would have added more significantly to the cost of the lens, but it does male one wonder how Sony was able to include so many similar features into their 200-600mm zoom, for only a few dollars more. Perhaps Sony is selling at a low margin and making it up on sales volume, whereas Nikon cut every cost they could in order to make more profit per unit...?
Sony's 200-600 is quite a pioneering lens in that it is an internal zoom in a focal range where in this class all the previous designs were extending zooms, making those older lenses a lot less convenient to use on a tripod (they were also heavier). However, the Sony does have some focus breathing so in practice the Nikkor gives a narrower angle of view at the 600 mm setting for close focused subjects. To avoid breathing Nikon probably had to make a more complex internal design.
Sony is making a smaller set of long lenses than Nikon and as the number of choices grows, the number of units sold per lens type is reduced as the company offering multiple products is essentially competing with themselves with only a few more lenses sold because of the added variety. They're making the variety their trade mark, basically. For example Sigma could make a highly competitive 500/4 ... because they sold the same optical design for multiple mounts, and did not offer any focal length variants of the lens such as 600/4, 400/2.8, 800/5.6. So those who wanted a Sigma supertele prime got this same lens, while Nikon and Canon users could select from a bunch of different types. The choice adds value but it also increases the costs the manufacturer has for maintaining such a product line.
Currently Canon has the largest number of supertelephoto lenses for mirrorless systems, though they developed them by utilizing the same front and rear optical sections on some of the lenses. Canon also have the largest market share in ILCs so they can probably do this because they can expect to sell the most copies. Nikon has the smallest market share of the three but probably their new telephoto lenses are changing it quickly and their value market share may be approaching its previous normal, at least in some markets.
Manufacturers who make relatively few copies of each lens have higher cost per development of each lens type, so they're at a disadvantage from a cost point of view.
p.18 #19 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I don't know what it costs for Nikon to make those, all we have for reference is what the Kirk replacement collar costs ($325). Of course, the actual manufacturing cost is lower than the retail price.
You can't really compare a boutique product for wealthy hobbyists with mass produced small parts like this.
My guess is that the manufacturer either makes these things with CNC or Nikon's case probably by casting (to get the wrinkly finish) and machining the contact surfaces. I think the making of these parts could be surprisingly expensive. For sure it doesn't cost Nikon as much as Kirk as Nikon can expect to sell more copies than Kirk for a purpose-made collar for this one lens. Even if a better collar would cost $20 for Nikon to actually make, it might still increase the lens price by $100-150.
Once you deduct the design and manufacturing costs for the inferior collar, the net cost of adapting an existing product will be very much lower. It would also spread the cost of some components over Nikon's entire telephoto line, reducing the unit cost even more. With Nikon not choosing this obvious cost saving opportunity, it makes me think the lens is produced by an outside supplier (either that, or it was a deliberate attempt to "cheapen" the lens to provide an incentive for buyers to upgrade to an S series lens...)
I'm not sure whether this calls into question the competence of the product manager, or makes me optimistic that a better (faster?) S-line supertele zoom is in the works...
Sony's 200-600 is quite a pioneering lens in that it is an internal zoom in a focal range where in this class all the previous designs were extending zooms, making those older lenses a lot less convenient to use on a tripod (they were also heavier). However, the Sony does have some focus breathing so in practice the Nikkor gives a narrower angle of view at the 600 mm setting for close focused subjects. To avoid breathing Nikon probably had to make a more complex internal design.
After watching Steve Perry's latest video, it seems the Nikon 180-600 also has a substantial amount of focus breathing, so if Nikon went with a more complex design, it didn't seem to solve that particular problem.
p.18 #20 · Official Nikon Z 180-600mm f5.6-6.3 VR Image Thread
ilkka_nissila wrote:
My interest in the nano and ARNEO coatings has not to do with higher contrast, but consistent color under all lighting and subject conditions with S-line lenses (almost all of which have at least some nano coated surfaces). I've owned several of the older SIC-coated and following nano+SIC-coated Nikkors and the way the nano-coated lenses render subjects in blue sky + sun is quite different (example: 85/1.4 D AF vs. 85/1.4 G AF-S). One is not necessarily "better" than the other, what I'm simply interested in is consistency across the lenses that I use.
The 180-600 images to my eye (posted in this thread) look pleasing and I have no issue with the optics as images have been presented, it seems very good value and in some way a classical Nikkor where the images are pleasing to look at beyond sharpness or contrast considerations. I don't own the lens though, as so far the lens hasn't been in stock anywhere in my country (some preorders have been reportedly shipped, though) and the quality of the tripod mount is a priority for me and so I purchased the 100-400 instead (other characteristics affected my choice as well). Although it is an extending zoom, it has a counterbalanced zoom mechanism that keeps the center of gravity in almost the same place across the zoom range, so at least on my fluid head, it doesn't require rebalancing after zooming. The experience of using it on a tripod makes me very happy. The hood is way too tight to mount and unmount though, and I find myself afraid I'll drop the lens when I am trying to get the hood to unlock holding the lens with gloves on.
As a Nikon user you should be familiar with how they make stuff that's 85% perfect. Yes, they could have made a better tripod collar, but at least the majority of Nikon tripod collars in new lenses have improved dramatically from what they were like in the mid 1990s to mid 2010's. In one case I've also noticed improvement in the same model of lens's tripod collar without the customers given any notice about the change. I just make my lens choices so that the tripod collar is satisfying and avoid the ones where it is not as to me the frustrations with a few collars in the past simply were maddening. In the wintertime I often have to shoot long lenses at slow shutter speeds (1/4s to 1/80s) and a poor collar can be very annoying if there is a bit of wind or shutter shake. (Shutter shake has been addressed with EFCS and fully electronic shutters as well.) A lot of improvement over the past ten years or so. ...Show more →
Thanks for the thoughtful reply...
I have been pleasantly surprised by both the build and optical quality of the 180-600. As is common with other non-S zooms, the lens lacks a dedicated focus ring, but I'm fine using the multi-function ring for this purpose. With respect to coatings and color consistency, it is a typical Nikon lens in that it does not bias towards warm, cold, or reds. I suspect that the lack of nano coating may be significant when shooting against snow where speculars can produce some ugly artifacts, but one quickly learns how to avoid the placement of these things in critical regions in the frame. As someone who shot with the 300PF & 500PF (prior optics) and with the current 800PF, I am careful to recognize where PF onion rings might negatively impact an image.
While Nikon claims that the 180-600 is a "homegrown" product, I would not be surprised it it was a Nikon/Tamron partnership... possibly assembled in a Tamron facility and using Tamron glass. There are color characteristics that seem to match my 70-180 f2.8. Note... I am to starting a rumor nor do I have any proof, it is simply that there is a consistency in output between these two lenses.
I happen to own and shoot the Nikon 70-180 f2.8 and think its a brilliant lens and is better suited to a nature generalist who carries long glass than either the 70-200 f2.8 and 100-400S. Having owned the latter two lenses, I feel as if I have only gained by having the 70-180 + 180-600 in my bag...
Final point.. I do also own the 400 f4.5 and 800PF and there are times when these lenses clearly out-resolve the 180-600. I see this when shooting at higher ISOs in poor light and when my subject is more than 80 meters away... This is the compromise inherent in a $1700US lens that lacks both Nano and Arneo coatings, but... for me it is a "wow" optic because it slots so nicely between the 70-180 and 800PF.
Oh... final point... I'd pay a premium (let's say $4500-$5000) if they were to make an S version with integrated foot, SR/Fluorite glass, faster motor, and best coatings, but until something like this appears, I'm all good.
cheers,
bruce
) that I need to de-weight (push up from under) the front of "the beast" and then it does rotate acceptably.