Isn't a new standard tripod mount long overdue?

[AdamJ]

If there is one mechanical feature of a camera that annoys me more than any other, it's the tripod mount. The quarter-inch screwthread has been with us far too long. It's too fiddly, not secure enough and without specially designed quick release plates, the camera is at risk of rotating (drooping) when in portrait orientation.

It can't be beyond the wit of camera and tripod makers to get together to agree a new, better and simpler industry standard. I'm thinking of some kind of bayonet mount which would slide and lock the camera to a compatible tripod head or quick-release plate. It would prevent the camera drooping when in portrait orientation, eliminate reliance on screw tightness (and associated worries of over- or under-tightening) and eliminate any need for screwdrivers, coins or scraped knuckles. Properly designed, it could allow the attachment point to be as long as required by the feet of tripod collars. It could even replace quick release systems and plates altogether. Most good tripod heads could be easily updated with a new top plate.

What's not to like?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I certainly hope that there is no Canon Propritary QR plate. I can purchase a nice Arca Swiss compatible QR plate for my lenses that lets them balance perfectly for $25. I have several.

No need to pay Canon $500 to upgrade lenses, and another $200 to upgrade each of my tripod heads.

Thats what not to like.

 

[AdamJ]

I certainly hope that there is no Canon Propritary QR plate. I can purchase a nice Arca Swiss compatible QR plate for my lenses that lets them balance perfectly for $25. I have several.

No need to pay Canon $500 to upgrade lenses, and another $200 to upgrade each of my tripod heads.

Thats what not to like.

You'll see that I didn't suggest a Canon proprietary QR plate but rather a new standard attachment across all manufacturers. QR plates only exist because of the stupid standard tripod mount. Introduce a quick-mounting bayonet-style fitting and throw your QR plates away. Or, incorporate a bayonet mount with a quarter inch thread in the middle for backwards (in all senses) compatibility.

Do you still watch VHS videos?

 

[Loswr]

Do you still watch VHS videos?

Manufacturers cooperating. Hmmm. Competition is more likely. Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, Disney 3D discs not playing in all 3D players, etc.

 

[Axilrod]

Why don't you get some Kirk or Really Right Stuff plates? I agree it would be nice to have an industry standard but until then I think that would work for the time being.

 

[AdamJ]

Here's a suggested design I knocked together in 10 minutes. The camera base plate and example lens plate include provision of 1/4 inch screw fitting for existing tripod heads.

 

[DanoPhoto]

Nice concept, but unless manufacturers can make a profit, they will not spend the time or money. All about their return on investment.


Age old question: what is in it for them?

 

[dr croubie]

Given that the most widely used (*statistic I just made up, at least most number of manufacturers that are compatible with each other) is the Arca-Swiss-style plate/system, I definitely wouldn't complain if the 7D mk2 comes out with inbuilt rails along the base.

But then you have manfrotto, probably one of the biggest/popular manufacturers, and they're not arca-compatible. Hell, they're not even compatible with their own systems because they've got quite a few systems themselves that aren't compatible with each other. Imagine the complaints coming from manfrotto and manfrotto fanboys if the next dslr has A-S rails. (and other manufacturers too, Gitzo do their own plate-mounting system don't they?)

How about AdamJ's suggestion of a brand-new type of plate? cue the complaints from A-S and manfrotto fanboys (although it was technically a good suggestion, it just won't work in the real world).

Hell, i'd be happy at least with just a camera with two 1/4" threaded holes, make them a standard distance like 20mm apart or so.
Pros:
- Anyone with old tripod equipment can just pick one hole or the other and it works perfectly fine.
- Any future plates from Kirk, RRS, Manfrotto, Gitzo, Joby, whoever, can either stick with using 1 hole (custom-fitted RRS/Kirk plates can easily get away with 1 hole because they hug the body),
- or they can use the 2-hole mounting method, completely anti-rotation even using a flat generic (non-custom-camera-fitted) plate.

Cons:
- Probably the only thing I can think of is the (slight) increase in camera size/weight to fit in the extra hole.
- Getting everyone on board to agree on how far apart the holes should be, you know at least one company won't play along and will make them 15mm or 25mm apart when everyone else is using 20mm (think Olympus sticking to xD cards, or Sony to MS, eventually they came around though).

 

[JEAraman]

All in all good ideas.. I think the concept of 2 threaded holes is a quick and simple approach.

 

[Neeneko]

There is a saying in engineering... 'standard is better then the best solution'.

I would argue that things are still too fractured as it is (I have an entire bag of converters), we do not need some new 'standard' that is incompatible with the majority of connections AND offers so little additional benefit over plates with threaded nut+pin.

In general new 'standards' either need to have some massive compelling advantage over the dominant standard (such as DVD over VHS or CD over tape) or some major manufacturers agreeing to push it while killing off access to old components (BluRay).. otherwise it just gets relegated to the dustbin of history as yet another exotic dead standard that collectors love showing off but most people ignore.