Gitzo 2271M Low Profile Head Weight Capacity

[neil poulsen]

Since purchasing a lighter tripod, I'm looking for a lighter (tripod) head.

The 2271M Gitzo head has a specified maximum capacity of 11lbs. But, I'm wondering about the practical limit of this head. Could it handle an 11 lbs camera, or does it need a few pounds of headroom?

[neil poulsen]

I found something more interesting, a Manfrotto 3-way X-Pro . . .

http://www.manfrotto.com/product/24329.1108711.31708.1108714.0/MHXPRO-3W/_/X-PRO_3-Way_Head_with_retractable_levers_%26_friction_controls

This can support up to a 17 lbs camera, and it weighs only 2.2 lbs. But given the 1.7"x2" plate size, I would not push this limit. My primary interest is for my 35mm digital camera and medium format cameras, one of which is a view camera. But, I have a hunch that it could also handle my 7.5 lbs 4x5.

Although a little taller at 6.2" (versus 5.12" for the above) and a pound heavier at 3.3 lbs, is the Manfrotto 808RC4 . . .

http://www.manfrotto.com/standard-3-way-head

which can also hold up to a 17 lbs camera. Given it's larger plate size (2.17"x2.76"), I'm pretty confident that this head could handle a medium-sized 4x5.

Actually, these are Manfrotto's standard, intermediate 3-way heads. I'd be interested in any experiences members have had related to these heads.

[Drew Wiley]

Published weight ratings mean relatively little. Dead weight should not be confused with stability and how a view camera balances on a surface or could potentially wobble. As you extend a bellows you get more torque vector, especially with a heavey lens on front, and the wider the camera bed, the more potential sideways torque. Sometimes you need to test for a specific match, so you should only purchase something you are able to return if it is unsuitable. So it might be helpful if you mentioned the specific camera you have in mind too. I am familiar with the Gitzo low-profile heads. And low-profile is a desirable feature if one must use a head for a view camera. Ironically, some medium format SLR's can be harder to stabilize than most 4x5 field cameras. That's because of their mirrors and heavy barrel lenses. But in my personal opinion, given your two listed options, I'd opt for the Gitzo.

[Peter De Smidt]

I must be coming down with something, as I agree with Drew. Manufacturers' weight ratings on tripod heads are about as much use as manufacturers' dynamic range ratings for scanners. Personally, I'd get a bigger used Gitzo pan/tilt head.

[neil poulsen]

I'd like to know if an Arca Swiss 4x5 would work with the Manfrotto 3-way X-Pro with an Arca Swiss 4x5. My 4x5 has the 171 standards front and back.

I'm also curious to know if this head would work with a 35mm digital camera and with an RB67. Given it's rotating back, the RB would always be upright. As it turns out, this is also the case with the digital camera. I use a 90 degree elbow on the digital to switch between landscape and portrait.

[Peter De Smidt]

I've only used older versions. The weak point looks to be the quick release. There isn't much surface area. The camera might have a tendency to spin on the quick mount plate.

[Drew Wiley]

Surface area is very important, as is finding the weakest link in terms of the cumulative torque vector. Then how the material amplifies vibrations. Frankly, it takes a heavier system to stabilize my P67 with a long telephoto than my 8x10. But that is perfectly logical given what I just summarized. Mere shortfalls in a
quick release system can compromise everything. But as most people know by now, I prefer zero tripod heads for flatbed view camera use - screw 'em down
right onto a big tripod platform directly. Can't do better than that, stability-wise. But sometimes when car traveling with multiple formats I'll just keep a solid Gitzo head on my lighter wooden Ries, so everything is ready to go whether I pop the 6x7 atop it or my small 4x5 folder. My 8x10 and Sinar monorail are a different subject.

[Tin Can]

Gad! I agreeing with Drew again.

I am giving up on heads for field tripods. My ancient, but new to me, Ries Junior is proving to be my best tripod up to 4x5. I level and tilt with the legs, just as they must have done way back, as I see no heads on old tripods.

Now I will get serious about converting my wood Sachtler video tripod with 150mm bowl to ULF usage. Got it at a garage sale 25 years ago with Hollywood Brand dolly for $15.

[Oren Grad]

Based on experience with the Gitzo 3-series and 5-series low-profile heads, I'd leave some headroom below the rated capacity. This is less about any feeling that the head is going to break, and more about overall balance and stability as Drew mentions. The 3-series head + 3-series legset is my standard tripod for cameras up to 12 pounds or so of fully-loaded weight (i.e., including lens and holder); it's the tripod I use most. Beyond that, though, I haul out my 5-series Gitzo set or Ries A-100/A-250 set.

I'm wary of quick releases for view cameras in general, and you'd have a very hard time convincing me to trust one for a 10+ pound view camera. The plates for my old Bogen 3047 are pretty crude, not just the small hex plates but the larger square ones too. I wouldn't trust them at all with a big camera unless holes were drilled in the base - not something I'm going to do - and anti-twist screws used. Even then, the lock on the head itself isn't really up to the task.

[Peter De Smidt]

I have the same heads as Oren. He's right right on all counts. I like Manfrotto gear. I have 410, 400 and various other Manfrotto heads. (I use the 410 with a Toyo AX, the 400 for a Sinar P in the studio, and a Gitzo series 5 pan/tilt for an 8x10 field camera. I also have a 3 series pan/tilt, which I like just as much as the 410. Maybe a little more. ) I'm not a fan of their quick releases, though, although the ones for the geared heads are much better than the old hex plate arrangement. Whoever came up with the hex plates deserves a spot in Purgatory right next to person who thought up the pc flash connection. The Gitzo pan/tilt heads are better choices for LF field cameras, as the large mounting platforms add to stability, and mounting a camera with the screw is more secure with bigger cameras than using a quick release. The question is always whether the quick release plate is properly seated, which isn't always easy to see with a bigger camera.

[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.

[Ari]

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]

Fair enough, Ari. :)

[neil poulsen]

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]

. . . 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]

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]

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]

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]

Nice!

[Peter De Smidt]

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?

[Ari]

That's a great set-up, Neil.
ps- In reply to your original question, if the 2271 is rated for 11 pounds, don't put an 11-pound camera on it.
I like to over-spec, as I'm sure many here do; a head that is rated for 22 pounds should be a starting point.

[Oren Grad]

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.

Ari, this would be a good topic to discuss - design features of QR systems and what makes for a secure mount for small and big LF cameras. Maybe a new thread?

[Ari]

Ari, this would be a good topic to discuss - design features of QR systems and what makes for a secure mount for small and big LF cameras. Maybe a new thread?

I'll happily contribute what I can, Oren, but seeing as most of what I know is my own brand, maybe it would be better if you started the ball rolling.
And like you, I don't want to derail Neil's thread any longer.

[Oren Grad]

I'll happily contribute what I can, Oren, but seeing as most of what I know is my own brand, maybe it would be better if you started the ball rolling.

Done!

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?123534-Quick-releases-for-LF-cameras

[neil poulsen]

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?

Since it's a "ball", or ball section type head, it's just a matter of positioning the rectangular plate to the correct angle and direction, and then tightening the lever that you can see on the side. Holds it very tight.

Yes; it took me by surprise. Bob Mann put it up for sale at $60, or there abouts. Before then, I'd never seen one.

[neil poulsen]

That's a great set-up, Neil.
ps- In reply to your original question, if the 2271 is rated for 11 pounds, don't put an 11-pound camera on it.
I like to over-spec, as I'm sure many here do; a head that is rated for 22 pounds should be a starting point.

Ari, Thanks! Absolutely; I agree completely. It's important to have head room.