Revisiting the "L-Bracket"

Recommended

IN THE last post, I wrote about the L-bracket for my M4/3 Olympus EM-5iii. Over the past several years, I have blogged a few times on this (or closely related) topic. These days, given the leaps and bounds forward with image stabilization technology, one could easily conclude that mounting a camera to some kind of standard (for most of us, a tripod) has been relegated to only special purpose uses. Virtually every FB or other social media page extolls the virtue of the camera's great IBIS ("in body image stabilization"), implying or even outright suggesting that a tripod is just no longer needed. But that conclusion would be wrong, in my opinion. I don't discount the virtue of image stabilization. Nor do I deny that it has made handholding in some situations the choice of preference. But there are still many circumstances where using a tripod is either completely necessary, or highly recommended. At least for now.

I SHOOT the majority of my landscape images from a tripod. I still remember the frustration of trying to line up my composition on all three axes - especially with a ball head. And then, when you wanted to look at the 90 degree perspective (landscape vs. portrait orientation), re-calibrating that composition was sometimes nearly impossible.

design of these erstwhile simple brackets has become increasingly challenging

IN THE 2000's I was introduced to the "L-bracket." What a simple, yet elegant solution. In the beginning. But as camera technology has expanded and manufacturers have added more and more accessory ports, along with the very handy "articulating" rear LCD screen, design of these erstwhile simple brackets has become increasingly challenging. With that, I believe that in many cases, the engineers have simply not even seriously considered camera-stand attachments as part of the design, and bracket manufacturers just don't design and sell them for many of the most modern cameras. On my last two "camera upgrades" I have run into this vexing issue.

"Rube Goldberg" modification of the RRS Bracket "designed" for my Olympus EM--5iii

FOR MY Olympus EM-5iii, I ended up modifying the very expensive RRS L-bracket with a grinder, some emory paper and some black spray paint. It works, but it is definitely "Rube Goldberg" material. For the newest "Full Frame" Sony A7CR, That didn't appear possible and I was close to simply giving up, when I found an ingenious new solution. It restored my faith that good engineering could overcome some of these issues. And believe it or not, the new solution is even simpler than the now venerable L-bracket.

Slik "i-Bracket"

WHAT COULD possibly trump the L-bracket? The "i-Bracket!" I have long praised the Arca-Swiss style dovetail L-bracket for its elegant simplicity. The i-bracket is even more elegantly simple. My dad, the professional engineer, had a favorite theory. Most really well-designed and durable mechanisms have a single concept at their heart: simplicity. It is hard to image a simpler design than a straight, flat dovetail bracket. That dovetail on the end, though, is the genius. I am actually surprised that some enterprising inventor or engineer didn't arrive upon this sooner.

THE LONG-time tripod manufacturer, Slik, sells these things for a very reasonable $50 price, either directly on their own website, or through Amazon. Since I am a many-years Prime member, and I like the free shipping and fast turnaround times, ordered mine from Amazon. One thing that might give you pause when looking at this thing is the small size of the "portrait mode" dovetail on the end of the bracket. You might be skeptical that there is enough there to give the tripod dovetail clamp enough "purchase" to feel that it is secure. Machined from fairly thick aluminum, the dovetail is about 1/2 inch wide on the narrow end. I can assure you from testing. It is plenty secure (barring user error). There is at least one other manufacturer who has now introduced a similar bracket: (Leophoto). I have never owned a Leofoto accessory of any kind, but I know they are one of the well-thought of newcomers to the tripod and lens accessories game. It looks like it would be similarly useful, as it also has the same "i-bracket" design. It looks a bit bulky to me, though it touts that that very bulky design is a positive, slightly extending the bottom of the camera's grip. Personally, I think the A7CR feels fine in hand as is. If you have larger hands, you might look at this Leofoto model. I wasn't able to find it on Amazon, but it did come up as a direct purchase (I presume, shipping from China) from the company with a Google search.

Leofoto i-bracket

THE i-BRACKET from Slik is slightly more complicated than my explanation of it as a simple flat bar. It is actually two precision-fitting, indexed bars that slide on top of each other. But that's a good thing, because it gives the bracket some adjustability. On Amazon's site it also specifies compatibility with Canon EOS R, Sony a7, and Nikon Z Series cameras.

I HAVE previously noted (in prior blogs) that these brackets (both "L" and "i") must be designed as a camera-specific part in order to be useful. The primary piece is the anti-rotation lip machined or cast integrally onto the bracket, which prevents the camera from rotating forward or backward when mounted. The Slik bracket provides a couple slots and holes, which should allow for placement of the camera base tripod sockets being different. The fit on the A7CR (and a presume the A7C and A7Cii would be identical) is perfect.

I AM very happy to recommend this accessory - perhaps as highly as anything I have recommended here.

Recommended

Really Right Stuff - Olympus OMD EM-5iii L-bracket.

Suggested; but with Reservations

Really Right Stuff - L-Bracket BOEM5III - Olympus OM-D EM5iii

LET ME sum up this purchase in one word: Disappointing! I have blogged about how I believe an L-bracket is a near-indispensable accessory for a serious photographer (if you use a tripod - and I have also blogged a few times my strong belief that you should use a tripod whenever feasible). There are 2 features on my Olympus OM-D5iii "travel" camera that render the RRS L-bracket a "fail" (or maybe, depending on your perspective, a "near-fail"). I am not an engineer, but I personally think the design could be rather easily modified to better address both of these. In fairness, modern digital cameras present issues that older SLR/DSLR bodies didn't; mainly in the area of electronic screens and "connectivity." Because of the changing shape and configuration of newly released camera bodies it seems that a newly designed L-bracket has to be created for each new camera. In my view, however, this particular bracket doesn't quite make the grade.

I am realistic enough to know that technology may someday render a tripod superflous. We are not there yet

TWO MAJOR (though not the only) considerations for my recent switch from the OMD EM-10 series to the OMD EM-5iii were: (1) a fully articulating rear screen, and (2) wired remote release capability. Unfortunately, these directly conflict with the features on the RRS bracket that I am criticizing here.

Remote Release

DESPITE ALL the hype to the contrary, I will continue (though it is probably quixotic - at least in relation to those "why do I need a tripod with my XXX brand's flawless IBIS?" preachers) to say that use of a tripod is still strongly recommended in all cases where its use is feasible; and just a plain-old necessity in some cases. I am realistic enough to know that technology may someday render a tripod superflous. We are not there yet.

One of the reasons I recently "upgraded" to the OM-D5iii was the existence of wired remote release capability

THE OLD saying: "a chain is only as strong as its weakest link" may be an apt analogy here. It does no good to have a sturdy, base if the camera itself is not firmly affixed, and can be triggered without touching it. To me that means you also need a remote triggering device to go hand-in-hand with the tripod. I have used the 2 second delay. I don't like it. It is impossible to "time" your tripping of the shutter - e.g., wind movement of plants and flowers, capturing "the moment" in other instances. Along with that, though this may be my personal peccadillo, it is inconvenient to remember to switch it back and forth. I have always been a little dumbfounded that many manufacturers have discontinued the facility of a simple, wired, remote release. My Sony cameras can only be triggered with a wireless release. I make it work, but it is clunky. The old OMD EM-10iv could only be remotely triggered using a cell phone app. To me that nearly cripples the use of a remote release. One of the reasons I recently "upgraded" to the OMD-EM5iii was the existence of wired remote release capability.

Articulating Rear Screen

I HAVE always been a viewfinder kind of a guy. Even today, purchasing a camera without a viewfinder is a non-starter for me. There is something about isolating all the other factors around you when you are looking through the viewfinder. It is how I have long felt most comfortable composing. Electronics, though, has changed the world. The first Electronic Viewfinders (EV) weren't very good. Probably as a result of mirrorless development, they very quickly got better; so much better that I now prefer them to the older TTL viewfinders for a number of reasons. I still want a viewfinder though. However, toward the end of my SLR/DSLR days, I aquired a "waist-level" viewfinder. I found it not only more comfortable to use when I wanted a composition from a lower perspective than my 6' standing height, but very versatile. Once my cameras began to come with tilting rear screens, I found that they were a pretty good substitute for that waist-level finder. Indeed, these days, I use it quite often and it does save wear and tear on my back. I find the fully articulating rear screens even more versatile. I wanted one - and I wanted to be able to use it.

RRS is really the only manufacturer who currently manufactures and sells a dedicated L-bracket for the EM-5iii body

Why I think RRS dropped the ball on this one

FIRST, I have a confession to make. This item is the first RRS item I have ever purchased. They are a U.S. manufacturer, and say that all of their materials and machining are from and in the U.S. There is something to be said for that. Over the years, I have had no doubt that they are top-drawer in terms of quality. At one time, U.S. manufacturer, Kirk Enterprises also made similar quality pieces (I am not sure what happened with them). I have owned a couple Kirk lens foot accessories. I also think it is fair to RRS to note that they are usually the first to the gate with brackets and accessories for newly released body. There is something to be said for the cost of design and R&D. I have a buddy who purchases from them and says their customer service is as good as any he has ever encountered. The reason, though, that I haven't routinely purchased RRS equipment boils down to one factor: cost. I have deemed their "stuff" (especially L-brackets) to be much too expensive for the purpose they serve. I once worked in a machine shop for a couple years and one of the things we did was milling aluminum parts - like the RRS L-bracket (not L-brackets, but similar machining). I knew in my "gut" that they could be produced much less expensively. That was born out time and again, by the availability of much less expensive good quality functional alternatives. When you have to buy one of these gadgets every time you make a camera change (and for every camera body you have), at prices from $150 and above each, it gets to be a costly (albeit important in my opinion) item for convenience.

RRS has some very smart engineers. I find it hard to believe they couldn't/didn't design around these issues

UNFORTUNATELY, AND I think this is largely due to the IBIS hype I alluded to, these brackets are not being made/sold for Olympus cameras (at least not the tripod based L-bracket). I think it is currenly a matter of demand, and it is just not there. It turns out that RRS is really the only manufacturer who currently manufactures and sells a dedicated L-bracket for the EM-5iii body. There are several "grips" being sold (mostly and eBay and those Chinese sites - which I will not participate in), but they really focus on the grip part and not the "L" in the L-bracket that I think is a critical piece. One competitor, who appears to be out of business, did have a pretty good looking alternative. I think you can find them (obviously used - but that shouldn't be an issue here) on eBay. Here is an example.

GIVEN THE niche that RRS occupies as the "best of the best," and essentially having a monopoly on this part, I paid the price because I thought it was that important to my photography, even though with this camera, I shoot very little from a tripod. But when I do, I want to be ready for it.

RRS L-Bracket for Olympus OM-D EM5iii
Conventional position for vertical bracket member (obstructs articulating rear screen)

THAT JUST makes it all that much more disappointing to me. The RRS bracket "designed" specifically to fit my model fits the camera base nicely, but has a critical shortcoming. The bracket has two positions (they are more or less permanent - you choose between them when you install the vertical member of the bracket - see the positioning screw in the photos above and below). The "normal" postition (see first photo below) leaves access to the three port access points on the same side of the camera. Great, but it also largely interferes with the articulating rear screen mechanics (and I should also note, even though accessible, access to the "doors" on each port are essentially impossible without very long fingernails, or some "tool" to pry them open). It doesn't completely block the screen, but it does (as shown in the illustration) block the screen hinge, severely limiting the use of the screen.

THE SECOND position shifts the vertical member forward just enough to clear the screen hinge (see second illustration below). Problem solved, one would think, except that in that position it completely blocks all of the access ports. Oops. I didn't realize this when I bought it. I had read RRS's own description and a few online comments and reviews. Nobody brought that little detail up. Upon receipt, I was soon "palming" my forehead. I bought my copy from the venerable B&H folks. I did not, however, read the reviews on their site - which clearly pointed out this problem. My bad. Usable, but not completely acceptable for my purposes - especially for a $150 item.

My personal solution to make an alteration which, though it doesn't fully solve the problem, will work for my needs

I THINK there are several possible design solutions here. I can think of two. The first involves just moving the upright member a little further forward (looks like about 3/8" would clear the ports and doors). I realize that makes it stick out in front of the body further - and might even interfere with handholding comfort (for me, easy answer; I only install the bracket when I am going to mount it on a tripod. Takes 2 minutes). A second solution would be to shim it out away from the side of the camera body to make the ports accessible (some manufacturers have even made an adjustable, sliding mechanism for this). RRS has some very smart engineers. I find it hard to believe they couldn't/didn't design around these issues.

RRS L- Bracket for Olympus OM-D EM5iii
Forward position for vertical bracket member (obstructs all connection ports)

MY PERSONAL solution was a "DIY" alteration which, I think will work for my needs. I don't do tethered shooting, so the only thing I need from that covered-up access port array is the single pin port for the wired remote. I calculated that I could gain access to this port with the upright in the forward position by cutting approximately 7/16" off the top of the rear upper (as they say on the TV commercials, "don't try this at home"). I used a grinder to first make a rough cut and then to carefully polish the rough edges as smooth as I could. I didn't attempt to mimic the pre-existing nicely rounded finish. The bad news is that I made a nicely finished piece looked less "nicely finished" - I have no way to replace the anodized black aluminum finish with anything durable. I painted it. Time will tell how that holds up. It is mainly for a nicer look and won't effect the functionality either way. My solution unfortunately removed some of the dovetailed metal designed to hold the camera firmly. I think there is enough left though, particularly with the very light load on this setup. I doubt most readers will feel confident about trying my "DIY" approach, but without it, if you are needing the lower ports while mounted vertically on a tripod, and you want use of the articulating rear screen, you are "SOL" - at least with the RRS model. 😒

RRS L-Bracket for Olympus OM-D M5iii
Modified to reveal Remote Release Port

as they say on the TV commercials, "don't try this at home"

 

Suggested; but with Reservations

[You may note that I have slightly deviated from my rating/recommendation system by adding a new phrase: "with reservations." I bought it. I will probably keep it. But I need to modify it to fulfill its intended purpose. So I have serious reservations about whether you should buy it. If you don't need access to the ports, you may be good to go. If you do need that access, but are not confident in your ability to make the alteration I did, then it would definitely be "not recommended"]

A Matter of Perspective?

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

THE WORD, "perspective," of course has different meanings. In photography we most often talk about it literally. By the "Oxford" definition, "perspective" in an image refers to the height, width, depth, and position of elements of a composition, in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point (mostly paraphrased from the #1 definition in the Oxford Dictionary). Perspective in photography is mostly affected by where we stand, the focal length lens we use, and camera position.

If you just logged on to the internet for the first time within the past couple years, you would be excused if you concluded that "AI" is a brand-new, world-changing phenom, but it really isn't

THE DICTIONARY has another definition (#2) however. It references a thinker's point of view. I find it fascinating how that definition intersects with photography. The main thrust of this post is about the latter kind of perspective. And it probably won't shock the reader to find that it is about a currently somewhat controversial subject: so-called "AI," or artificial intelligence. If you just logged on to the internet for the first time within the past couple years, you would be excused if you concluded that AI is a brand-new, world-changing phenom. It really isn't. If you want to stretch things a bit, you could argue that AI in a very rudimentary form, dates back to Leonardo DaVinci in the late 15th century. But that is a bit of a stretch. Today, we think of AI in conjunction with computers and digital imagery and writing. Probably the first mention of "intelligence" connected with computers was in the 1950s (with the term "artificial intelligence" probably first being used in 1955) - so it is not really new.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2016

IT CAN be fairly said though, that use of the phrase, "AI" (especially on the internet), has more recently increased exponentially (like so much of technology has - making Kubrick and Clarke's computer: "Hal," prescient). If this acceleration of AI development feels multiple times as fast, it's because . . . well . . . it is (hence the term exponentially). We first started to see it prominently show up in digital processing programs around 2010. My own awareness was with Adobe's then newly introduced "content-aware" technology (first introduced to me by my friend and Photoshop "guru," Al Utzig) - something that changed my world photographically. Realistically, the technology, which compares the image you are working on with 100's of 1,000's of image examples, was around in a more rudimentary (but still astonishing) form for many years before with in-camera metering technology (Nikon introduced its "matrix metering" in 1983). Given this, I find it remarkable that suddenly sometime in 2024, "AI" became a "thing." 😏 Anybody who doesn't think it has been around for a long time is fooling themselves.

I could immediately see as I looked harder at this image, why I had not processed it and put it on my website back in 2016

WHETHER GOOD or bad, Adobe Software has been working as hard as anyone to bring AI digital technology to us. As an Adobe Cloud subscriber, I have been among the early recipients of this technology. Adobe Firefly (described by them as a series of AI technologies including text to image, image expand and image generation, and video technology, among other things, was first released in its Beta version in 2003. Since then, the technology has been systematically incorporated into other programs (for our purposes, mainly Photoshop and Lightroom) as image generation and object removal technology. Again that technology has changed my world. First, it has taken the now aging content-aware fill process a step forward with the new "remove" tool. Second, it has added to the already impressive content-aware crop tool, and added "generative expand." I know, I know. Get it right in the camera. Thats good advice and one of the fundamentals we should strive for. Reality though is that nobody always gets it right in the camera. The new tools open possibilities for "fixing" framing and even composition at times.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

WE COULD get all into the: "that isn't photography" discussion, but personally, I think that is a waste of time and creative energy. The beauty of photography is that we can have it be what we want it to be. If you want to take the view that it is only photography if it was made in the camera and not processed in any way - that is your prerogative. I won't judge you for it. But I have said it from the beginning of my blogging adventures: In my view, photography is art (unless we get into some very narrow exceptions like reportage or scientific). When I arrive on a scene (sometimes even before), I "see" an image or images (although unfortunately "the image" is sometimes what I don't see). I have a "vision" and my goal is to make that vision my own reality. And it is determinative, I think, that what I "see" is not what you "see." Consequently, many of us will do "creative" edits during our post-processing to attempt to achieve our "vision." AI is becoming part of the toolbox. If you like it, great. If you don't, that's fine too.

We could get all into the: "that isn't photography" discussion, but personally, I think that is a waste of time and creative energy

THE CLIFF Walk image (Newport, Rhode Island) image is really one of those examples of what I didn't see. I thought I did. At the time, I was looking at the Gazebo, and the curves leading up to it. We were walking, shooting handheld (tripods, as you can see, would have probably created a nuisance, as there were many people on the walkway that day). Depth of field was an issue in the foreground, though I don't really find it unpleasant (f8 @70mm for tech-seekers). I "cleaned" it up a bit where there were people who in this case I felt were a distraction/detraction from the image. O.K. Nice image? Maybe. To me, though, it really is kind of ho-hum. In fact in the end, I think it fails. Why? I realized looking at it on screen, that it breaks one of the most fundamental rules of photography. Every image must have a subject. I guess you could argue that the gazebo is the subject. The railing leads up to it (though I certainly have better examples of leading lines). But to my eye, it just wasn't compelling. It reminded me of my very first image critique by my friend, mentor, and then college professor, John Knox. I made a really nicely exposed photograph of a snowy, wooded path. The late afternoon light was beautiful and spread a uniform pattern of shadows from the Birches lining the path on the sunward side, across the path. There was white snow and blue sky up behind the canopy. "Nice" photo. Again, maybe. At the time I was pretty proud of it. I took it to him "for critque" (probably really more for praise if I am being brutally honest). John is a nice, polite man. You may have read this story in my bio. He didn't praise it. Instead he asked me if I wanted him to tell me it was nice, or if I wanted an honest critique. I wanted him to like it (even love it). I wanted the acclimation. Instead, I did the better (for me) thing and asked for the critque (Like Robert Frost, I took the road less travelled by and that has made all the difference). He said the same thing over 50 years ago that I said to myself recently with this image (yeah - some of us are slow learners 😁). The photo lacks a compelling subject. If I had a person in a red jacket walking a golden retriever on the path in front of me, it would have made "just a photograph" into a "picture." I could immediately see as I looked harder at this image, why I had not processed it and put it on my website back in 2016.

Cliff Walk - Newport, Rhode Island
Copyright Andy Richards 2016 and 2025
(original and AI-Generated additions)

BUT NOW we have "AI." This time I played around with the "Generate Image" feature in Photoshop. I have done this before with wildly varying results. Some may remember the image I posted of a man walking his dog and the dog walking backward. That from Generative AI in Photoshop. As it will, it just keeps getting better, though it still has a way to go. I played with a few different iterations, asking it to "generate" several times. I tried different words in the text to image box. I finally found a couple that I liked well enough to post here. If you look carefully at the details, there is still a ways to go, but it is impressive nonetheless. I liked both the AI results shown here. There were several others that I either didn't like, or worse, turned out horribly. One thing I have noticed is that it does a terrible job with faces. In these images, my text asked for a blond woman in a red jacket walking a golden retriever. I tried a couple variations (but all but the middle one above had the dog walking behind the woman, and I couldn't get the right combo to move the dog up, so after several tries, I gave up 😖). I do like the red against the otherwise drab colored background. I also like the way the woman's hair in both images virtually (see what I did there?) matches the golden retriever's hair. Is it real? Nope. Is that a concern for me? Not in the least. As a sidenote, I just finished reading (the now late) Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Street Photography." One of the things he repeats about situations like this is how he finds a spot like and then waits (sometimes for hours), for something like this to walk into his scene. What are the odds of this very combination appearing? I don't know, but I don't judge them to be very high. I am not that patient most of the time. But now we have "AI." 😂