The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

I need tripod collars for my Olympus 7-14 and 14-35 zooms...

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Has anyone else addressed this and if so, what was your source for them? Is it possible to adapt the tripod collars from other Olympus lenses to work on these two?

In case you're curious as to why I need them, it's because I'm starting to use these lenses on my GF1 and E-P1 bodies and unlike with my G1 and L1, I'm concerned the bodies aren't strong enough to support them, especially when I sling the tripod over my shoulder and walk around with the camera/lens still attached.

Worst case, I can always fab something that will do the job, but right now, money is more plentiful for me than time, so I'd prefer to buy something off the shelf than to roll them myself. :rolleyes:
 
R

RoyGBiv

Guest
Has anyone else addressed this and if so, what was your source for them? Is it possible to adapt the tripod collars from other Olympus lenses to work on these two?

In case you're curious as to why I need them, it's because I'm starting to use these lenses on my GF1 and E-P1 bodies and unlike with my G1 and L1, I'm concerned the bodies aren't strong enough to support them, especially when I sling the tripod over my shoulder and walk around with the camera/lens still attached.
I've been using my 4/3rds lenses borrowed from my L1 on my e-p1 alot like you do--slinging things around on the tripod. Have you actually found this to be a problem? I looked at the difference in mount radius and flange construction (the key elements to the mount's structural integrity) and found very little difference between the two standards. Obviously, the radius is smaller, but not by enough to make a huge difference in the amount of moment the mount can endure.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
I've been using my 4/3rds lenses borrowed from my L1 on my e-p1 alot like you do--slinging things around on the tripod. Have you actually found this to be a problem?
Actually, I'm not so much concerned with a lens breaking off (although that is a concern, because the bodies are cheap by comparison), but with the mass of the lens causing the body to rotate on the tripod mounting plate whenever I tip the camera 90 degrees to shoot verticals.

I've tried tightening the plate against the body more, but both bodies are fairly thin in this area and the area around the tripod mounting socket has started to distort. It's not a problem now, fortunately, but obviously it has the potential to become a problem in the long term, which is why using either a tripod collar or a two-point mounting system that provides support for the lens as well as the body appears to be the way to go.
 
R

RoyGBiv

Guest
Actually, I'm not so much concerned with a lens breaking off (although that is a concern, because the bodies are cheap by comparison), but with the mass of the lens causing the body to rotate on the tripod mounting plate whenever I tip the camera 90 degrees to shoot verticals.

I've tried tightening the plate against the body more, but both bodies are fairly thin in this area and the area around the tripod mounting socket has started to distort. It's not a problem now, fortunately, but obviously it has the potential to become a problem in the long term, which is why using either a tripod collar or a two-point mounting system that provides support for the lens as well as the body appears to be the way to go.
Well, that's just the thing. There's even less difference with respect to tripod stability. If you draw the force diagram out on the system, you'll see...the body's mass has very little acting leverage (mass-wise, DSLR bodies are larger but not necessarily that much heavier anyways, because the difference in volume is due substantially to the mirror box...which is mostly air). And the thinness of it actually draws the lens closer to the axis of rotation. I wouldn't tighten your tripod any more than you normally do.
 
R

RoyGBiv

Guest
...causing the body to rotate on the tripod mounting plate whenever I tip the camera 90 degrees to shoot verticals.....
Ahh...camera rotation; that's different. Yes, I get what you mean by that. What you need is more friction. Cranking down the knob is one way to get that. But you might want to try a tackier surface between the camera body & quick-release base.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Ahh...camera rotation; that's different. Yes, I get what you mean by that. What you need is more friction.
Yep. Unfortunately, the thinness of the body (depth-wise) actually makes this worse because the surface area in contact with the mounting plate is reduced compared to the G1 (which has no problems in this respect).

Cranking down the knob is one way to get that. But you might want to try a tackier surface between the camera body & quick-release base.
True, but I think I'd rather address both issues by providing some additional support for the lens. A search of the internet this evening came up empty, so it looks like I'll have to fab something myself. Oh, well...
 

PeterB666

Member
I have an Olympus E-P1 which I use with an Olympus OM 200mm f/4 lens, 2x teleconverter and of course a MFT to OM 2-part adapter. While this combo taxes my small ball head (rated at 2kg) and wobbles like a jelly on springs, it does well on my old 2-way pan head on the same tripod. This has a much larger surface area for mounting and is also far more substantial so the front end load doesn't jiggle the whole setup.

You might find a better head (i.e. heavier and more robust) for your tripod would be a better solution.
 

Brian Mosley

New member
Personally, if I was regularly using an E-P1 with tripod and heavy lenses - I would definitely prefer to have some kind of lens support. I saw an exploded view somewhere, which showed the tripod socket on the E-P1 is not very heavy duty.



Cheers

Brian
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
I would never use the actually tripod socket alone as any means of support, it's to small a area for it to put that much weight pressure. What I use are camera plates from RRS or Kirk and several reasons for this .But what it does essential is spread the weight over the whole plate which is bigger which adds tensile strength over the whole plate. Basically spreads any force given to the whole plate instead of a single point so it becomes stronger.
 
R

RoyGBiv

Guest
Yep. Unfortunately, the thinness of the body (depth-wise) actually makes this worse because the surface area in contact with the mounting plate is reduced compared to the G1 (which has no problems in this respect).
Yes, I wasn't even thinking about the tripod mount when I first commented...just the lens mount, which is my mistake. I have alot less confidence in the integrity of the tripod mount as opposed to the lens mount on these smaller bodies. They can definitely be deformed by normal use with a heavy lens.
 

Audii-Dudii

Active member
Perfect! That's exactly what I need and exactly what I had in mind to fab (although I'm sure mine would have been more functional and less pretty). Thanks for the pointer and I'm now off to B&H's site to see if I can find one for sale... :D

[EDIT: Done! $73.45 and free shipping from Amazon.com beat B&H's $69.95 plus shipping. Thanks again!]
 
Last edited:

hodad66

Member
My pleasure..... I'm still waiting for my FD/m4/3 adapter
to arrive, while my cache of FD lenses keeps growing... :)

 
Last edited:
Top