Why do you need a good tripod for LF?

[Policar]

I've been shopping around for a new tripod for my field camera and I'm wondering why, beside the poor aerodynamics of an extended field camera and increased vibration from wind, should the quality (stability) of the tripod matter any more than for a dSLR. Most tripod manufacturers class only their largest tripods as appropriate for field cameras, which makes little sense to me since field cameras weigh only 6-8 pounds with lens.

A dSLR with a very large lens weighs as much and has less even weight distribution than a field camera and so should exert considerably more torque on a ball head than would the 4x5. In terms of focal lengths, 4x5 cameras rarely go beyond 300mm, about the same as a long 135 zoom. And in terms of local sharpness, it matters far more for an APS-C digital camera than for a large format camera, which won't pick up as much resolution per square mm of sensor area due to diffraction, focusing errors, tolerances, etc.

So why do I need a very expensive tripod? If it's so the camera doesn't fall over, that's valid, since I'd rather spend money on a good tripod than bellows and ground glass repair. But in terms of performance it seems unnecessary and I'd rather bring a smaller tripod into the field.

[Frank Petronio]

Why worry about it? Just try it, then let us know how it goes.

If you can, do a test with a friend's heavier tripod and compare the results.

[Walter Calahan]

Why do we need anything of quality?

[JeffKohn]

Maybe it's less about stability than weight. I imagine sticking an 8x10 field camera on a Gitzo 2-series might be a bad idea in windy weather, just because a gust could easily blow the whole thing over.

Otherwise, I would say that stability is probably more important for a high-res DSLR than LF, because the enlargement factor is typically much higher when printing, therefore small movements during exposure would be more likely to show in the DSLR image. I've always favored overkill when it comes to tripods.

[Vaughn]

Setting up a heavy, awkward camera on uneven ground usually requires a good pod. And perhaps for 99 out of every 100 negatives I make I have the shutter set at "T". And that one time out of 100, the shutter speed is usually slower than 1/15 second.

Plus a Ries wooden pod looks so good under the Zone VI 8x10!

Vaughn

[Tobias Key]

If you bought a 5x4 surely you are committed to producing work of a high technical standard? You are more than free to use cheap-ass film, cheap ass lenses, cheap-ass cameras, cheap-ass tripods and cheap-ass labs. You can then scan your results on a cheap-ass scanner, process it on in a cheap-ass photoshop knock off, print it on cheap-ass inkjet paper with a cheap-ass inkjet paper, but surely that defeats the purpose of using LF? While I would never advocate wasting money top show off, to cut corners on things like tripods is a false economy if you're spending $5-10 in film and processing every time you trip the shutter. By all means test a lighter tripod but personally, I think scrimping is pointless if quality is what you are after.

[Heroique]

...I'd rather bring a smaller tripod into the field.

I have a Ries J600 + J250 head.

On top – usually a Tachi 4x5, but other times it’s a much heavier Toyo 45c.

Either way, when I’m under the cloth, applying camera movements can be a clumsy affair. One not only pulls, pushes & tugs on the camera, but arms, legs, knees & feet can knock against the tripod. Sometimes, even my forehead thumps against the GG! It’s enough to be a contact sport. My relatively heavy Ries helps absorbs these strains, stresses & knocks – that is, it stays put – not only preserving my composition during swings, tilts & shifts, but protecting the tripod/camera leveling I may have set when it’s important.

(And this is only one reason why I enjoy lugging a heavy wooden tripod up mountain trails. )

The upshot – investing in a good tripod is like investing in a good darkroom easel: the results convince you not to feel so bad about spending a lot.

[Frank Petronio]

Actually you can get a nice used Tiltall for most 4x5 field cameras for under $100. A used Majestic will hold anything really, a 16x20, and those sell for under $200 all the time. I see plenty of nice older metal Gitzos on eBay for realistic prices -- with the new $$$ Carbon Fiber tripods replacing the old metal ones, the old metal ones are a good bargain.

But nothing teaches like experience. I want to see the results of a 4x5 on a $30 Velbon!

[GPS]

...

A dSLR with a very large lens weighs as much and has less even weight distribution than a field camera and so should exert considerably more torque on a ball head than would the 4x5. In terms of focal lengths, 4x5 cameras rarely go beyond 300mm, about the same as a long 135 zoom. And in terms of local sharpness, it matters far more for an APS-C digital camera than for a large format camera, which won't pick up as much resolution per square mm of sensor area due to diffraction, focusing errors, tolerances, etc.

So why do I need a very expensive tripod?
...

You need a good tripod for your LF camera as much as you need a good tripod (in the cases you need it!) for you dSLR for the same obvious technical reasons.
And no, you don't need a very expensive tripod for a lightweight LF camera.
That poor girl Tachihara is perfectly well on your good dSLR tripod too. Where's the problem?

[memorris]

With LF you have slower shutter speeds and stability is essential to sharp photos. I learned a long time ago the value of a good stable tripod, whether small format, MF, or LF. The quality of the photos are better when the camera is sitting on a stable platform and I personally have never seen a $200 tripod that provides a stable platform. If you are dedicated to producing quality work, buy good equipment. If you are looking to play to see if you like it, you probably will not like it if you have unstable gear. Once you own a truly quality tripod, you will never want to use cheap ones.