701RC2 Balance Question (1 Viewer)

I have just bought a Manfrotto 055MFV kit which includes the 701RC2 head.
As I have a 501 head, I did not look too closely at the head capabilities but thought the built in balance spring and sliding mounting plate might solve the problem my wife has with her tail heavy Nikon EDIIIA. The scopes published weight is 1.180Kg so should be within the heads specified balance weight of 1.2Kg. This scope does have its tripod mounting foot set rather forward of centre which would have an effect.
The only way I can get the scope to balance is to reverse the set up with pan handle removed. If I add the pan handle I loose the balance.

Comments and experiences welcome

you should be able to turn the handle round?

i have a zeiss diascope 85FL, with the zeiss adaptor and canon A95 mounted onto my 701rc2 (055 legs), and suffer no balance problems, the slidindg plate is simply pulled back towards me, or away untill just right to help balance. not a light combo but works brilliantly.

Thanks for your comment Salty. I have just tried my scope - Nikon ED82A. As its foot is central it has good balance, as has your Diascope 85FL and there is no problem. The EDIIIA although not a heavy scope is quite tail heavy.

Before anyone suggests it I am NOT going to do a swap with my Manfrotto 501.

Up early this morning to check out our head/scope combo's. My personal ( bound to be contraversial ) opinions of the heads are as follows

Heads are Manfrotto 701RC2 Catalogue weight 0.8Kg
Capacity 4.0Kg
128RC Catalogue weight 1Kg
Capacity 4.0Kg
501 Catalogue weight 1.5Kg
Capacity 6.0Kg

Scopes are Nikon EDIIIA Catalogue weight 1.180Kg
The mounting foot on this scope is set forward of the focusing ring and its balance point is roughly mid point on the focusing ring, so quite tail heavy.

ED82A Catalogue weight 1.670Kg
The mounting foot on this scope is also forward of the focusing ring but due to the larger front element the balance point is central on the foot.

701RC2 - If the scope has reasonable balance at the mounting foot the head works well and has less drag than the 128. I tried this head with my bins and its light touch make this the best bins head I have ever used.

128RC - Although this head has a higher drag than the 701 it proved to be perfect for the less than perfectly balanced EDIIIA. A significant improvement over the 701. With the larger scope I had to increase the drag on the 701 to near equal to that of the 128 to compensate for the load, so this was no longer a factor. I preferred the heavier scope on the 128 when compared to the 701 combination.

501 - For big bore ( heavier ) scopes this is head and shoulders above the 701 or 128. Probably a bit overkill for a 60mm optic ! For anyone that has not seen this head it is quite a bit larger than the 701 or 128. The sliding plate is 3 1/2" long and fits a dovetailed groove giving superb stability, adjustable balance, friction control, pan and tilt locks. This is well able to support an 82 Scope/FSA-L1/D100 set up. That is 1.350Kg screwed into the eyepiece, giving a totally tail heavy load of 3.02 Kg.
With the 501 head mounted on 055 MagFibre legs the weight is just 3.5Kg, until now I have been lugging my Slik Proffesional where the legs alone are 5.0Kg. !!

I hope this will be useful to those coming into birding and are looking for info on heads.
For those with scopes without an anti rotation pin hole using 701 or 128 heads the Architectural Plate is the answer.

As for tripods I think the Manfrotto 055 range are hard to beat for a combination of portability and stability even with 60mm ( light ) scopes.

Don Hoey said:

I have just bought a Manfrotto 055MFV kit which includes the 701RC2 head.
As I have a 501 head, I did not look too closely at the head capabilities but thought the built in balance spring and sliding mounting plate might solve the problem my wife has with her tail heavy Nikon EDIIIA. The scopes published weight is 1.180Kg so should be within the heads specified balance weight of 1.2Kg. This scope does have its tripod mounting foot set rather forward of centre which would have an effect.
The only way I can get the scope to balance is to reverse the set up with pan handle removed. If I add the pan handle I loose the balance.

Comments and experiences welcome

Click to expand...

As an aside, I removed the pan handle because I found that it got in the way. When my 701 is adjusted all it takes is a light touch on the scope (pentax 65ED) to move it smoothy.

I'd have to agree that the 501 is a stunningly solid head, it has very smooth movement even when carrying a big load. It's the ideal head for use with a big scope and camera combo, or with an slr and long lens.
I'm also a fan of the 128 and would recommend it to anyone over the 701, it might not have some of the nifty features but is tried and tested and won't let you down. I'm currently looking into a way to add a sliding plate section to the 128 head (not sure if it will work), if possible it would stop any advantage the 701 could have for me.

Today I finally got round to having a good look at the 701RC2 head.
It quickly became obvious that tail heavy scopes will have a balancing problem. The centre point of the QR plate is 10mm behind the centre of the pivot point. The plate gives +20mm and -20mm of movement. This therefore gives an actual movement relative to the pivot point of : forward +10mm and backward -30mm.
The balance spring cannot be repositioned to increase tension to help overcome the lack of forward movement in the sliding plate as there is not enough meat in the casting to allow for repositioning the spring retaining hole.
Short of making a longer sub base this balance problem cannot be overcome.

Looking back to a post dated 7 August by postcardcv, it looks like the 128 ( Bogen 3130 ) is to be phased out. One can only to hope that Manfrotto will look to providing a suitably modified 701 head to cater for all scope users, as the current incarnation favours scopes with near perfect balance or those that are slightly nose heavy. On the 128 head the centre of the QR plate is in line with the pivot point and still works smoother with a tail heavy Nikon than a 701 at full forward +10mm..

Balance

I seem to have the same problem with balace on my 055MF & 701rc2 used with a Kowa823 and Nikon 4500 , I must admit I never thought of the balance of the scope just assumed it was mounted in the middle,but when I place on the camera its tail heavy even with the slide forward and to avoid it slipping back I have to apply the side tension meaning every time I move the camera/scope its undo and retighten which is the very thing I wanted to avoid and the reason I bought this combo. I think the solution for me would be a plate on the base of the scope changing the mounting point to make it nose heavy and use the slide to move back when the scopes on and forward with the camera on it probably makes no sense other than to those using this combo.Anyone know of a plate that can change the mounting point??
I must finish with ,as I have only had this combo out a few times perhaps I will master the tension required to obtain better balance it works OK in tests at home but then does'nt everything.
Brian

Would it be possible to rig up some form of front mounted counterbalance? Saves modifying the scope and possibly invalidating any warranty

Cheers

Ken

701RC2 Head modification

I have today made a sub-base for the sliding section.
It is 120mm long with mounting points for the sliding section at 20mm and 40mm in from the back of the head. This allows for a massive 54mm in front of the heads axis.

The results we quite interesting.

Nikon EDIIIA mounted forward of axis by 38mm. This scope is 291mm long and 1180g.
I got exactly what I expected from the advertising blurb. With the tilt lock screw TOTALLY free the scope will stay exactly where you position it at up to 45deg nose down through to 45deg nose up. The balance spring really does work!! Having the tilt lock screw totally free you do get the benefit of its lighter movement than the 128 head.SUPERB
My wife now prefers it to the 128.

Now for the catch.
Repositioned the sliding plate section to +20mm. Mounting the ED82A balanced at 6mm forward of axis.
Without tightening the tilt lock screw to induce drag, max elevation 15deg, max nose down 8 1/2deg. At this point you have to increase the tightness of the lock screw, ever increasing the drag to compensate for the weight of glass at either end, so loosing any benefit of the spring counterbalance.

What the above shows up quite plainly is that this head athough able to support loads of up to 4Kg is not able to successfully deal with the weight of big lumps of glass beyond a certain distance from the head axis.
I have looked at the specs for a few bigger scopes that I think will require the tilt screw locking up to varying degrees to increase drag.
Nikon ED82A overall length 339mm weight 1670g
Leica Apo-Telavid 410mm 1695g
Kowa TSN823 384mm 1550g
Opticron HR80 395mm 1920g
Pentax PF80EDA 415mm 1400g

Add a camera for digiscoping and that increases the weight distance from head axis.

I have not included any of the new 100mm optics as from their specs I do not think this head is able to handle them. From the Manfrotto range the 501 is the answer here.

All of this suggests that if Manfrotto are going to offer this head as an unmodified replacement for the 128, they should at least offer a sub-base as an accessory. It would be nice if it was offered with a version with a stronger counterweight spring. Perhaps even try it with a selection of big scopes before declaring it - the perfect complement to a spotting scope. :scribe:

One other thing is that the QR plate positioning is deeper on the 701. 0.5mm proud as opposed to 4.0mm proud on the 128. This means that the Architectural plate - standard 128/701 plate with its 2mm deep dovetail will not bottom out on the 701. Yes I have worked for years in a manufacturing environment and have seen this sort of thing many many times. I will have to remake the base portion of mine to allow for this.

Brian I dont know how long your camera/scope combo is. But as the 823 without camera is on my list I am not surprised you are having problems. If you can afford it try to swap for a 501 as that will cetainly solve your problem.

I would be interested to hear the experiences of anyone that has the 701 head and a long ( more than 300mm) 77mm plus ojective before I try any more mods.

kennygee said:

Would it be possible to rig up some form of front mounted counterbalance? Saves modifying the scope and possibly invalidating any warranty

Cheers

Ken

Click to expand...

Hi Ken I have added some weight to the front of the scope under the stay on case the trouble is the further forward the weight the less is required,the tripod handle turned around to face forward and under the scope helps but is to light and not very practical( I may try and make one that bends around the front of the scope to the other side and add some weight that way as I prefer the handle on that side anyway). This worked fine then I added home made remote release and changed the weight ratio its a very light setup but enough to alter the balance even taking the camera battery out helps so I will look on the forum for how to make a battery pack ? and place this on the front of the scope .

Don, have you taken off the sliding base 4 silver grub screws and added a plate thus placing the slide further forward ? I now have limited tools etc.though I will try some form of this just to see if it improves the balance any and try and have one made, I am more interested in the scope/camera balance at the moment, today I added a rubber washer to the side grip screw it means I can apply lighter tension easier it works great without the gear on will try with the camera/scope.
I did consider the 501 but at the time thought it overkill for my gear plus the extra weight to carry and now can't afford to buy another head.
Any and all ideas considered.
Brian

Brian, yes I did remove the sliding plate assembly and mounted it on top of the sub-base.

Before attempting to remove this plate you need to understand something of the heads construction. The base of the sliding section holds the two side plates in position. The pan handle side is held to the head by these screws ONLY. The other side is additionally held by the tilt locking screw.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE The pan handle side contains the fluid action. This comprises of a series of fine vanes with a set amount of silicone. I would NOT recommend a casual look inside if you have no aptitude for engineering.

Therefore if you wish to remove the sliding base section to add a longer base you need to firstly remove the pan handle, then wrap masking tape round the two side plates to hold them together before removing the sliding base screws.

The bottom plate of the sliding base has raised stiffening webs which complicate matters when considering repeating what I have done, as a milling machine is required to machine slots in the sub-base to accept these. Hence I feel that a Manfrotto Accessory Plate is desirable. All is not lost however, as with the sliding plate in hand any small local engineering firm could make up a sub-base to give as much foreward movement as you might require.

I am not sure the rubber washer will work. I have just tried an 'O' ring, and as it compresses when you tighten the screw, it does a finer job of increasing tension. However I cannot get the head to lock with this set up. A simpler solution is to take the head with you to a good automotive spare parts dealer and ask for a WAVED WASHER to fit. Not only will this give improved feel to adding tension, but it will allow the head to lock up.

From your last post it appears that you are nearly in balance and a really cheap and easy solution may be to get some Velcro and Lead weights - fishing weights would do. A bit of experimentation here. Make up a pouch with the weights in. Attatch a piece of velcro to the stay-on case and a piece to the pouch. When you attatch the camera, you velcro the weighted pouch to the scope case. The main advantage is camera off, weighted pouch off and in pocket, yet easily used when required. A whole lot easier than making a remote battery pack to do the same thing.

Hope this helps.

Don

Brian
I have been checking out Manfrotto web site and found they offer a sliding plate accessory. Code MN357

Manfrotto link http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=100&itemid=318

This item is at Warehouse Express at £34.95

Warehouse Express link http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.cfm

From a previous thread I notice Postie was checking out the possibility of a sliding plate for the 128 head. Perhaps he could comment on this option.

Don

Don Hoey said:

From a previous thread I notice Postie was checking out the possibility of a sliding plate for the 128 head. Perhaps he could comment on this option.

Click to expand...

I have had a look at this and found a very easy way was to attach the Manfrotto sliding plate adaptor (577) to a standard quick release plate. This method allowed me to use either the sliding section (using the same plates as the 501 head) or the standard 128.

The 577 has threads for both the 1/4" or 3/8" screws, I recommend using a plate with a 3/8" ro attach it to as this moves the set up slightly further forward and seeems to be more balanced. I will get hold of a 577 in the next week and will post photos to show how it works. From what I've seen it is possible to do eth same with the 357, this would give more forward movement, but was no good to me as it uses different plates to the 501.

Don Hoey said:

Brian
I have been checking out Manfrotto web site and found they offer a sliding plate accessory. Code MN357

Manfrotto link http://www.manfrotto.co.uk/product/templates/templates.php3?sectionid=100&itemid=318

This item is at Warehouse Express at £34.95

Warehouse Express link http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.cfm

From a previous thread I notice Postie was checking out the possibility of a sliding plate for the 128 head. Perhaps he could comment on this option.

Don

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Don re the 357plate and taking off the sliding plate base. I had thought of just blocks on either side to avoid the receess, I am almost there re balance the rubber washer (piece of inner tube ) compared to an O ring works fine for me even with camera on and locks no problem, as far as the battery pack I need one anyway as the remote release has to be removed for battery exchange, if I mount the pack on the front of the scope the weight removal from the camera + the added nose weight will help improve balance.
I have the Manfotto catalogue with the 357 sliding plate adaptor in but I wonder if the long plate 430 would do the job not much detail as to what this item is other than offers two camera mounting positions ?
Brian

Brian

Just put manfrotto 357 plate in Google search and got more info from a different Manfrotto page. Their website is hard work!!
They quote the sliding travel of this plate as 80mm. If the mounting screw is fairly central that should give at least 35mm of forward movement.

If Postie is getting a 577 plate and will post pics and info, it may be as well to wait for this. I know he does digiscoping and also has a good SLR camera setup so will give usefull results.

Google search for 577 shows movement as 50mm, which if your setup is fairly balanced without camera may be enough.

A new 701RC2 to play with.

Having sorted my wife's 701 head out to her total satisfaction, she then got her hands on my Magfibre legs. So another visit to the nice people at Cley Spy. I got another Manfrotto 055MFV kit including the 701 head. I guess I have become obsessed with sorting this heads niggles, to make it better than the 128 as it does have some nice features. Will I succeed? Hope to without buying any new tooling.

First job was to make a sub-base to move the sliding base forward 20mm. While considering refining the lock to incorporate a more sensitive way of increasing drag ( a problem one or two other posters have had ), I put my 82 on. The first thing to notice was balance was just achievable with the plate fully back which is contrary to the other head. Also the whole thing was very light and a lot of drag had to be applied. Tried my wifes 60 and it balanced requiring 10mm less than her modified head. It also required a fair amount of lock to be applied as the counterbalance spring was only effective +/- 10deg. Totaly different from her head where this screw is only used as a lock.

Into the workshop, and a disassembly showed less than expected silicone in the vanes - some had none. With that sorted it now works a treat with the 60. Lock screw removed and it will hold position over the entire range. Point of balance unaffected by additional silicone but still 10mm less forward than the other head. ( Spring on the new head must be a tad stronger. ) I still think it should have a 3Kg spring for larger scopes

Another difference between the two heads was the position of the locking lever with QR plate attatched. On the new head there was significant additional stand off, to the point that I milled a piece out of the QR plate.

All this goes to show that there are manufacturing inconsistancies between these heads unlike the 128, and if you are in the market for one, where possible test it with your scope. When happy buy that particular one.

701 Adjustment tip

Taking a break from my so far unsuccessful attempts to increase drag while retaining the lightness of touch of the 701, I was trawling past threads on this head and came across a post from Kimmo on 25th March that created instant interest.

I'm responding belatedly to Bob's concerns about the 701's "jerky" movement comments. I have used one of these heads for test purposes for a while now. Firstly, there are considerable differences in drag between different samples. This is because the drag depends both on the precise amount and distribution of the damping substance on the bearing surfaces, and on the tightness to which the parts were assembled, both of which seem to vary. I had two different specimen, the first having way too loose a drag when the locking bolt was loosened, and the second having a very nice amount of drag. I measured the difference by having the same scope on the heads, balanced exactly the same with the sliding plate, and then measuring the time it took for the scope to "fall" all the way on its nose when tipped just enough to begin moving on its own. With the first sample, the "drop time" was about three seconds, with the second about 25 seconds.

Click to expand...

Today I checked out the cause using Kimmo's "drop time" as my 2 specimens were also very different. The first place I looked at was manufacturing assembly methods. It is unlikely that a jig would be used, so each assembler could fix the sliding plate differently, therefore a good probability for variable tensions.
The holes in the sliding plate base are 5.4mm dia. and the screws 4.8mm dia. Definate room for variables.
The fluid side plate has the handle fixing and when filled with silicone pushes on to the axle and is a snug fit. ( It is not retained by the pan handle screw but by the sliding plate assembly. )
The tilt locking side contains the counterbalance spring and does not sit on an axle. but is located on small lugs on its circumference and held by the lock lever screw.
It is possible to assemble the sliding plate by just holding this side in place, or doing up the lock screw to clamp it up, while putting on the sliding plate.
This is where Kimmo's " drop test " came into play.
Assembly 1 - Hold spring side while attaching sliding plate - " drop test " 15 secs.
Assembly 2 - Lock side plate while attaching sliding plate - " drop test " 35 secs and even then it never did reach vertical.

TIP - if your 701 has a short time on " drop test " you can easily get some improvement by undoing the lock screw and just loosening the 4 screws holding the sliding plate a bit. Then lock the tilt screw and tighten the sliding plate screws.

Reading comments about " gritty " action I have the explanation. When tension is applied to the lock screw to induce more drag, it gradually forces the spring side plate onto the central housing until they lock. The touching surfaces have the same slightly rough paint finish as the outside of the head. So the grittiness is the result of these surfaces coming together under pressure. As this head was primarily designed for video, and having looked at the recommended cameras ( small and lightweight ) this screw can only ever have been intended as a lock and not drag adjustment. The painted surfaces would aid that. Both these surfaces will however wear smoother with use, or working under light screw load, so it is not the sign of a defective head. If the sliding plate has not gone on square this can make the grittiness appear worse. If thats the case you re-adjust as stated in TIP . The 128 head is quite different inside and so cannot suffer from this effect.

You may find this option I posted some time ago useful? It requires a few basic workshop tools but it does help and after several months of use I have had no problems.

http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=35743

TIP - if your 701 has a short time on " drop test " you can easily get some improvement by undoing the lock screw and just loosening the 4 screws holding the sliding plate a bit. Then lock the tilt screw and tighten the sliding plate screws.


Still following this thread Don,though I had not had anything new to offer I thought I had it reasonable good till I was out and tried to digi a Black Redstart on a roof top having to tilt the scope back it was impossible to balance without locking it but when lock is applied the bird always ends up part out of view,so I had to predict the fall and hope the bird was in frame.
I will try your "tip" after testing the fall to see how much it can be improved.
I presume you mean from the balance with no tension on the lock screw.
I hope it works for me because I like the setup of legs and head, but feel that for the price of these heads the quality should be consitent on them all and not just pot luck.
Thanks for the "tip"
Brian