Deadload "rating" has nothing to do with actual stability against wobble. You can buy a ladder weight rated at 300 lbs that will blow over in light breeze. It's all about torque vectors. Basic physics. The longer the extension, the lens weight at the end, the width of the camera bed, the rigidity of the standards, all these are factors perhaps more important than camera weight itself. Then add a breeze or whatever. Do the math if you like. But a mockup test prior to purchase is a hecka lot easier, or else the right to return if it doesn't work out.
Of course. Short of finding a b&m shop that carries high end head balls that will allow you to test it yourself, the usual rule of thumb is that the tripod plus head load capacity should be at least twice —maybe 3 times— the maximum combined weight of the camera and heaviest lens that you are going to put on it.
It’s still overkill for the camera and lenses shown in the video. But it’s a wonderful head, maybe second to the Cube.
My 8x10 is just as light, and it would be anathema to me to risk vibration from ANY kind of ballhead, where all the torque is concentrated on the fulcrum of a narrow neck. Then it adds height between the tripod platform and camera bed at the worst possible point. I won't even use a heavy pan-tilt head. It makes a difference. Maybe in a studio setup where they're using high-speed strobe they can get away with that kind of thing, but in the field with longer exposures the name of the game is reducing vibration to a minimum. You are only as good as your weakest link.
Ok let’s not turn this thread into yet another debate on the evilness of ball heads... we have plenty of those already... nuff said :-)
Bookmarks