DHL
Well-known member
Actually, he would be the plaintiff, but your point is on target.
Should Nikon repair my damaged Z9 at their cost and supply a loaner?
- Thread starter jimfromno
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
- Status
JoPoV
Active member
Anyway good to know that some nikon mounts can flat ! Now I will put locktite, patch and screwdrivers in my check list for shooting !!!
The mount is what supports all the gear !
And it should be normal that it can break like this on high quality gear ?
No, sorry, there's no excuse for this on this kind of gear.
Cameron T
Well-known member
It didn't break. I'd even argue it all functioned as intended, to the detriment of the op.
JoPoV
Active member
???
While you are right about the collar/foot issue, as most of us know, it is the owner's responsibility to ensure that things are set up in a safe manner. I don't think Nikon is responsible in this case.
Cameron T
Well-known member
If you don't tighten the screw, and then you hit the button release, the foot comes off. Obviously both of those things happened.
Which goes back to making sure your gear is in order.
Wes Peterson
Well-known member
Calm down, a thumbscrew designed to be tightened and loosened by the user came loose and the OP dropped his camera.
JoPoV
Active member
You mean he didn't tighten the lens quick removal screw ?
luckmurph
Well-known member
No camera insurance?? Surely its a no brainer for the small premium you pay just for the piece of mind!
Forget the OP, design flaw? Do people like the Nikon feet? Why do people keep replacing these feet besides the Arca issue? So regardless of the feelings about responsibility of the OP, it's situations like this that might start to cause change IF people speak up.
First, I'd like to thank everyone and the OP for posting this. It has made me aware of an issue I'll need to watch for. I have a 500mm pf with a Hejnar foot but the collar is Nikons. Very helpful. I also have a tamron 150-600 g2 and carry it with my peak design slide strap connected to one lug on my d500 and one to the lens foot.
I'm thinking of putting a peak design capture clip on my belt and clipping the camera to it, either from the lens foot or the 1/4"-20 tripod nut on the bottom of my camera. Strap would not carry the weight. It requires unclipping the camera to use, but maybe that's OK.
I'd love to see a separate thread discussing issues with insecure tripod feet and collars and photos of people's solutions. I appreciate all the experience I'm learning from here.
Alan
I'm thinking of putting a peak design capture clip on my belt and clipping the camera to it, either from the lens foot or the 1/4"-20 tripod nut on the bottom of my camera. Strap would not carry the weight. It requires unclipping the camera to use, but maybe that's OK.
I'd love to see a separate thread discussing issues with insecure tripod feet and collars and photos of people's solutions. I appreciate all the experience I'm learning from here.
Alan
This thread goes on and on. The lens’s reference guide talks of tripod mount and never mentions using the tripod foot as a carry handle.
The fact if the matter is that we probably all use the tripod foot as a carry handle. I do for sure.
But it’s equally clear that is not the foot’s primary role, and would be impossible to argue otherwise.
it also seems there where the lens is large and/or heavy enough, as somebody mentioned earlier in this thread, that the lens will have strap loops.
One would argue then that using the tripod foot to carry the camera & lens is not using the foot as designed, and therefore any damage would be through misuse and not Nikon‘s responsibility but that of the user.
The fact if the matter is that we probably all use the tripod foot as a carry handle. I do for sure.
But it’s equally clear that is not the foot’s primary role, and would be impossible to argue otherwise.
it also seems there where the lens is large and/or heavy enough, as somebody mentioned earlier in this thread, that the lens will have strap loops.
One would argue then that using the tripod foot to carry the camera & lens is not using the foot as designed, and therefore any damage would be through misuse and not Nikon‘s responsibility but that of the user.
I’m truly sorry for your misfortune but, in my opinion, your chances of having Nikon replace your camera are somewhere between zero and in your dreams. There’s plenty of less-than-optimal design out there in all kinds of things, but as the saying goes “caveat emptor”. Typically no warranty is expressed or implied on design, and only defects in workmanship are covered under Nikon’s warranty. In my mind, your expectations are analogous to a driver’s hope that a manufacturer replace his car when he gets into an accident.
Gio
Member
Sorry to hear this...been there...done that. I had a similar disaster - it happened with the Z-9 and 500pf with a Three Legged Thing Arca plate on my Black Rapid strap with a Neewer Arca clamp locked on the foot, only, the fall was on grass and nothing broke- whew. I thought I must not have tightened the foot, but it was lock tight. I have no idea how it happened. That's when I replaced the foot with a Wimberley foot. It screws into the lens and no chance of loosing your lens or camera to accidental falls. I have since purchased the 800pf 6.3 and purchased the Kirk Arca foot for the same reason. I have a Z100-400 and my old faithful 70-200VR that still have the button feet. I haven't touched my 70-200 since I purchased my 500pf so I won't even consider- but I can't find one for my Z100-400- so if anyone has a suggestion- I'd love to know.
I highly recommend purchasing which ever foot you prefer- I can only say that the Wimberly seems a little narrower for my fat fingers. and I love the Neewer clamp as opposed to the QD clip- I trust a locked tight clamp over QD pins. Just my opinion.
As for Nikon assuming liability - I believe the point made about it's a tripod foot is not in your/my favor. Do yourself a favor- protect your investment with aftermarket feet that screw into the lens.
Wes Peterson
Well-known member
My Nikon 600 f4 came with grippy rubber on top of the stock lens foot for carrying.
JoPoV
Active member
You cant carry it by the camera. Too heavy for mount.
You can't carry it by the foot. It can unscrew itself.
So you can't carry it with the tripod on the shoulder since the foot is attached to it and so can unscrew.
How can you carry it easily when tracking subjects ? Isn't it a wildlife lens ? Only a workshop lens ? what is it designed for ?
Last edited:
The 70-200 and 100-400 feet are exactly the same size. The Kirk foot (and others) fits both lenses.
Arca-Swiss replacement foot for Z 70-200 and 100-400
But if they make the feet Arca-Swiss compatible, they still have the standard thread on the bottom to attach other feet such as Manfrotto. So it does not detract in any way from the usability of other brands but ADDS the value of not having to buy a replacement for those of us who use Arca-Swiss...
bcgforums.com
Last edited:
I realize this won’t help your past situation but this setup is a fail safe for instances like this. I carry my cameras with large lenses attached for miles a lots of times over my shoulder on a monopod. I use the cotton carrier vest with safety lanyards attached to the body or lens. Even if the camera is on a tripod I still have the lanyard attached. The vest is also nice for hiking and will easily transport a 600f4 with body attached. I use peak design connectors on my lenses and bodies with the peak design adapter attached to the vest lanyard.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
JoPoV
Active member
Can this help releive the lens foot ?
The mounting lug for the vest bolts to the bottom of the lens foot and I have carried them this way for years with no problems. If it’s a smaller lens the lug is mounted to the 1/4” hole in the bottom of the camera body.
JoPoV
Active member
Ok I saw how it works. Nice.
But the lens foot mustn't unscrew.
But the lens foot mustn't unscrew.
Last edited:
John Navitsky
Well-known member
looking at my 400 4.5, it appears that THREE things have to go wrong. the foot also only comes off one way, so if you were carrying it by the handle you could have it totally released and it wouldn't drop
1) screw not engaged
2) button pushed
3) held upside down
that said, i agree i'm not super fond of this design.
i'll note that Kirk uses basically the same approach.
i think the basically if you're going to use the foot for carry of any sort, the Hejnar is the winner since you screw through to the lens instead of using a little latch thingy
1) screw not engaged
2) button pushed
3) held upside down
that said, i agree i'm not super fond of this design.
i'll note that Kirk uses basically the same approach.
i think the basically if you're going to use the foot for carry of any sort, the Hejnar is the winner since you screw through to the lens instead of using a little latch thingy
Last edited:
This was discussed above. The lens he had doesn't have the strap connectors like you showed. Must be under the weight limit Nikon must have. But of course this is part of the issue even with printed instructions for the lens. Too much confusion other that your point which is SOME safety tether makes sense.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
The offending mount (this is how i carry mine, fwiw). There seems to be a couple of features of the mount itself. 1) bevel dovetail, 2) dovetail is one way, 3) a recess for the foot to lock into, 4) machined screw hole
Both the Nikon and Kirk foots seem to work the same way. a little latch that fits into the hole to keep it from sliding out. Both use the one way feature. Basically, the Kirk is beefier, but has the same "flaw"* in that if the screw is loose you can push the button. * although that's actually also the feature
The Hejnar foot allows you to screw that puppy directly into the mount. Yah, the screw could still come loose, but if you want to CARRY it by the foot, this is probably the way to go. This would be even better if there was a hole drilled in the foot so you could put a pin through the foot, not allowing the screw to back out.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Both the Nikon and Kirk foots seem to work the same way. a little latch that fits into the hole to keep it from sliding out. Both use the one way feature. Basically, the Kirk is beefier, but has the same "flaw"* in that if the screw is loose you can push the button. * although that's actually also the feature
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The Hejnar foot allows you to screw that puppy directly into the mount. Yah, the screw could still come loose, but if you want to CARRY it by the foot, this is probably the way to go. This would be even better if there was a hole drilled in the foot so you could put a pin through the foot, not allowing the screw to back out.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
I believe that the lens mount is considered a replaceable part and has been designed to absorb the brunt of any impact to that part of the body. It is not an expensive replacement, especially when compared to other body components that could have been impacted if the mount was further reinforced and strengthened. There may have been a thread about this a few months ago, but I cannot recall if it was in this forum or at another where I post. Nikon often checks the mount when servicing cameras and recommends replacing them if they are out of spec. Not sure what it would take or cost to design a mount that was not considered expendable and did not transmit damage to body parts around it, but Nikon seems to think it is the appropriate solution.
--Ken
- Status