Manfrotto mounting plate advice: I got a new Manfrotto befree tripod for Christmas and need advice from fellow Manfrotto owners. Unfortunately the huge plate hits the lens on my...

tgreenhaw

I got a new Manfrotto befree tripod for Christmas and need advice from fellow Manfrotto owners.

Unfortunately the huge plate hits the lens on my camera. At best if I tighten it, it works although crooked, but clearly puts stress on the lens mount and also requires plate removal to change lenses.

Are there aftermarket plates that fit better? Do people modify their plates?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Can you take a picture that shows the issue of the plate hitting the lens when attached? Use your phone if needed. There may be something subtle we'll see from an actual picture of the problem.

Bill_de Loc: US

tgreenhaw wrote:

I got a new Manfrotto befree tripod for Christmas and need advice from fellow Manfrotto owners.

Unfortunately the huge plate hits the lens on my camera. At best if I tighten it, it works although crooked, but clearly puts stress on the lens mount and also requires plate removal to change lenses.

Are there aftermarket plates that fit better? Do people modify their plates?

When I got my Manfrotto years ago it came with a plastic disk that was used as a spacer that raised the body.
Any disk thick enough for the lens to clear should work.

IIRC the white one shown came with a Pentax ME Super.

---

tgreenhaw

Bill_de wrote:

When I got my Manfrotto years ago it came with a plastic disk that was used as a spacer that raised the body.
Any disk thick enough for the lens to clear should work.

Why didn't I think of that??? problem solved - thanks!!!

tgreenhaw

Here is what it looks like on my Rp with 24-240.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I've used these particular plates for years, but always with the lens foot mounted on the plate. This particular situation and combination will require either a spacer as suggested, or grinding an angle on the leading edge of the plate. The latter solution and a little black touch up paint should solve the problem cost free.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

tgreenhaw wrote:

Here is what it looks like on my Rp with 24-240.

Is there a reason the plate is perpendicular to the camera body instead of horizontal, as in completely under the camera body? The size of that plate seems more like a lens plate rather than camera, that is, attaching to a longer shaped 'foot' of a tripod collar.

Quixdraw Loc: x

CHG_CANON wrote:

Is there a reason the plate is perpendicular to the camera body instead of horizontal, as in completely under the camera body? The size of that plate seems more like a lens plate rather than camera, that is, attaching to a longer shaped 'foot' of a tripod collar.

Never thought to try, but the mount and plate are set up to be able to stabilize and adjust for balance with the long axis front to back. The plate in the photo shows a lens direction arrow on the long axis. The plates are not expensive and were readily available a few years ago. Might be worth trying to mount crosswise as a stopgap measure.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Quixdraw wrote:

Never thought to try, but the mount and plate are set up to be able to stabilize and adjust for balance with the long axis front to back. The plate in the photo shows a lens direction arrow on the long axis. The plates are not expensive and were readily available a few years ago. Might be worth trying to mount crosswise as a stopgap measure.

It's been years since I had a body plate as all my cameras now have L-plates. My older plates for bodies (RRS - arca-swiss) have an anti-twist device, a raised side on the long / horizontal side that holds against the body to prevent twisting with only a single screw into the body. Therefore, that raised side forces the plate to follow the body of the camera, not perpendicular.

Another alternative that follows from ignoring that lens pointer is to reverse the plate and the screw position to it hangs off the back end of the camera, and not under the lens.

Quixdraw Loc: x

CHG_CANON wrote:

It's been years since I had a body plate as all my cameras now have L-plates. My older plates for bodies (RRS - arca-swiss) have an anti-twist device, a raised side on the long / horizontal side that holds against the body to prevent twisting with only a single screw into the body. Therefore, that raised side forces the plate to follow the body of the camera, not perpendicular.

Just old fashioned as usual, and don't use tripods all that often. The system works very well with big "footed" lenses.

User ID

I get these in a regular hardware store. Just trim off the area that rubs on the lens. Quite a variety available cheap:

John N Loc: HP14 3QF Stokenchurch, UK

Turn it around 180°. Or 90°. For a moment I thought it was April 1st.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

Get a shorter plate.
https://www.amazon.com/Harwerrel-Release-Manfrotto-200PL-14-Camera/dp/B07QKVBPCM/ref=psdc_3347851_t2_B008I2175E

whatdat Loc: Del Valle, Tx.

John N wrote:

Turn it around 180°. Or 90°. For a moment I thought it was April 1st.

I agree. I have used a number of lenses on my cameras using a Manfroto quick release plate on my cameras with no problem. Perhaps the problem is only when using lens with very large physical circumferences.
After looking at the picture as set up, your manfroto quick release plate looks longer compared to the camera body than the ones I use. Perhaps, as mentioned, turn release plate 90-180 degrees.

Bill_de Loc: US

The more I look at this it makes me think this plate is designed to go on a lens foot, not a camera. The arrow just tells you what direction to mount it on the lens foot.

We've been trying to put a square plug in a round hole or vice versa.

---