1) Notice the 486 has a recessed Bottom Plate. This means the contact patch with the SL Ring is reduced to a mere 3mm doughnut! So that certainly contributes to the problem.
2) The 234 has a relatively uneven Base due to it being cast alloy. Furthermore, it has the webs together with the hollows. Again... not very good contact with the SL Ring.
3) the 484\'s Base is slightly smaller than the diameter of the SL Ring .. however not by much... and it\'s fairly flat. This is the best suited to attach securely.
BUT!
NO.... IT DOESN\'t!! Both the \'Pod> SL Ring contact AND the SL Ring>Head contact are relatively poor & definitely not as tight as with NO SL Ring & using my plastic washer between bare \'Pod & any of the 3 Heads.
I conclude that for me, Gitzo have a downright cheek advertising the Safelock as a beneficial feature!
Nevertheless with the aid of a cut-up credit-card Washer or a tube of Loctite, the Gitzo \'Pod is an awesome bit of kit!
I might keep the SL Ring to use as a load spreader ... placing it under the \'Pod leg when on soggy ground
Nov 18, 2009 at 05:45 PM
Previous versions of Roland Jenkins's message #7792214 « Gitzo Safelock ... not so safe?? »
