Tripod recommend support weights to actual weights used.

<p>Hi All.<br>

I am a rather faithful tripod user and have a question about a possible future purchase. I will be getting a lens that runs about 2 kg. The camera body is an additional 1kg and the ball head I use is about 1.5 kg, so all total a little under 6 kg. I appreciate the higher the specs on the tripod the more solid the setup will be. I already have an excellent Gitzo set, but it is not compact enough for long hiking. I recently got a Lowpro Pro runner 450 backpack (excellent by the way) and I'm looking for a tripod that will be able to handle my setup. So in your opinion, if a manufacturer recommends a tripod to be able to handle 6 kg can I expect that to be sufficient or do I really need to be thinking of something that can handle say 8-10kg?<br>

Appreciate your thoughts.</p>

<p>Doug</p>

<p>Tripod manufacturers will usually specify the load limits, which may depend on joint holding capacity rather than structural strength. This is certainly the case with Gitzo, which increased the permissible loads when the old collars were replaced with G-Loc collars. If you have a camera and lens even approaching 6 Kg, you probably should consider getting a mule in addition to an heavy tripod.</p>

<p>More important is how steady will it hold a long lens, and how well will it dampen vibrations. A tap in the middle of one leg while your camera and longest lens is mounted will tell you, subjectively anyway, how well the tripod will meet your needs. Carbon fiber is particularly desirable in a light tripod, for light weight, good stiffness and high damping factor. A Gitzo #2 with 4-section CF legs would be as light as I'd consider. At least one model collapses to a little over 13".</p>

<p>You will still need a good head. Plastic heads found on inexpensive tripods won't hold very much without slipping. I have found that an RRS BH-40 holds anything I would mount on it, and it's only 2" in diameter overall.</p>

<p>I second the “good head” comment. I had a Cambo ball head for a decade and used it for all my studio work. When I shifted into architecture I tried a small gear head and immediately decided that I was an idiot for not getting one sooner. I got a bigger gear head and that is what i use for all my architectural work now. If you don’t need the speed of following a moving subject or the fluid capabilities of a video head, borrow or rent a Manfrotto gear head and see if the micro adjustments don’t make you a believer. Then you can figure out which brand and style to get. cube, or geared, or geared ball.<br>

I’d also figure on getting a tripod that is rated for 2X the weight of your kit if you want stability. Remember the heavier the tripod the more stable, etc. This is all negated by the concept of mobility so for hiking that advice doesn’t fly. You need to decide capacity, height, and where and how you’ll use your pod before you buy. I have a really tall nine foot aluminum Slik Pro heavy tripod and a 6 foot light-weight Bogen carbon-fiber for mobility<br>

-schaf</p>

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a 1.5kg ball head

that's not reasonably robust, and a 2kg lens is between a

70-200 f/2.8 and a 200-500 f/5.6 - we're not talking the

big supertelephoto primes.

 

Unless you go very flimsy, I'd not sweat too much. If you

want an exposure around a critical vibration frequency

and you're in a gale, by all means look at a Gitzo 5562,

but if you can compromise on stability I'd be confident of

even my cheap Velbon REXi L (now, I think, replaced by

the 655) taking the weight. I promise I'll stop

recommending it the moment I have a problem with it! I

also have a RRS TVC-34L, but the Velbon is way more

portable, and keeps my Manfrotto 055CXPro fairly

honest for stability. I'd guess many travel carbon tripods

would hold up, especially if you hang a bag from them

for stability.

 

Under duress, I've used a D800 and a 14-24 (nearly 2kg

total) on a Tamrac ZipShot - care and a friendly shutter

speed can trump support, and it still did much better

than hand-held. Obviously more support is better, but it

doesn't sound like you'll need to compromise as much

as you'd think. But try in store if you can - tripods are

personal (and Gitzos have a habit of biting me).

 

If we were just talking the camera and lens being 6kg, if

be more worried, but at that point I worry less about the

weight of the tripod itself in my calculations. Incidentally,

if we ARE talking a telephoto, I imagine the gear head

suggestion is less useful, on the basis that telephoto

lenses are often used with moving targets - though I

have used a gear head on a tele for astrophotography. I'd

suggest a global head, but unfortunately they tend to be

a bit big for hiking (especially the cheap Manfrotto 393 I

use).

 

Hope that helps. Good luck.

<p>Depends. Not exactly axiomatic that greater tripod+head weight=greater stability. I often shoot a Bronica SQ-B and a less-than-petite Mamiya RB67 Pro S on a medium weight Manfrotto head on 190 legs. Neither camera moves much, thanks to square format(Bronica) and a rotating film back(Mamiya). Lots of mass but no huge telephoto dangling off-axis in space. No sharpness issues, either.</p>

<p>I have two Gitzos and a number of Manfrotto and Giottos, for carrying around I would only suggest the GT3540L, or whatever the latest model is.</p>