Camera centre of gravity

[cliveh]

There seems to be so many cameras today, that when you put them on a table they lean on the lens. One of the aspects I value in good camera design is the ability to place it on a flat surface and it sits horizontal. Would others agree?

 

[markbarendt]

It is nice to have a camera that sits up straight.

It is also nice to have long lenses. I find a good compromise with my Nikons that are wearing my 80-200 f/2.8, it stands nicely on the lens cap.

 

[ic-racer]

There seems to be so many cameras today, that when you put them on a table they lean on the lens.

Did I miss something? There is a new 35mm camera in the last ten years, and it won't sit level on a table? Do you have a picture?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Yes and no. Short lenses will not upset a camera's centre of gravity, in the situation you describe, and they make a big camera easier to handhold. But longer and heavier lenses will tilt the camera and affect balance, as a norm.

My P67 will keel over with the big and heavy 165LS, but will sit bolt upright with the 75mm f2.8AL, 45mm f4 of 90mm f2.8. These are all 'squat' and nicely balanced lenses.
It also matters to mount a heavy camera on a tripod head taking note of its centre of gravity. It's usually a backward movement of the plate (8cm in my case with any lens mounted, but 14cm with the 165mm lens mounted).

 

[Sirius Glass]

35mm cameras without lens will sit flat on their base. Add a short lens and the camera will sit on its base. A longer lens will cause the camera to tip. The only way the camera could shift the center of gravity each time a long lens is attached is if the camera could automatically gain weight. Now we all know that the longer one carries a camera, the camera gets heavier. So the solution is to carry the camera around all the time.

Just be glad that you will be carrying a 35mm camera around, you could be carrying a large format camera all day.

 

[pbromaghin]

Horizontal is a Bourgeois concept.

 

[Sirius Glass]

 

[Chan Tran]

It's not so much about center of gravity problem. Almost all DSLR (or newer SLR) can stand up with the normal lens mounted on it. These would lean if a longer lens is mounted so if you shift the center of gravity toward the back more it would take longer lens to make it lean but it will lean with some lenses. But the problem is really that newer film SLR and DSLR has a bottom which is significantly below the lens mount. On most camera without the vertical grip this dimension is about 15 to 20mm. Camera with vertical grip would have this dimension significantly more. Now if you take an old camera like the Nikon FM, F, F2 or Canon F, AE-!, A1 etc.. you can mount quite a long lens and it doesn't lean that because the lens is at the same level as the camera bottom.

 

[AgX]

To sit horizontal on a table only would be really useful for self-exposures. Some leaning-over models got a special foot to swing out for that.
To some extend it would be helpful when one still holds the camera in Hand, but puts it on a table to stabilize it more.
I got one T-90 with a very slightly convex bottom. Such is even worse.

For the rest that leaning-over is a matter of esthetics.


More a problem the center of gravity is when just holding a camera in ones hand. The center of gravity should be at near as possible to ones wrist.

I got an Agfa Sound S-8 camera, that looks neat. But is a pain in the hand to hold: its grip is extremely narrow, the camera is heavy and ist center of gravity is somewhere very up heigh.

 

[DWThomas]

Enh, you just need a "kick stand"

That's an 8x10 pinhole camera but I could picture an alumin(i)um strut pivoted on a widget in the tripod socket for 35mm.

 

[CropDusterMan]

I came to APUG tonight for some interesting posts. COG in a camera is a concern for you?
Back to the posts list.

 

[pbromaghin]

Enh, you just need a "kick stand"

That's an 8x10 pinhole camera but I could picture an alumin(i)um strut pivoted on a widget in the tripod socket for 35mm.

Holy Moly, what a beautiful camera.

Voigtlander folders from the 50's all seem to have the little foot needed to stay level.

 

[blockend]

Yes, folders often came with a handy foot, saves toting a tripod when you can find a table or a flat rock. Top heavy cameras are not a good thing, which is the reason why I had my Nikon F for years but sold my F2AS in a month. The worst is a camera that hangs lens down on a neck strap.

 

[John Koehrer]

The worst is a camera that hangs lens down on a neck strap.

Why dangle? The CG's too far forward.

 

[DWThomas]

Holy Moly, what a beautiful camera.

... .

Thank you! 'Twas my 2013 WPPD project -- more than you likely want to know here.

 

[blockend]

The CofG is too far forward because the person thinks they need an f-one-point-nothing lens, or they have a sports photography zoom round their neck that belongs on a tripod.

 

[John Koehrer]

Don't the Contax RF's have a pivoting foot?

If it's really bothersome attach a piece of aluminum to the tripod socket and add a counterweight to the back.

Didn't say it was practical did I?

 

[DWThomas]

The CofG is too far forward because the person thinks they need an f-one-point-nothing lens, or they have a sports photography zoom round their neck that belongs on a tripod.

I'm thinking most lenses longer than a very short telephoto have a tendency to tilt down -- the FD 35-105 on my Canon A-1 certainly hangs downward. However, I tend to think that's a good thing, as a long lens sticking out in front of me is a sure candidate to get banged into something (especially at points in my history when the belly behind it gave it a head start! ).

One could make a bracket or platform with struts on each side that would attach a neck strap forward of the camera body -- could even have a slotted mounting to make it adjustable. But my gut feeling is it would be a solution looking for a problem. With a lens hanging down, the camera back is facing up and relatively easy to grab with both hands and swing it up to position. As for placing the camera on a flat surface, of what lenses I have -- especially those with a suitable shade in place -- the lower portion of the lens/shade is below the plane of of the camera bottom plate and won't sit level.

 

[AgX]

But what is worse´: camera with lens hanging down, or camera with lens sticking out?

 

[Alan Gales]

But what is worse´: camera with lens hanging down, or camera with lens sticking out?

I always have more fun with it sticking out then hanging down.

 

[AgX]

But I guess you rather not get your best piece smashed.

 

[Alan Gales]

But I guess you rather not get your best piece smashed.

 

[ambaker]

Seems to me the camera should not tip over, but it always does.

-More cameras than brains... Sadly it didn't take very many.