Attention Please： Lotus LF & ULF users

[john borrelli]

I haven’t read this entire thread carefully enough and don’t have word working experience, but I think you have a very big problem here with your camera. My concern would be putting screw holes into thin pieces of wood to support a heavy camera, Lotus might have been concerned about this as well and that is why they didn’t do it in the first place. Whatever the solution you choose, I would feel better only using the camera level and not attached to a tripod tilted. I also would definitely not walk with the camera mounted to the tripod(maybe you don’t do this as your camera is so big), and I would even be careful moving the camera short distances with it mounted to the tripod. I think you would risk splitting those slots with screws. If you use substantial screws you will need bigger holes in those slots which will increase the likelihood of the wood cracking. If you use smaller thinner screws you risk the screws not being substantial enough to support the weight of the camera. At first look, I think you would need to have the base of the camera totally redesigned or just have the camera re-glued and then be careful using the camera by using precautions like the ones noted above. Best of luck with your camera.

[Luis-F-S]

I know we hijacked the thread, but I thought we'd already beaten the thread topic to death. The point I was making is that everyone wants a nice lightweight ULF camera which makes a great sail. There is a reason why Deardorff and other camera manufacturers from the Golden age of American camera manufacture did things a certain way, but they weren't light and parts didn't fall off!

[Michael Kadillak]

If it were my camera I would cut the base out of this camera and use a jointer to get perfectly flat married services and glue a series of cross grained wood into a solid piece of wood and install it like it should have been in the first place. Then you can safely put on a base plate that is going to do the job properly. I am in agreement with Luis. Light weight and ULF are not always mutually compatible

Similarly, a number of years back I purchased a used 12x20 F&S camera that had a 1/4" receiving screw in a thin piece of the square base of the camera. I had Richard Ritter screw in a 1/2" thick piece of solid cherry wood in the bottom of the camera that he put a 3/8" receiving screw in the center of and that fixed that problem very effectively.

[john borrelli]

Mr Ritter has worked on my Wisner; I wouldn't want anyone else.

[pierre506]

I know we hijacked the thread, but I thought we'd already beaten the thread topic to death. The point I was making is that everyone wants a nice lightweight ULF camera which makes a great sail. There is a reason why Deardorff and other camera manufacturers from the Golden age of American camera manufacture did things a certain way, but they weren't light and parts didn't fall off!

No problem, my friend.
There's an awful reply from Lotus.
I won't speak any single word with Mr. Gunter, or other people from such kind of company, any more.

[pierre506]

I'd done the things I had to do. However, it's not a easy work because it's reffer to lots of machines.



I lathed a bigger Quick Release for Manfrotto 400 head.

[Drew Wiley]

Sounds like an easy fix. They either used the wrong glue or didn't prep the wood right to accept it. There is a distinct technique for marine proxies; but they can be quite reliable. Of course, it's just common sense to have some kind of mechanical attachment too. But you need to do your homework about the best kind of screws. Go to a source like McMaster or consult a machinist. I wouldn't want ordinary wood screws, but something M/F thread in 316 alloy.

[Marco Annaratone]

My Lotus 14in x 17in has a tripod plate that was mounted in a very different - and far sturdier - way. It's vintage 2007 if my memory serves me well. There are four screws and the plate is actually partially "sunk" inside the wood.

[Luis-F-S]

Well I guess 4 is better than none. Wonder why Deardorff uses 16 screws?

[Michael Kadillak]

My Lotus 14in x 17in has a tripod plate that was mounted in a very different - and far sturdier - way. It's vintage 2007 if my memory serves me well. There are four screws and the plate is actually partially "sunk" inside the wood.

This manufacturing shift from the old "sunk" base plate to the new surface option begs the question why because it is not that difficult to bore the receiving section of the plate. I would be a cautious user particularly of longer focal length lenses beyond a certain weight but that may just be me because I use several long heavy lenses on my ULF cameras. Testing for "issues" in such a condition would be fairly easy to gage. Set up the camera on the tripod and put a 24-36" level under the camera bed alongside the base plate in the direction you make photographs with adjacent to the base plate. I would be willing to bet it is as level / flat as a pancake. Rack out the front standard 24-30" and mount on the camera the heaviest longest shooting lens you have in your lens bag and recheck the flatness of the camera bed with the level under these conditions. If you are seeing any deflection of the front section of the camera bed under loaded / shooting conditions then this is something you need to be aware of. In engineering terms this is called a moment arm.