5mk3, that tripod bush again :(

[Dave in Wales]

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4466714

[MJ224]

I can't understand the lingo, and he speaks too fast anyway. But would be interested in how the base plate got broken. Was it due to stupidity, or a genuine accident...ie how strong is the base plate anyway...
Probably applies to all the Olympus cameras

[griffljg]

I also don't understand French and so I just look at the pictures.

[timboo]

So many unknowns plus the language barrier only makes it more difficult to draw any sort of conclusion from. Great for awareness though. The video has convinced me of one thing not to ever use the mount for a camera strap and only as a lanyard for an emergency in case one of the two actual strap lugs fail.

2 scenarios below both owing to the cameras off centre tripod mount will cause issues if larger weights added to the longer edge creating a lever effect.

1.the peak design bracket has 4 strap eyelets at the extreme corners of the plate. Attaching a strap to the extreme edge of the plate would also remain off centre and act as a longer lever putting extra stress on one side of the camera mount, coupled with the strap applying a none linear force will be putting additional stress on the rubber pulling the plate sideways.

2. Now apply that theory to sitting the camera on a tripod it becomes a linear calculation. I assume Olympus would ensure any of their lenses can safely be mounted, not exceeding the maximum permissible values through rigorous testing (values known only to them as far as i can find) On larger lenses they provide the collar with the extra tripod mount for this very reason. If a 300f4 was mounted to the tripod by the cameras mount the same will occur as per the video, which may also have the same effect as using the mount for a strap, in a round about kind of way.

Is it user error or a genuine manufacturing related only the user & Olympus will know based on that video or someone who can translate maybe 😃

Incidentally I did do some linear calculations based on my E-m1 + 300f4 to see by off setting the tripod mount plate what additional stress would be added if you could dangle a camera strap vertically from the long side assuming a tripod plate was a perfect fit for the camera but the eylet was at the extreme edge towards therear.
Gravity - 9.8
300 f4 length (exc hood) 0.227m
300 f4 mass - 1.7kg
300f4 centre of mass 0.1135m

E-M1 base depth (exc screen) 0.033m
E-M1 centre 0.0165m
E-M1 actual tripod mount 0.008m from front edge
E-M1 tripod mount 0.0085m from centre

Example 1 if the tripod mount was actually in the centre of the camera and you attached a camera strap to the edge and dangled it vertically but camera remained balanced.

(1.7x9.8) x (0.1135+0.0165) = 2.17 Nm to 1d.p

Example 2 if the tripod mount is off centre as per actual camera and you attached a camera strap to the long edge and dangled it vertically but camera remained balanced.

(1.7x9.8) x (0.1135+0.0165+0.0085) = 2.3 Nm to 1d.p

Conclusion by it being off centre by 8.5mm approx 6% more torque is applied or stress to one side of the tripod mount if you attached towards the rear. On the flip side by the mount being closer to the lens there would be a 6% reduction of torque on the plate sat on a tripod so you can clearly see why it changed after the mki and also why attaching a strap to the rear of a plate such as Peak design adds extra stresses to the tripod mount.

This is the most simplistic calculation. As I do not have the manufacturers information although even if i did the centre of mass of the 300f4 is likely to differ to my calc. A camera strap will also not be pulling vertically. Slightly more complex calculations are required.

[Tram]

Just had a look at that thread and on the third page someone has posted a photo of a detached baseplate.
Looks rather flimsy for a thousand pound camera, my GX9 at half the price has a metal top and bottom plate.

Saying that even if the plastic base plate cracks anything screwed into the tripod bush should stay put.
That looks safely embedded in the camera body admittedly any weather resistance would be nullified.

Still not sure why for a few grams weight saving they switched from a metal body, presumably cost or ease of manufacture.
My daughter intended buying one at the Photo Show to replace her few years old and slightly battered E-M5ii
Think she might leave it now and see just how durable this camera is, her gear isn't abused, but does get well used

[Dave in Wales]

And another.......https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4477029

[ronidog]

Has anybody seen anything further on this?

[timboo]

Only that the off centre location was down to space space constraints within the body only nothing technical.
Was fun doing some calcs though.

[ronidog]

I have being trying to find anything on the Web but seen nothing other than the converstion on dpreview which stopped a month ago.

Unortunatley this often seem to be the case where one or two people have an issue which gets dissected in a forum and the compant berated. Rarely is there a follow up from the original posters. I think I will email Olympus and see what they have to say.

This lock down has got me wanting to use my camera on a tripod for WiFi shooting of birds.

[Ross the fiddler]

I think a quote from one of the comments there basically says it. "Just because after-market products can use this threaded hole does not mean they should." And if using a strap off it with a heavier lens (say even a 12-100 f4) & a plate of less than perfect design that is done up with an allen key then, maybe the camera design is lacking, but so is the plate & user.

[Bikie John]

That is something I don't like about the 12-100 - it is a heavy lens but has no tripod mount. If I want to run 2 bodies I generally put at least one on a cross-body strap so the only way to attach the camera is by the tripod bush and the weight of the 12-100 always worries me.

John

[ronidog]

My queries are quite simple -

whether this failure is a real problem
has it happened to anyone know the us
Is it a batch failure
is it it safe to use the camera on a tripod,
Are Olympus addressing the issue I

I am not an engineer or camera expert so reading the above discussion and that on dpreview are not very helpful

[Ross the fiddler]

If you mount it on a tripod & lean on the lens then maybe you'll have a problem, but I would expect there wouldn't be an issue having a lens like the 12-100 on it & on a tripod for selfie or timed exposures etc. (it would be the lens to hand hold otherwise). Also, if you overtighten the screw with an allen key, you might create a problem too.

[pdk42]

The mechanical issue is that the tripod bush is attached to the base plate, and the base plate in turn is attached to the camera frame. This design is common to all Olympus m43 cameras as far as I can tell. Over tightening the tripod screw shouldn’t be an issue since that will just compress the tripod bush into the tripod. The problem is that any turning force perpendicular to the base plate will put a shearing force on it. I’m guessing that the EM5.3 is a plastic base plate that has lower breaking strength compared to others in the range. It’s probably fine if you avoid mounting heavy lenses on a camera secured to a tripod via its base, or carrying the camera with heavy lenses via a strap attached to the tripod bush.

[ronidog]

Yesterday I emailed Olympus about this apparent problem with the tripod bush. Below is there very prompt received this lunchtime.

Thank you for your email regarding your E-M5 Mark III. It is a wonderful little camera and I do understand your concern.

I am happy to confirm there are no known issues with the E-M5 Mark III and we do not comment on posts on anonymous internet forums.
Should a camera have a known issue, a service announcement is published on our website. You are able to see our service announcements on the link below (scroll to 'Latest News' and click 'Service Annoucements').

https://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras_support/index.html

The camera tripod mount is to be used only for mounting of the camera to a tripod and not for carrying or bouncing big lenses around on.
Generally speaking any lens that weighs more than the camera should be supported when in use.
The breaks you see online are generally because people have been carrying larger lenses on the camera and attaching the strap to the bayonet.

Should you require any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will be happy to help you

I am quite satisfied by this response and will only be using the camera and lenses as recommended by the company. Others might disagree but this suits my style of photography and the usage I envisaged when making the purchase.

Dave

[MJ224]

Sounds common sense....

[drmarkf]

Yes, I agree.
The only lens that I’d want to have on the camera hung on a cross-body strap that I’d be worried about is the 12-100. No evidence, just intuition knowing the heft of the lens and having handled the body on several occasions.

Unfortunately the 12-100 is just too heavy for me to carry round all day in the hand, and I hate neck straps. Is a shame, because I otherwise loved the size, weight and handling (it fitted my fairly small hands very well).

[pdk42]

It's an honest answer and in light of how the tripod bush is mounted, quite reasonable. However, I'm still of the view that it's a poor design. I'd prefer the tripod bush to be attached directly to the camera's frame rather than to a primarily cosmetic base plate. With the design as is, a quarter-inch threaded nut, with pretensions of ruggedness, is suspended on a 1mm thin plastic plate that's then held onto the body by a half-dozen miniature screws. The nut screams "this'll take the weight of an elephant" so it's not surprising that they get used as strap connection points. That there is a whole market for straps that connect this way only reinforces the notion. It's a bad design in truth.

[Olybirder]

There is yet another report of the tripod bush cracking on an E-M5 iii on Dpreview, while using a PD capture clip. Regardless of whether it is advisable to carry the camera by the tripod bush or not, it does seem that the base plate is poorly designed.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64110473

Ron

[blackfox]

Personally I think at this moment in time Olympus bashing by people with hidden agendas is to be expected .. any camera can be broken if mistreated by the user ..it’s a delicate instrument if you can’t treat it with due care change hobbies

[TheAlanGallery]

The plate is installed with an Allen key that would allow the plate to be tightened quite a bit more than a normal D ring on a tripod plate if using the same force -- I estimate by a factor of 5 at least. There is a tendency to crank the force used up if you dangle the camera and lens of a strap.

Another contributing factor could be the slot that allows the bolt to be placed closer to one edge of the plate which would mean the force applied to the camera's bottom plate would not be evenly distributed and higher on the edge closest to the bold, very close to the holes where the tripod bush passes through the plastic of the bottom plate.