Canon 500 availability ?

[neuroanatomist]

I'm using a Manfrotto 519 video head and one of their standard mounting plates. I've used the Canon supplied "Monopod Foot" mounted in reverse. As you can see the CG is near the center of the tripod collar. Not a big deal. I'm getting used to it and it works very well. Just not what you are used to seeing.

Yes, comparing the 500 MkI to MkII, it looks like they moved the tripod collar forward on the lens, while simultaneously removing the front meniscus lens and thus moving the CG backward.  Thus the notation on the RRS foot - I expect with a heavy body, especially with a TC, the CG may end up behind the tripod collar, or at least behind the forward-sweeping Canon foot (surprising they'd do that).  Good to know the foot can be reversed.

In my case with the 600 II, the foot mounting point is slightly forward on the 600mm vs. the 500mm, by about half the width of the tripod collar on the lens barrel.  But the 600mm is 2.5" longer, has a bigger front element and a bigger, heavier hood - i.e. it's going to be front-heavy compared to the 500mm.  So balance should be ok, especially with the RRS replacement foot (attachment for clamp is further back than the Canon foot).

[Waterloo]

From the pictures it appears that Canon repurposed the foot from the 800. If you look at the pictures the foot on the 300 L II it appears to be the same as the "monopod" foot that Canon supplies with the 500 L II.

Also the bushing in the "monopod" foot is 1/4 - 20. Why didn't the make it 3/8 - 16 for a little extra security. I drilled and taped a second 1/4 - 20 in mine, not trusting a single screw. I may at some point get a real machinist to install a 3/8 - 16 Helicoil for some extra strength.

[Waterloo]

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

[Richard Lane]

What do you do if you have either of the Extenders mounted to the lens? The lens needs to be slid forward. Seems you'd run out of mounting plate in the clamp.

Yes, you're right I would run out of room on the gimbal mounting plate.  So, if a 2x extender and heavy 1DX body were attached, then there wouldn't be a perfect 50-50 balance, and instead I would have a 60-40 balance, so I would have to provide slight support to the camera with my right shooting hand.

I like you're idea of reversing the lens foot.

[neuroanatomist]

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:



Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example.  However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website.  Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

[Richard Lane]

Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream. 

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.

[Richard Lane]

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.

[neuroanatomist]

That's what they've done in the past, when they've changed their design midstream. 

RRS will have to redesign their foot, however what's even more strange is that the Canon stock foot won't balance either under the same circumstances.

Good to know, thanks, Rich!

I agree it's really odd that Canon didn't design the foot to balance their own lens properly.  I suppose if necessary, one could use the RRS long lens support package, where the 10" camera bar would allow a longer traverse for balance.

John, you may just want to return the foot since it hasn't been used yet and I'm sure RRS will just re-sell it as a 400II foot.

I'm going to give it a try first. As I stated above, I don't think it'll be an issue with the 600 II, since it's 2.5" longer, has a larger front element and heavier hood compared to the 500 II, meaning it should be relatively more front-heavy, shifting the CG forward.

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?

[Richard Lane]

Please remind me, Rich - IIRC, you are talking about the 500 II running out of room on the clamp, with a 1D X and TC attached, correct?

That's affirmative!

[neuroanatomist]

That's affirmative!

Thanks!  I'll definitely test the 600 II with 1D X and the 1.4x as well as 2x TCs on the PG-02 LLR before deciding whether or not to keep the foot.

[Waterloo]

It also appears the both Kirk and ReallyRight have copied the Canon design without changes and consideration for the balance of the camera and lens when used on a gimbal or video head.

Not sure I agree. The Kirk foot does mirror the Canon foot's forward-sweeping design. But, the RRS does not - the dovetail actually extends back farther, directly under and even slightly behind the mounting screws:



Granted, it may not be quite far enough back for the 500 II w/ a TC and heavy body. The RRS 300 II foot dovetail extends substantially behind the mounting screws, for example.  However, apparently RRS designed the foot for the 400 II (before the 500/600 II's became available), then just declared the same foot was compatible with the longer lenses, and subsequently backpedaled with their note on the website.  Perhaps they'll release a new foot designed for the longer lenses - if so, hopefully they'll do right by those who bought the maybe-not-so-compatible current foot (me, included).

You're right about the RRS foot. But, the Kirk foot looks like a copy to me.

I might be able to use the RRS foot with the Kirk Arca to Manfrotto adapter. Or maybe the Manfrotto plate would attach to the RRS foot. Only problem: I only see one threaded hole. I'd rather have two for the security.

[neuroanatomist]

Only problem: I only see one threaded hole. I'd rather have two for the security.

Yes, the RRS foot has only one accessory hole, presumably for attaching directly to a monopod stud (where only one screw is needed). 

[brant]

I have one of those foots for my Jobu and 600mm. It's really nice.

[brant]

Here's a picture of me and my new baby

[Waterloo]

Here's a picture of me and my new baby

Interesting!!! I keep mine in the laundry room too.