Manfrotto Head Plate Systems: RC2 & RC4

Posted: Thu May 25, 2006 5:37 pm

I'm looking at buying a Manfrotto 468MG head with a quick release plate (along with the 055ProB, but that's by-the-by).

The only big quandary I have is whether to choose the 468MGRC2 or the 468MGRC4. Does anyone have any recommendations? I want to future proof my purchase and support bigger lenses, but I also don't want to be lumbered with an oversized plate system that I'll end up hating.

How big is the RC4 plate? I wish Manfrotto would publish some measurements so I can get an idea of what it will be like.

Any input would be gratefully received. (See my signature for a list of my current equipment.)

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:12 pm

Has anyone got a Manfrotto plate with either rc2 or rc4 systems? I would be very interested to have your opinions.

Is the rc4 too big?
Can the rc2 support a large lens?

Please help! I just can't make the decision and it's such an expensive final choice that I can't change once I've bought it!

Give me a clue :) I'm leaning towards the RC2 version now.

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 5:21 pm

I have one of these systems incorporated in my tripod head #3047.

The hexagon measures about 2-3/4" across. I used this for my view camera (about 10 pounds) and it would be sturdy enough for any lens that I can think of.

It is finished a bit crudely but it clamps down well and has a spring loaded release for ease of removal.

It is not as elegant as the quick release on my Arca Swiss ball head on my camera stand but it works about as well and costs about 1/5th the amount.

You will have to either research my tripod head to determine which system it is or you will have to measure the hex plate to do the same.

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:08 pm

I have the RC2 plate. It easily holds the camera (same as yours) with the 70-200mm f4L lens attached. The plate is on the camera base since I do not have a tripod mount on this lens.

I like it because it adds negligable weight/size to the camera. In my estimate it looks as though it could comfortably hold a 20D or D70 with a similar lens. A bigger lens would have the mount on the lens itself and I would say this plate could handle a "substantially bigger" setup like this. Not sure where the limit lies though, since I haven't tried.

Posted: Fri May 26, 2006 9:35 pm

According to the manufacturer the RC2 is rated for 13.2 pounds.

It would require a really big lens to add up to 13.2 pounds.

See: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=272449&is=REG

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 2:47 am

packard wrote:

I have one of these systems incorporated in my tripod head #3047.

Thanks Packard, the hexagonal one is the RC0 system, which looks good but is probably a bit much for an SLR body. Thanks for the measurements; it is starting to put things into perspective for me.

I had a look at the Arca Swiss ball heads - wow, they look really amazing. I think I will stay away from trying one of those out, I'll never want to look back and I could never afford one!

Eldorage wrote:

I have the RC2 plate. It easily holds the camera (same as yours) with the 70-200mm f4L lens attached. The plate is on the camera base since I do not have a tripod mount on this lens.

I like it because it adds negligable weight/size to the camera. In my estimate it looks as though it could comfortably hold a 20D or D70 with a similar lens. A bigger lens would have the mount on the lens itself and I would say this plate could handle a "substantially bigger" setup like this. Not sure where the limit lies though, since I haven't tried.

Eldorage, thanks a lot, this is just what I'm looking for - someone who is using the system and has the same setup. It sounds like I'm not going to have any issues with moving bigger, plus if I end up being able to afford a much bigger lens, I'm sure I could stretch to a higher spec head if I needed it.

How important are the spirit levels? I won't have any on the head if I go for the 468MGRC2. I could buy a hot shoe spirit level, but then I read a post by drpablo74 where he said:

drpablo74 wrote:

Worst purchase -- (yes, I fell for it) -- a spirit level that fits in the hot shoe.

Why is that, I wonder...?

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 9:34 am

As Packard, I have the hexagonal plates on all my tripods (o.k. not all, but most of them). They are sturdy, fix the camera solidly to the head and are cheap. Also you can prevent the slippage between camera and plate with the included small screws, which give additional hold. I don't think, theyy are too big or to robust for 35 mm SLRs/DSLRs, because nothing can be too robust when it comes to tripods...

regards
René

Posted: Sat May 27, 2006 11:06 am

René wrote:

As Packard, I have the hexagonal plates on all my tripods (o.k. not all, but most of them). They are sturdy, fix the camera solidly to the head and are cheap. Also you can prevent the slippage between camera and plate with the included small screws, which give additional hold. I don't think, theyy are too big or to robust for 35 mm SLRs/DSLRs, because nothing can be too robust when it comes to tripods...

regards
René

René, thanks very much for your input. Now you and Packard have thrown another one into the mix! I'd kinda discounted the hexagonal one because I wasn't sure of its application. The trouble is; I can't seem to find anywhere (you would think the Manfrotto website would have it) that explains exactly why and when you would want to choose each system.

I think I've now discounted the RC4 for size, but replaced it with the hexagonal RC0, along with the RC2. Hmmm....

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 4:29 am

I've been searching and searching and I think I've discovered that the plate system can be changed on the 468MGRCx ball head. Is that right? Is a 468MGCR2 simply a 4668MG with an RC2 plate system attached, which can just as easily be changed to an RC0 system?

If this is the case then my worries are pointless - I can change a cheaper component if I feel then need. Please let me know! :)

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 4:38 am

James, I think, the only situation where the hexagons are really out of place is, when using a smal point and shoot camera.Not the least, because the additional fixing screw are pointed and might just poke through the bottom plate of such a camera.. Otherwise they always work .

There is a separate adaptor plate for the hexagons available. It sports the usual small and large camera threads (1/4 inch and 3/8 inch) and can be screwed to almost any tripod head. I just added one of these adaptors to an old Linhof ball head. The adaptor features two more straigh bore holes, which you can thread with your own tooles as you like (like adding metric threading or whatever). Just one thing: the adaptor plate is not just a plate, it is a bit bulky, so addding it on top of a 3D-head which already features a camera plate is ugly (though it works).

I only have a smaller quick release system on my monopod and no quick release on my video tripod, because the video camera is simply always on the tripod an don't need a quick release. Anything else is the Manfrotto hexagon.

regards
René

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 11:11 am

I have an rc2 pan/tilt head and it very solidly supports anything I can throw at it so far, which I guess would be 350D + grip + 70-200f/4 - not really that heavy in the scheme of things, but too heavy for my previous crappy plastic toy tripod. I'm sure it would work just as well with a 70-200 f/2.8, a 300 f/4 IS, a 400 f/5.6, or a 100-400 IS attached. The only place you might start getting into trouble would be with those huge $7000 specialty telephotos like 300 and 400 f/2.8, or 500 & 600mm IS lenses, etc. But are you really going to be buying one of those any time soon?

Posted: Sun May 28, 2006 11:49 am

walter23 wrote:

I have an rc2 pan/tilt head and it very solidly supports anything I can throw at it so far, which I guess would be 350D + grip + 70-200f/4 - not really that heavy in the scheme of things, but too heavy for my previous crappy plastic toy tripod. I'm sure it would work just as well with a 70-200 f/2.8, a 300 f/4 IS, a 400 f/5.6, or a 100-400 IS attached. The only place you might start getting into trouble would be with those huge $7000 specialty telephotos like 300 and 400 f/2.8, or 500 & 600mm IS lenses, etc. But are you really going to be buying one of those any time soon?

I would bet, you are already into trouble with a cheap 8/500 mirror lens though... Or with any longer tele lens without tripod colour, because the load will be very unbalanced, when you attach such a combination at the camera only. It is not only weight that counts. So, you don't need to spend thousands on lenses to justify a more stable tripod/head/plate. And when you look at the cost: just one decent lens costs more, than a sturdy tripod with head and plate.

cheers
René

Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 1:40 am

Thanks again for all the help, advice, and (latterly) the debate! It's been really useful to me in my decision making process. I'm not 100% there yet, but I'm currently focusing on the RC0 hexagonal system.

Posted: Mon May 29, 2006 7:37 am

Slightly off topic. In several stores I have seen tripods that are called "Digital Tripods".

Now what does that mean? They are invariably light and cheap; most under $20.00.

Posted: Tue May 30, 2006 6:32 am

packard wrote:

Slightly off topic. In several stores I have seen tripods that are called "Digital Tripods".

Now what does that mean? They are invariably light and cheap; most under $20.00.

I've noticed this too. The manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that digital cameras are generally lighter. Manfrotto have a "Digi Tripods" range and state:

Quote:

Manfrotto's new compact DIGI tripods are designed to match the technology and features of lightweight compact cameras and the convenience of digital photography, without sacrificing the outstanding support that makes Manfrotto the world's leading...... blah, blah, marketing rubbish

Their range can handle a max weight of 2kg, 2.5kg and 3.5kg depending on the model.