Attention Please： Lotus LF & ULF users

[pierre506]

Attention please:
Horrible designing of Lotus LF & ULF cameras

My Lotus 12x20in camera's metal tripod plate dropped from the camera body. There's a little shaking when the camera was on a tripod.
I found there's only glue between them without any metal screws to secure them.
What hell was the designing?！
I also contacted some Lotus camera users. I found some 5x7 Lotus cameras were same as me so far.
Gunter Stroebele of Lotus reply was that there were old version.
And he suggested to glue them again, or to plus screws to secure as the new versions.

I wanna question him why there's so rediculous designing onto 5x7 and 12x20in cameras.
It's the "famous" LOTUS.
How did they to let such cameras went out of their company?

168759
The metal tripod plate on the 12x20 Lotus body

168760
Dropped

168761

Only glue

168762
My friend's Lotus 5x7

[karl french]

Yikes! That thing definitely needs some screws securing it to the base and the tripod socket should work into the wood somehow. I can imagine the base plate letting loose during a vertical. Scary.

[pierre506]

Scary, stupid, rediculous, unreal... ULF camera defect~

But it's real.

[Steven Tribe]

This would be a bad design for a 4x5" camera, but on a ULF camera it is criminal.

I also note that the circular plate is only effectivelt resting on 1 slat and half-on on two other slats! JUst one of these two slats will be carrying most of the torque sometimes.
I dare not ask the thickness of these slats!

I hope the rest of the cameras has more robust construction?

[Jac@stafford.net]

Glue AND counter-sunk screws. Several of them.
Steve reminds of the thickness of the slats. Good point!

[Luis-F-S]

Which might explain why a Deardorff V11 weighs 24 pounds but at least the base plate does not fall off!

[pierre506]

This would be a bad design for a 4x5" camera, but on a ULF camera it is criminal.

I also note that the circular plate is only effectivelt resting on 1 slat and half-on on two other slats! JUst one of these two slats will be carrying most of the torque sometimes.
I dare not ask the thickness of these slats!

I hope the rest of the cameras has more robust construction?

Such design was awful and the reply from Lotus Company was terrible.
The slats' thickness is 17.5cm. But for the sinking of the metal plate, they are thinner as 13.5cm and 9.5cm (maybe 7.5cm).

通过我的 MHA-AL00 上的 Tapatalk发言

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I've built several ULF cameras. That is one place not to scrimp on to try and save weight. I've always used a solid bottom bed. The entire camera relies on that contact point.

[Michael Kadillak]

Which might explain why a Deardorff V11 weighs 24 pounds but at least the base plate does not fall off!

Wow. Only 24#?

My Deardorff Marine V11 does not have any metal base plate and still tips the scale at 32#. The positive side of this statement is that one you get it on a tripod, I find it to be very stable even in gusty wind conditions.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Wow. Only 24#?

My Deardorff Marine V11 does not have any metal base plate and still tips the scale at 32#.

Is it true that the Navy Object Class Code identifies it as an anchor?
.

[Luis-F-S]

I'll check the weight again when I get home

[pierre506]

Such design was awful and the reply from Lotus Company was terrible.
The slats' thickness is 17.5cm. But for the sinking of the metal plate, they are thinner as 13.5cm and 9.5cm (maybe 7.5cm).

通过我的 MHA-AL00 上的 Tapatalk发言
Sorry, cm > mm

通过我的 MHA-AL00 上的 Tapatalk发言

[Michael Kadillak]

I'll check the weight again when I get home

Relative to other makers of 11x14 cameras, I have grown appreciative of the beefy extended base support members that Deardorff employs particularly when I put a long heavy lens on the camera. As Jim Fitzgerald commented earlier, sometimes one needs to be appreciative of the weight particularly when it is involves structural stability and/or functionality. It will be curious what your newer V11 weights. I would be it is close to 30# since it has a leather handle and not the metal handle I have on mine.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I know that my 14x17- 20x24 comes in at 31lbs. Now it does have a nice solid 80/20 aluminum base that is wrapped in solid Walnut. The Walnut is about 1/8" thick and where the tripod mounts it is nice and solid. It has to be when you get size and weight into the picture. Just has to be.

[LabRat]

The way the plate was secured was certainly STUPID, but I would see this as an opportunity to make/use a new plate (out of aluminium) that extends front to back of the bed with a line of tripod mounting holes, that would allow you to choose different mounting points (to allow you to trim the camera balance better for different set-ups, different weight lenses, etc)...

I'm shocked that Lotus would NOT offer an upgrade service for this!!!

Securing the old plate with screws was a no-brainer... :-@

Making the best of this situation...

Steve K

[Pfsor]

The way the plate was secured was certainly STUPID, but I would see this as an opportunity to make/use a new plate (out of aluminium) that extends front to back of the bed with a line of tripod mounting holes, that would allow you to choose different mounting points (to allow you to trim the camera balance better for different set-ups, different weight lenses, etc)...

I'm shocked that Lotus would NOT offer an upgrade service for this!!!

Securing the old plate with screws was a no-brainer... :-@

Making the best of this situation...

Steve K

You should rather say - making the worst of this situation. If the OP did what you suggest he would be just out for the next disaster. To have a tripod hole made in aluminium for a tripod screw made of steel is an invitation to a quick surprise - the steel screw will damage the soft aluminium hole thread in no time. You could try to fasten a camera of this weight just several times and you would see that the aluminium thread could not withstand the damage the steel screw would cause.

[LabRat]

You should rather say - making the worst of this situation. If the OP did what you suggest he would be just out for the next disaster. To have a tripod hole made in aluminium for a tripod screw made of steel is an invitation to a quick surprise - the steel screw will damage the soft aluminium hole thread in no time. You could try to fasten a camera of this weight just several times and you would see that the aluminium thread could not withstand the damage the steel screw would cause.

Really... A piece of 6061 tapped can be used to hold ENG or studio broadcast cameras on the tripod, so what gives???

Steve K

[Pfsor]

Really... A piece of 6061 tapped can be used to hold ENG or studio broadcast cameras on the tripod, so what gives???

Steve K

Read other people's opinion - http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=401337 Maybe you will be surprised.
Even small SLR cameras have on their bottom a steel insert to attach them to a tripod. So what gives?

[LabRat]

Read other people's opinion - http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=401337 Maybe you will be surprised.
Even small SLR cameras have on their bottom a steel insert to attach them to a tripod. So what gives?

Many of our wood cameras have brass (which is softer than today's aluminium alloys)... Is there a problem here???

Steve K

[EdWorkman]

welllll
Opinions are opinions
It's is better to cite experience
I made an 8x10 camera with a small aluminum plate on a small wood backing, and ripped it almost off in the field
Wish I'd read Jim's experience
So when I got home I replaced the entire bed with a solid piece of aircraft plywood, and used Dread Aluminum which I tapped for the tripod socket- no more problems

[Jac@stafford.net]

My Deardorff V8 uses an aluminum plate with 3/8" thread. Its threads have never failed. Never over-tighten the screw.

[Pfsor]

Many of our wood cameras have brass (which is softer than today's aluminium alloys)... Is there a problem here???

Steve K

Why didn't manufacturers of small SLR cameras find out the same? Was there a problem there?

[el french]

You don't really need to guess how thick an aluminum plate needs to be in order for threads not to fail:

http://www.engineersedge.com/thread_strength/thread_minimum_length_engagement.htm
https://www.fastenal.com/en/78/screw-thread-design

These are just a couple of the resources available.

[John Layton]

Helicoil

[Luis-F-S]

I'll check the weight again when I get home I under estimated it, it's a shade over 27 lbs with the 6 to 4" adapter board installed.

[Michael Kadillak]

I under estimated it, it's a shade over 27 lbs with the 6 to 4" adapter board installed.

That seems in line with the fact that my 32# Deardorff 1940 Marine V11 uses silver painted metal parts instead of aluminum parts on yours, has a heavy neoprene IR proof bellows as well as a rather beefy metal handle instead of the more common leather one. That being said I have been know to be sufficiently looney tunes to carry this boat anchor and all of the necessary contributing components as far as a quarter mile to a shooting location. Being perfectly honest I have yet to accomplish this in one trip as two is invariably necessary.

[karl french]

We have wandered quite far afield from the issue at hand. Pierre's tripod plate problem. I'd say, drill some holes and screw it into those slats. That and every Lotus camera owner should wonder about how secure their tripod plate is.

[Michael Kadillak]

We have wandered quite far afield from the issue at hand. Pierre's tripod plate problem. I'd say, drill some holes and screw it into those slats. That and every Lotus camera owner should wonder about how secure their tripod plate is.

Agree on the deviation of the original topic and I apologize.

Depending upon the thickness of the wooden slats and their ability to properly support the base plate, one could also consider adding a similar sized top plate to anchor the tripod mount using flush mounted through screws. My concern structurally is the lateral force imparted upon the tripod mount could test the rigidity of the wooden base slats. Being perfectly honest wooden slats as the base of a camera is a risky design premise in a vain attempt to save weight and it very well could be why the builder of the camera did not add screws to the plate originally. Lets face it. How hard is it to add some screws for the builder? Just saying.

[John Layton]

Screws to secure a base plate to wood should never depend on the wood alone to remain anchored...they should be machine screws captured on the opposite side with washers/lockwashers/blue-locktited nuts. A decent/cheap/lightweight alternative is to simply install a T-Nut from the inside of a wooden base - so that the "capture" occurs from the tripod-head side. But do set this T-Nut so that it will not spin at some point in the future.

And yes...those slats will not represent enough weight savings to offset the true risk that they impose structurally. If one were to simply weigh the material removed to create those slats, this weight saving fallacy would become even more obvious...no matter that a manufacturer might choose such a route to arrive at some pre-determined target - which in the end can be a very dangerous (and expensive) strategy. I speak from sad experience!

[John Layton]

...anybody want to buy some custom-machined focussing shafts featuring through-holes spaced every five mm?

[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.
170335

[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.

170336170337

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.

170680


170681

[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.

170680


170681

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.

[Marco Annaratone]

This manufacturing shift from the old "sunk" base plate to the new surface option begs the question why ...
You seem to imply that my camera is older than pierre506's 12x20. Is this the case? Lotus was producing 12x20's well before 2007.


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.

I use a 10lb APO-Ronar 1000mm f/16 on my Lotus. In this case I use a second tripod (with a crank for fine height adjustments) that I put under the front standard. I agree with you, some bending may occur with lenses of this weight. I must confess that I never noticed any optical problem though. In fact, I am more concerned about damaging the camera with such heavy lenses: I do not know how many ULF manufacturers assume that photographers may use 10lb lenses. Lotus has an extra "lock" mechanism in the front standard that is very useful in this case: it literally blocks the lens at the height you choose.

Anyway, playing with the front standard for tilt-shift adjustments with a 10lb lens with some sort of stress-reduction on the bed/standard/mechanisms is wise, that's my main reason for using a second tripod.

https://s26.postimg.org/lidjia9px/apo-ronar-lotus-3.jpg

[Michael Kadillak]

You seem to imply that my camera is older than pierre506's 12x20. Is this the case? Lotus was producing 12x20's well before 2007.



I use a 10lb APO-Ronar 1000mm f/16 on my Lotus. In this case I use a second tripod (with a crank for fine height adjustments) that I put under the front standard. I agree with you, some bending may occur with lenses of this weight. I must confess that I never noticed any optical problem though. In fact, I am more concerned about damaging the camera with such heavy lenses: I do not know how many ULF manufacturers assume that photographers may use 10lb lenses. Lotus has an extra "lock" mechanism in the front standard that is very useful in this case: it literally blocks the lens at the height you choose.

Anyway, playing with the front standard for tilt-shift adjustments with a 10lb lens with some sort of stress-reduction on the bed/standard/mechanisms is wise, that's my main reason for using a second tripod.

https://s26.postimg.org/lidjia9px/apo-ronar-lotus-3.jpg

Irrespective of the age of the camera or the mounting of the plate, the fact remains that given the bed design the structural stress of the front standard of the camera effectively resides on the strength of the side rails of the camera bed. large focal length lenses of this weight are not that uncommon to be put into use so the fact that you have one and and it sounds like you use it speaks for itself. For a camera maker not to fully understand the loading conditions that camera users would be facing is a rather myopic view of the clients being served. Large view cameras that bend in critical areas just give me the willies. If weight were the issue being avoided with this design, how does the weight and the logistics of a second tripod figure into things? I have never been a fan of using a second tripod because it creates another layer of adjustments and logistics that take a long time when adjustments with the image composition are in play. I like to keep things simple with the big cameras but again, that is just me. Whatever puts the image effectively onto the print is what works.

[Greg]

This is a related post to the the Lotus topic at hand. I use an 11x14 Chamonix, mounting it onto my tripod with one 3/8" screw. I have always found it to be a lot of trouble to balance the folded up 11x14 on top of the tripod head and move it around till the tripod screw aligned with the female thread in the base of the camera.

Decided to go the route of using a Kessler Crane Release Receiver with a Kessler Crane Kwik Utility Plate attached to the camera. The plate is attached to the camera by one 3/8" screw. In the future hope to attach the plate to the camera with two 3/8" screws after adding onto the bottom of the camera another recessed female thread. The Kessler Plate is already threaded in many places to add on additional screws. Yes it may be overkill. I like using the Kessler system because of its double locking system. The plate drops into the Receiver very easily. Attachment is not rock solid but no way of having the camera fall off the Receiver. Then a second locking lever secures the plate. When taking off the camera, you first release the locking lever (camera will move around a bit but again not fall off the Receiver). Now once I have the camera solidly in hand, push the Button Drop-Gate Release to lift off the camera. Single locking quick releases I will never use again after having a Rollei SL-66 with lens and meter hood accidentally fall into a stream.

[Michael Kadillak]

This is a related post to the the Lotus topic at hand. I use an 11x14 Chamonix, mounting it onto my tripod with one 3/8" screw. I have always found it to be a lot of trouble to balance the folded up 11x14 on top of the tripod head and move it around till the tripod screw aligned with the female thread in the base of the camera.

Decided to go the route of using a Kessler Crane Release Receiver with a Kessler Crane Kwik Utility Plate attached to the camera. The plate is attached to the camera by one 3/8" screw. In the future hope to attach the plate to the camera with two 3/8" screws after adding onto the bottom of the camera another recessed female thread. The Kessler Plate is already threaded in many places to add on additional screws. Yes it may be overkill. I like using the Kessler system because of its double locking system. The plate drops into the Receiver very easily. Attachment is not rock solid but no way of having the camera fall off the Receiver. Then a second locking lever secures the plate. When taking off the camera, you first release the locking lever (camera will move around a bit but again not fall off the Receiver). Now once I have the camera solidly in hand, push the Button Drop-Gate Release to lift off the camera. Single locking quick releases I will never use again after having a Rollei SL-66 with lens and meter hood accidentally fall into a stream.

Anyone that has a ULF camera likely has faced the challenges of make up screws and IMHO the challenges of figuring these issues out are necessitated by the fact that in the end the best situation possible/objective for shooting this massive ULF formats is to have at least a 6" x 6" solid metal platform upon which the camera resides for stability and structural integrity. My problem IMHO with quick release is the smaller surface contact area contacting the base of the camera. There are any number of ways to solve this issue as photographers have been doing for decades. I quickly put on a light head lamp and lean the base of the camera on the far edge of the tripod head plate balancing it there giving me a triangle upon which to see where the receiving thread is with the screw looking up at it. Carefully dropping it down over the screw a couple of times you get the hang of things and in no time you are fast and efficient in making these pieces up. This is more for future readers but don't let it frustrate you. I do this quickly with my 34# V11 Deardorff over a fixed position Ries A250 head and a moving position screw on a Majestic 1200 head that moves down the center of the head. I will state that I have used the Bogen/Manfrotto hexagonal quick release plates for 5x7 and 8x10 for years with zero problems but as the Irish say, ULF cameras are a horse of a different color. I am not being critical in any way just offering some suggestions to improve efficiency.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I use the Kessler Crane for my 11x14 and 8x20.
I find it works well with those cameras. My 20x24 I use the Reis A250-2 head on my solid Walnut tripod. No quick release on this one as it is easier with the spring loaded screw.

[Greg]

I use the Kessler Crane for my 11x14 and 8x20.
I find it works well with those cameras. My 20x24 I use the Reis A250-2 head on my solid Walnut tripod. No quick release on this one as it is easier with the spring loaded screw.

Could you start another thread with a review of your Kessler Tripod? Especially how it compares to a Ries if possible. Lately have been using more and more a Linhof Heavy Duty tripod, but other than setting it up in aside my SUV, is a bear to carry any distance.
thanks
Greg