Gitzo 2271M Low Profile Head Weight Capacity

**hoffner** · 3-Jul-2015, 03:11

As others have hinted at the weight capacity doesn't speak about utility or not for LF cameras. The weight capacity is specified with regards to the head mechanical construction not camera pictures quality. The weight limit speaks about what is mechanically acceptable for the head not what is the limit film format. Therefore a LF camera can or not be a bad idea as much as a MF equivalent weight-wise. If your LF camera is light enough to put on the tripod head it still doesn't mean it will feel stable enough there - the same is valid for any MF camera. Putting on the head a heavier load simply means the head mechanics will suffer - with all the possible consequences for camera stability.

**Ari** · 3-Jul-2015, 08:31

I have to beg to differ on the question of using a QR set with larger cameras. I use a Toyo 810M which weighs about 16 pounds without lens or film holder.
In the field, I leave the ball head behind, and I use a video bowl on my tripod which has a QR clamp attached to it. The clamp is 70mm long, as is the plate, which is always attached to the 810M. The clamp is a lever style.
I can attach the camera to the clamp, hold the tripod by the bottom leg sections, and with the camera held upside down, it will not come off the clamp.
Come to think of it, I should make a video of that someday.

And Peter, if there's a place in Purgatory for the inventor of hex plates (which I rather like), the lowest rung in Purgatory has to go to Mr "I came up with RC plates".

**Peter De Smidt** · 3-Jul-2015, 08:45

Fair enough, Ari.

**neil poulsen** · 3-Jul-2015, 09:25

Originally Posted by hoffner

As others have hinted at the weight capacity doesn't speak about utility or not for LF cameras. The weight capacity is specified with regards to the head mechanical construction not camera pictures quality. The weight limit speaks about what is mechanically acceptable for the head not what is the limit film format. Therefore a LF camera can or not be a bad idea as much as a MF equivalent weight-wise. If your LF camera is light enough to put on the tripod head it still doesn't mean it will feel stable enough there - the same is valid for any MF camera. Putting on the head a heavier load simply means the head mechanics will suffer - with all the possible consequences for camera stability.

This is a really excellent point of course. Part of my reason for starting this thread was to see if someone's had actual experience using this head with a 4x5 like mine.

**neil poulsen** · 3-Jul-2015, 09:27

Originally Posted by Ari

. . . if there's a place in Purgatory for the inventor of hex plates (which I rather like) . . .

Is there room left for me?

**Oren Grad** · 3-Jul-2015, 09:55

Originally Posted by Ari

I have to beg to differ on the question of using a QR set with larger cameras.

There's no reason in principle that a secure QR couldn't be engineered for a large, heavy camera. I just haven't yet seen one that I would trust.

**Ari** · 3-Jul-2015, 10:18

Originally Posted by Oren Grad

There's no reason in principle that a secure QR couldn't be engineered for a large, heavy camera. I just haven't yet seen one that I would trust.

Oren, if I make a video, I'll post it here; but what I described is absolutely true.
I implicitly trust the QR clamp mechanism even more than I do the security of the video bowl, and I certainly would trust it more than one screw inserted into the camera.

**neil poulsen** · 3-Jul-2015, 10:39

This has been an interesting thread, and I appreciate everyone's input.

Yeah, I've never had a problem using my 3039 head with my 4x5, nor with the Deardorff and the 4"x4" plate on the underside. But, there's always that attending bit of trepidation, as I mount and unmount one of my cameras on and off the head. I like Oren's 10 lbs rule and think I'll make mine 11 lbs to include the Deardorff.

Temporarily setting aside the query on a 2271 (or, whatever), I'd not really considered loading a camera directly onto a tripod's crown. I can see the added stability which that might provide. Hmm, stability versus quite a bit of fiddle-faddle. That's a tough one.

At this point, let me say something about what I've done with my Toyo 810G, which definitely breaks the 11 lbs rule. (Please see photos.) Kerry sold me one of his remaining Feisol tripods, and I really like it. This is the 3372 with milled top. I plan to get an extra plate or two to simplify changing heads. It's a matter of unscrewing (and not removing) three set screws with an Allen wrench. (I can see how relatively easy it would be to mount a camera on the crown sans head with this tripod.)

Anyway, I was very pleasantly surprised at how stable this heavy camera was in this configuration. Looking at the photo on the right, I picked up the used, rectangular plate from our local Pro Photo Supply. The 2" tall, 1.05 lbs Manfrotto 438 head on the lower left has a 33 lbs load capacity. Very low profile and a lot of headroom for this camera. The disk on the right fits into the tripod. It's also possible to get the Feisol leveler, which only rises about 1" above the milled top and weighs about the same. But, I'm not sure that it would be all that advantageous over the 438. (It may be worth a try, though)

Normally, I don't care for ball heads with view cameras. What makes this work for me, is that the 810G camera has some side to side tilt built into the rail. So, I can point the camera in the correct direction and bring the front to back tilt to a 90 degree angle using the leveling head. Then, I can correct side to side tilt using the rail.

By the way, the Manfrotto site misquotes the weight of the 438 head. On my triple beam balance, it weighs 483.5 grams, versus the 0.65 kg that Manfrotto claims.

I also tried this with a single clamp on the 438. But as someone had commented in another thread, adding the second clamp for the 810G improves the stability quite a bit. In my case, it cut down on rotational vibration. The rectangular plate and the 438 together weighs 1.47 lbs.

One reason I was considering a lighter head for the 4x5 and smaller cameras, is that after purchasing this 3.7 lbs tripod, at 4.5 lbs, my 3039 head is now heavier than the legs. It makes perfect sense to avoid a setup that's top heavy.

**Tin Can** · 3-Jul-2015, 11:28

Nice!

**Peter De Smidt** · 3-Jul-2015, 12:01

Looks like a great setup. Using two rail clamps really does help with many monorails, and with 8x10 you probably don't need the same adjustment range as you might with smaller formats. I've never used or seen a 438 in person. How do you make adjustments?