My attempt to balance gear.

[John Mahoney]

Originally Posted by Mike Beckett

John,

Two Manfrotto adapters spring to mind:

MN577: Quick Release Adapter With Sliding Plate 577 - Plate Adapters | Manfrotto
MN357: Rapid Connect Adapter With Sliding Mounting Plate 357Pl 357 - Plate Adapters | Manfrotto

The 357 is a longer sliding plate and may provide more adjustment range. Note that the plates are not compatible between the two adapters, i.e. you can't use the 501 plate in the 577 on the 357 adapter.

These plates both mount to the bottom of the camera using the usual screws, and provide threaded holes on the bottom to mount to a tripod or similar screw mount.

The plate on the 357 is also quite long, and may be awkward if you have to quickly go to hand-holding the camera.

And I share Noa's enthusiasm for pictures!

Mike. I've had a look at both plates and think the 357 might be better. I take it the plate is attached to the tripod via a 1/4" or 3/8" screw/bolt which would be rather long, in the circumstances.The Fancier FC-270A has a half bowl setup. The bolt on the original head is about 3", from memory, so I'm wondering I got a half bowl insert to share the load, rather than have the bowl rim take it all. Do you think this would work? I don't have a lathe, but got something better: an engineering friend who has 3 or 4..

Edited about 1.5 hrs after original comments.
It looks like I may have found a solution. Marvellous what one will find if one looks hard/long enough.
The 357 plate, when coupled to a Manfrotto 520 ball may do the trick.

[Alastair Traill]

Hi John,
Another have I got this right question.
You seem to have 2 problems, firstly you want to mount your power head on a flat plate and level it by adjusting tripod leg length. That is straightforward enough. The second problem is that you are unhappy with the camera’s balance point when mounted on the power head. Correct? To rectify the situation you are now planning to attach a ball head to the motorized head’s camera platform and fit an adjustable quick mount plate on top on the ball head. Correct? If this is correct the centre of gravity of the camera will be raised by the height of the ball head as well as the height of the quick mount gear.

Having looked at the MPH picture it is obvious that the motors will have to work harder to return the camera to horizontal as tilt angle is increased, that is, unless there is a compensation mechanism. Raising the height of the camera will greatly increase the torque required to return the camera to horizontal even if there is a compensation system.

The real question for me is whether the MPH can handle the amount of off-balance that you now have. Another question is what happens if you turn the camera 180 deg when mounted on the MPH, this would give you another range of adjustment because the adjustment slot is asymmetrical. Have you tried this?

[John Mahoney]

I am not able to post a reply as the site keeps asking me to login again. And again. And again. I put together a reply but cannot upload it due to the problem in the site.

[Chris Soucy]

Make sure to tick the "remember me" box at the log in, else it will keep booting you out.


CS

[John Mahoney]

K. Sand shoe too much..I thought that box was so that the browser would remember the password..

[John Mahoney]

Originally Posted by Alastair Traill

Hi John,
Another have I got this right question.
You seem to have 2 problems, firstly you want to mount your power head on a flat plate and level it by adjusting tripod leg length. That is straightforward enough. The second problem is that you are unhappy with the camera’s balance point when mounted on the power head. Correct? To rectify the situation you are now planning to attach a ball head to the motorized head’s camera platform and fit an adjustable quick mount plate on top on the ball head. Correct? If this is correct the centre of gravity of the camera will be raised by the height of the ball head as well as the height of the quick mount gear.

Having looked at the MPH picture it is obvious that the motors will have to work harder to return the camera to horizontal as tilt angle is increased, that is, unless there is a compensation mechanism. Raising the height of the camera will greatly increase the torque required to return the camera to horizontal even if there is a compensation system.

The real question for me is whether the MPH can handle the amount of off-balance that you now have. Another question is what happens if you turn the camera 180 deg when mounted on the MPH, this would give you another range of adjustment because the adjustment slot is asymmetrical. Have you tried this?

Hi Alastair. The 520 ball is to replace the fluid head and the 357pl is to allow me to attach the MPH. Until this stuff gets here I won't know if the 357 will be needed, but I think the mounting screw on the 520 is 3/8".

The MPH will tilt +/- 15 deg and the recommended pan action is to use the remote in manual mode.

The manufacturer's instructions contain nothing to make me think the MPH will not work as intended and as here is no fluid head, the system should be stable. In tests I did with a still cam tripod, there was no sign of overbalancing, but I have to admit the whole shebang looked awkward, due to the fluid head being in place.

[John Mahoney]

The Manfrotto 520 ball (half ball?) and the 357PL plate have arrived and were tested yesterday. Apart from the need to get some more practise in using the gear, everything went well during the test: nothing overbalanced or got out of hand.
Overall, the gear was a bit on the heavy side if one wanted to carry it any distance so if I can't drive to site, I don't go.

One thing I *did* like was the provision of a spare screw in both 1/4" and 3/8th".

Many thanks to those who provided me with advice.