From: Subject: SB-29 [v04.n216/9] Message: 9 I wrote: "I am really irked at the mounting foot. It seems so flimsy [snip] "Neil Lightfoot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied: I made a similar comment to a professional photographer once concerning my SB-26, which is cracking at the foot. His theory was that it was designed deliberately that way. Which makes sense: it is easier (and more cost effective) to replace a broken foot, than the camera's hot-shoe. Well. several other posters also suggested this was so. It seems to be making a "virtue of necessity" to me. If this really was a deliberate design goal rather than just a cheapening of the goods, it surely could have been done better. Mounting and dismounting the SB-28 is a finicky process with much squinting and wiggling involved. My SB-7E mates to my F2 much better. I remain crashingly underwhelmed with the design. Jeff Wright has had the sad experience of having two cameras damaged in flash-hot shoe accidents. (Sports photog.?). He suggests $20 as the cost of having a new foot installed on the flash. I suspect Nikon won't so much as open a box for $20 let alone repair anything! Anyone actually had the foot on an SB-28 fixed? For every piece of gear "saved" by the "breakaway" design, how many are out there with cracked feet such as Neil's? While I appreciate the replies as I certainly never considered the possibility, I prefer the older style mounting foot and remain unconvinced as to the design intention of Nikon in doing it this way. To repeat, if that was the goal, it sure should have been done better. -- Terence A. Danks Nova Scotia, Canada http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
