UPDATE- Hejnar std foot: Z400/4.5 vs Z 100-400 on the Z9.

[John Navitsky]

fair question. i need to find some time to pull the wimberley head down and take a peek

 

[John Navitsky]

ha, you are right @DsD , we have other issues. i didn’t have a problem hitting the plate, but the wingnut style screw to adjust up/down position on the head. i have this problem regardless of which combo.

(approximate!) balance point for 400 4.5

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

with the 1.4

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

100-400

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

100-400 w/1.4

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

the outstanding issue. you can see even with the 1.4 extender, the camera is hitting that wingnut style knob. you do have the option of loosing it so it's horizontal, but that doesn't really solve the problem.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[John Navitsky]

i think we need the stand-off from the foot to the lens to be taller. this should allow the body to sit above the adjustment. it's a little hard to estimate, but i think the riser part needs to be about 4cm taller to clear while in landscape orientation.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[DsD]

John, thank you. And thanks for all your visuals, I’m not good for that!

However I don’t have that problem with the gimbal swing arm and mount tubing on the left. It puts the vertical lock nut to the front (away from the camera body). Thus usage choice.

I plan to meet a machinist friend tomorrow and have him mill 3/16” off the rear end of the Z400/4.5 foot and off the Wimberley swing arm saddle.

 

[John Navitsky]

However I don’t have that problem with the gimbal swing arm and mount tubing on the left. It puts the vertical lock nut to the front (away from the camera body). Thus usage choice.

doh! i didn't even think of that . i'll have to give that a try when i have a bit of spare time.

 

[John Navitsky]

also, looking at the pictures, if you note the reference mark on the head in relationship to the foot, both lenses balance remarkably similarly. i didn't bother with the 70-200 since i think it's pretty close to the 100-400

 

[DsD]

also, looking at the pictures, if you note the reference mark on the head in relationship to the foot, both lenses balance remarkably similarly. i didn't bother with the 70-200 since i think it's pretty close to the 100-400

Interesting John, I got perfect balance in all swing range with the back edge of the Z400/4.5 foot (on naked Z100-400) flush with the back edge of the Wimberley saddle. Yours looks a good ½” to ¾” further forward on the plate. Perhaps you might retry flush with gimba saddle plate.

And yes, both lens seem to balance within ⅜” to ½” or so of each other. Very cool.

 

[Calson]

I attached a 85mm long Wimberley plate to the factory foot and it works well enough. I cannot use a longer foot without it hitting the front of the Z9. I have been looking for a way to add a cheese plate or similar item to gain more height above the mount plate but not been successful thus far.

 

[John Navitsky]

Interesting John, I got perfect balance in all swing range with the back edge of the Z400/4.5 foot (on naked Z100-400) flush with the back edge of the Wimberley saddle. Yours looks a good ½” to ¾” further forward on the plate. Perhaps you might retry flush with gimba saddle plate.

And yes, both lens seem to balance within ⅜” to ½” or so of each other. Very cool.

i wonder if it's different based on direction.

 

[DsD]

i wonder if it's different based on direction.

Possibly, I did think of that too. With your current set up more weight may be to the lock knob end, thus camera and foot needs to be further forward. Just a note but I used a level to get my tripod and head exact. I have an 100mm half ball on a Sachtler 100L set of legs.

 

[John Navitsky]

Possibly, I did think of that too. With your current set up more weight may be to the lock knob end, thus camera and foot needs to be further forward. Just a note but I used a level to get my tripod and head exact. I have an 100mm half ball on a Sachtler 100L set of legs.

note all my setup was very quick and dirty. the balance point should be considered approximate

 

[DsD]

Update on the Hejnar Z400/4.5 replacement foot mated to the Z100-400 lens.

Phase one milling completed. A young machinist friend today milled .201 off of the rear edge of said Z400/4.5 foot. He did a professional and beautiful job. Plus the price was right, free! It now clears the Z9 body in any position (360*). It also eliminated the rear stop screw which is not desirable.

The net advantage over Hejnar‘s Z100-400 replacement foot is that the lens is now positioned 5/16” further forward on the integrated Arca plate. So, plus 1 for these shorter light weight teles on a Z9.

The downside is that the rig doesn’t balance out on the Wimberley gimbal. Set up is stock Z9 with Z100-400 S lens and stock hood set at 400mm and no TC.

As I hypothesized, the limiting factor now is the Wimberley swing arm saddle plate. Said plate now contacts the Z9 body preventing the additional .200” forward placement on the plate needed to fully balance. The last potential remedy is to mill off 200” +/- from the rear of the Wimberley plate. While the price will be right, I am not sure I want to commit to this heroic yet. If I do, I’ll post my final findings.