Tripod "max load" meaning

[ericantonio]

Hi guys, happy stay at home! Maybe I'm looking into this too much, or the stay-at-home is making me a little nutty. I think I may be able to finally afford a carbon fiber tripod this year that I can use for my 8x10 and my 4x5. Something I can actually carry. Was looking into the specs and "max load" means just that right? Whatever is on top of the HEAD. Or does that include the head? I have the low profile gitzo head that's great for an 8x10 and I just got a Rationalle #3 head for my 4x5.

My Kodak Master View with a 12" lens attached is just under 15 pounds. So max load would mean the 15 pounds plus the head and do you guys factor anything else in there?

Since I've never had a carbon fiber tripod before, I'm guessing the legs will be (not a guess but a true statment) will be lighter probably than my low profile gitzo head. Will that mean it's top heavy? Is that safe? Or do you guys weigh it down with your bag? Or lunch? Or tie a small chihuaha to the center column?

[esearing]

Lots of technical info here https://thecentercolumn.com/2019/10/...e-meaningless/

the tripod will have a rating separate from the head rating. But you should add the weight of the head + weight of the camera+lens+accessories to get your overall weight.

[Two23]

Keep in mind there is no independent organization testing "max loads." They are what the manufacturer say they are. I wouldn't pay a lot of attention to them for the most part. For starters, my own rule of thumb is I want a tripod that's rated for at least twice, maybe three times the actual load. I have a Kodak 2D 8x10 and am using a Berlebach reporter series plus a Ries J250 head. The head is very adequate, the tripod is marginal. I also have a Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber tripod and that's a bit better. This is an older version of the 300 series. The newer 300 series are even stronger. For your camera I would want at least a Gitzo 300 series. If you plan on photo'ing in windy conditions I suggest a Gitzo 500 series. I'm currently looking for a heavier Ries tripod such as J100-2 or even an A100. Or possibly a Berlebach Uni if one shows up used. I have a Ries "Junior" tripod and it's clearly inadequte for the 8x10. With something as heavy and large as an 8x10 I would NOT go cheap on a tripod. It has to be solid.


Kent in SD

[Drew Wiley]

Max weight rating is largely meaningless. A significantly higher rating versus a lower one within similar models might give you a rough clue, but it's all relative. With view camera work you need to be a lot more concerned about the resistance of the cumulative setup to vibrations, which would include the torque vectors of the camera both horizontally and in relation to maximum used bellows extension, lens weight at the end, wind resistance, etc. Then even if that is all solid, you can throw it all away with the weak link of the wrong kind of tripod head. I prefer no head at all. But the only way to know for sure is to do a test setup.
Hopefully any credible supplier would offer you right of return or exchange if something doesn't work out. It's no different than alleged weight ratings on ladders; if they aren't built right, they can collapse anyway and cripple or kill you. It actually happens rather frequently. If you are shooting outdoors you also have to think about wind gusts and so forth, so top-heaviness is always an issue with lighter CF tripods. Spike feet help. But at 15lbs for your camera alone, you'll need one of the thicker-leg-section CF models if it is to be reasonably torsion free. If the legs are too thin near the bottom, dead weight specs are useless. Try to get one with a platform top too. Throw the center column away, or better yet, avoid any model that has one. I prefer my Ries wooden tripods whenever possible, but for those times I need greater portability, was able to slightly modify one of the bigger Feisol CF models into something platform style for 8x10 use. For 4x5 backpacking use, I have an older Gitzo CF that is stronger than their current version, at just a tiny bit more weight, but it wouldn't begin to handle an 8x10 flatbed due to torsion and wobble issues, even though it will comfortably handle my 4x5 Sinar monorail all tricked out at nearly the same weight. So the difference isn't the weight itself, but how that weight is distributed vector-wise, and where the weakest link to the system is.

[Vaughn]

Camera + head + holder + darkcloth + the little stuff. I never worried too much about tripod load limits, but only because I always aimed higher...like Kent, about at least double the intended load --so about a minimum of 40 lbs for 8x10.

I have the Ries A100/250 set-up for my Zone VI 8x10 and it is also suitable for the Chamonix 11x14 + all the other stuff. The tripod/head combo is ~17 pounds, so the pod is the same weight or lighter than the load. The old metal Gitzos are the only other tripods I have used a lot.

My worst combo I have used...a 2.5 pound (w/lens) 4x5 on a 2 pound carbon fiber. I needed some weight!

Edited to add: I have put my Ries through hell, highwater, and heavy-duty hiking. It has supported my weight when I have fallen on it...more than once. It supports a good percentage of my weight when used as a climbing assist and has helped on many a creek fording. One tough tripod...bought it new, doesn't look it now, but then neither does my 8x10 anymore.

[mdarnton]

I have put my Ansco 8x10 on my Manfroto 055. Theoretically it will take the weight, but it's scary, and you get the feeling that the centerpost is one light wind from bending in half. Remember that

I think a better way to think of it is how big of a tripod can you carry, and will it give you lots of security? I've never been happy with any tripod that was working near its limit, even if it was a light tripod with a simple 35mm camera on it. I'd rather have my biggest tripod under my smallest camera.

[Drew Wiley]

I've had gusts of wind pick up my 8x10 atop my bigger Ries tripod and toss the whole thing over 20 ft. Lucky that the last time that happened, it all landed on a soft lupine bush, and softer things before. With a CF tripod it could be a lot worse. I broke a front Sinar standard that way in a mountain storm toss of a Gitzo metal tripod. I mounted a print last week where the wind was so intense I had to lay down on the lake ice as the ballast for the 8x10 and big Ries. But the shot came out perfectly crisp. The secret was in timing the shutter release for a sustained force of wind rather than gusts. But I could hardly even stand up in it. On all my tripods I have a hook provision below the platform if I want to hang a mesh bag full of rocks. Now that I'm getting old and lazy, if it's too windy I just take medium format gear instead.

[seall]

I factored in my self, then I tested.

Did not collapse or break.

Loosened a few parts for smoother operation, good enough.

[Tin Can]

I bought the biggest tallest FLM CF and love it as I can carry it, has good spikes and holds the Earth down, a bargain

It is rated 3X my Linhof Vintage Heavy-Duty Pro 2-Section Tripod, 44 lbs Load Capacity, 55" Maximum Height, Oiled Ash Wood which is always in studio and bought used for $100

I have a few smaller used wood tripods

I also have big wood ones...used too

Everybody needs at least 6 tripods, today I was using a Manfrotto 709 Digi Tabletop Tripod with Ballhead (Black) - Supports 4.5 lb I bought years ago

[Two23]

There's clearly a pattern here. All the experienced people (i.e. those who have had camera + tripod fall over) don't use tripods at their stated max. We want considerably more than that. In addition to the weight of the tripod, there's also the force the wind etc. puts on the big surface area of a camera. And the torque of a heavy lens sticking out from the center of the tripod. etc.


Kent in SD