mogul wrote:
Why do we have to wait for a foot? What is it about the lens manufacturers (except Sigma) that they refuse to listen to their customer base? So easy to cut an arca swiss dovetail.
Olympus also includes the Arca-compatible dovetail on their lens feet.
I have seen both and handled sony 400-800mm and sigma 300-600mm at excel photography show ,Also have a preordered the 400-800mm ,i am going to swap out my 200-600mm as good as it is the 400-800mm gives me more birding options we do not have much wildlife options in the uk its mostly birds ,i have the sigma 500mm f5,6 for light weight and some low light option doubt the 400-800mm matches the sigma sharpness and iq ,but never know,the 300-600mm f4 was ok not bad ,but the fatigue from hand holding would be a issue think max would be 5-10min after this wobbles become obvious but a beautiful lens and fast focusing would love to own it but for hides and monopod work mostly ,the 400-800mm felt just like the 200-600mm just fatter still nicely balanced. F8 is not really a deal breaker and would rather fill the frame at f8 than crop from f6.3
mogul wrote:
Why do we have to wait for a foot? What is it about the lens manufacturers (except Sigma) that they refuse to listen to their customer base? So easy to cut an arca swiss dovetail.
It is baffling. I'm sure Sony has its strange reasons. IMO all lens feet should be arca-compatible (no license required) and have a QD port as standard these days.
CPWarner wrote:
Olympus also includes the Arca-compatible dovetail on their lens feet.
And Tamron.
Item Model Number A035TM
Date First Available : 23 November 2017
I don't know if that was their first, but it's over 7 years since that one.
mogul wrote:
Why do we have to wait for a foot? What is it about the lens manufacturers (except Sigma) that they refuse to listen to their customer base? So easy to cut an arca swiss dovetail.
This is because if a major camera manufacturer chooses a brand of tripod/head that is natively supported by the camera and lenses, it would interfere with the free market competition (in tripods/heads) and cause a competitive disadvantage to those manufacturers who use different QR systems than the so-called Arca Swiss compatible dovetails. Such a practice might be considered illegal in some countries.
Although today many brands support Arca Swiss compatible quick-release systems, Arca Swiss themselves made a slightly modified one which is incompatible with their classic system, and many so-called Arca Swiss compatible heads, rails, and plates are not cross-compatible. So it's not a good standard in that sense, some kit just won't work together. Manfrotto has a large market share in many places and they use a plethora of different plates, only a few of their heads are AS compatible.
Finally, video heads typically use systems that are different from Arca Swiss and you'd need to stack the relevant plate under the AS foot to use such heads (there are a few that are AS compatible, but most are not). And today video supposedly is the driving factor in camera sales, so fluid heads are important.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
This is because if a major camera manufacturer chooses a brand of tripod/head that is natively supported by the camera and lenses, it would interfere with the free market competition (in tripods/heads) and cause a competitive disadvantage to those manufacturers who use different QR systems than the so-called Arca Swiss compatible dovetails. Such a practice might be considered illegal in some countries.
Although today many brands support Arca Swiss compatible quick-release systems, Arca Swiss themselves made a slightly modified one which is incompatible with their classic system, and many so-called Arca Swiss compatible heads, rails, and plates are not cross-compatible. So it's not a good standard in that sense, some kit just won't work together. Manfrotto has a large market share in many places and they use a plethora of different plates, only a few of their heads are AS compatible.
Finally, video heads typically use systems that are different from Arca Swiss and you'd need to stack the relevant plate under the AS foot to use such heads (there are a few that are AS compatible, but most are not). And today video supposedly is the driving factor in camera sales, so fluid heads are important....Show more →
The way Sigma, Olympus and Tamron have incorporated an Arca-compatible has no impact on the ability to attach another plate for other systems. Neither do they add any significant stack height versus the feet on Sony lenses.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
This is because if a major camera manufacturer chooses a brand of tripod/head that is natively supported by the camera and lenses, it would interfere with the free market competition (in tripods/heads) and cause a competitive disadvantage to those manufacturers who use different QR systems than the so-called Arca Swiss compatible dovetails. Such a practice might be considered illegal in some countries.
Although today many brands support Arca Swiss compatible quick-release systems, Arca Swiss themselves made a slightly modified one which is incompatible with their classic system, and many so-called Arca Swiss compatible heads, rails, and plates are not cross-compatible. So it's not a good standard in that sense, some kit just won't work together. Manfrotto has a large market share in many places and they use a plethora of different plates, only a few of their heads are AS compatible.
Finally, video heads typically use systems that are different from Arca Swiss and you'd need to stack the relevant plate under the AS foot to use such heads (there are a few that are AS compatible, but most are not). And today video supposedly is the driving factor in camera sales, so fluid heads are important....Show more →
Do you know this to be the actual reason Sony's lens feet are not arca compatible, or is it just a theory? Sounds odd to me considering Sigma, Tamron, and Olympus all provide arca-compatible feet with their telephoto lenses.
Having the dovetail edge on a lens foot does not preclude someone attaching a different tripod mounting system to that foot, just as they might with a non-arca foot like a Sony. In fact all the third party feet I use with my Sony lenses are arguably better for that because they have a better profile that the weirdly fat Sony ones.
I was just curious. For those of you with lenses with built in Arca Swiss dovetails, how has the finish held up?
I think I’m in favor of Sony adding an Arca Swiss dovetail to their stock feet. But I’m thinking the white paint they use on their primes would get scratched up fairly quickly where you’re clamping it.
Also, while I don’t particularly enjoy shelling out money for an aftermarket foot. They do tend to be noticeably lighter than the stock foot. Every gram helps
robert614 wrote:
I was just curious. For those of you with lenses with built in Arca Swiss dovetails, how has the finish held up?
I think I’m in favor of Sony adding an Arca Swiss dovetail to their stock feet. But I’m thinking the white paint they use on their primes would get scratched up fairly quickly where you’re clamping it.
Also, while I don’t particularly enjoy shelling out money for an aftermarket foot. They do tend to be noticeably lighter than the stock foot. Every gram helps
I've never seen a painted Arca dovetail.
I've never seen a white lens plate or replacement foot with arca dovetail that was white.
At the least, they are anodised. Quality products are hard anodised.
I don't think anyone paints white lenses. They are powder coated.
For the larger telephotos, moot point.
Replacement feet are lower profile compared to OEM foot and the vast majority of buyers want low profile.
For Sony, on lenses such as 70-200, 100-400, 200-600 etc, they could just make the foot black while keeping the ring white.
That is the way so many end up looking anyway with their aftermarket replacement foot. Not that I care, but it's a better look IMHO than a white foot with black dovetail plate attached.
Another moot point, for me. I nearly always want a plate, or included dovetail to extend more rearwards than available replacement feett or OEM foot anyway.
So for my Sigma 500 f4, I have a Jobu Design LF-S504 Replacement Foot. It as Arca dovetail.
As mentioned, I want the foot extended rearwards so I fit a plate. It's still lower profile than stock foot.
Further, I now have a double dovetail which I use for: flash bracket, torch bracket, audio recorder bracket.
Regardless, at some point, I think one needs to make the choice between museum piece or equipment to be used.
If that's not possible, buy a spare foot and you'll get maybe 50% of that cost back at resale. Or you'll lose it and join the 'to be used' club.
Choderboy wrote:
I've never seen a painted Arca dovetail.
I've never seen a white lens plate or replacement foot with arca dovetail that was white.
At the least, they are anodised. Quality products are hard anodised.
I don't think anyone paints white lenses. They are powder coated.
For the larger telephotos, moot point.
Replacement feet are lower profile compared to OEM foot and the vast majority of buyers want low profile.
For Sony, on lenses such as 70-200, 100-400, 200-600 etc, they could just make the foot black while keeping the ring white.
That is the way so many end up looking anyway with their aftermarket replacement foot. Not that I care, but it's a better look IMHO than a white foot with black dovetail plate attached.
Another moot point, for me. I nearly always want a plate, or included dovetail to extend more rearwards than available replacement feett or OEM foot anyway.
So for my Sigma 500 f4, I have a Jobu Design LF-S504 Replacement Foot. It as Arca dovetail.
As mentioned, I want the foot extended rearwards so I fit a plate. It's still lower profile than stock foot.
Further, I now have a double dovetail which I use for: flash bracket, torch bracket, audio recorder bracket.
Regardless, at some point, I think one needs to make the choice between museum piece or equipment to be used.
If that's not possible, buy a spare foot and you'll get maybe 50% of that cost back at resale. Or you'll lose it and join the 'to be used' club.
mogul wrote:
As an aside, I contacted bit-n-bits to see if a router bit would be possible to carve the dovetail. Waiting to hear back.
The bottom of the OEM foot seems to be nicely rounded. Some folks may use that on their palm while handholding. I can imagine that the dove tail may dig in more, making that less comfortable. For folks that would like to see an Arca-style foot, including myself, why don't we mount a regular plate first until the foot replacement becomes available?
If aluminum (not magnesium) is used, a router bit could make soft edges. What does a bar of aluminum cost? A little more with the ruling party's tariff policy, but it is still cheap.
