Tripod for a folding 8x10”

[eolo14]

There are lots of past threads on this same topic you might want to peruse. In them, you'll notice my own opinion is that any device atop a tripod constituting a stem, like an elevated center column or ball head stem, is likely to be the weak point in the system, subject to vibration and hence counterproductive, especially for 8x10 cameras, even lightweight ones. Basic torque vector physics, and how big flatbed cameras involve side to side wobble if the support surface area itself is not sufficient. But if you do need something that tilts all direction, half-ball "leveling" devices which securely rest in a scooped out portion of the tripod platform top itself, and can be locked in position there, are more realistic. (No, NOT the kind of thing Lenicolas posted above - that seems utterly unrealistic to me for 8X10 usage, or even my style of 4X5 shooting). I personally prefer no head at all, based on many years of 8x10 shooting in all kinds of terrain.

I just don't understand the rationale of people who expend the money and effort involved in 8X10 photography and then gamble it all, or compromise it, using unrealistically flimsy support systems. Studio photography can sometimes get away with alternative types of gear due to higher speed flash exposures. But in the field, it's a different story. People try to reduce every tiny bit of weight from their camera, select a toy tripod for sake of portability, and then go put some expensive top-heavy head vibration-prone head in between? Just doesn't make sense. It makes things worse. But I've seen people doing that many times, with predictable frustration.

Another factor is that 8x10 cameras have a lot of bellows surface to catch the wind, just like a kite. If your tripod itself simply doesn't have enough mass, and everything is top-heavy, it will be difficult to even keep upright during wind gusts. In such cases, use a hook below the tripod head to hang a mesh bag containing extra weight like rocks. But that won't offset the unsuitability of legs that are simply too thin and flexible for this size camera.

I’m agree with you, is not a good idea use a ball head and light weight tripod with a 8x10.
A new Linhof Vintage Heavy-Duty Pro Tripod cost 3650 $ , and the others that I found on ebay are scrap.
The Leofoto LN-324CH with a G2 geared head (but is also necessary the NP-60 or NP-65) or only the LB-75 (compact camera leveler) is a good choice.
Also Berlenbach is a good choice, but what kind of model you use for a 8x10 ?
Thank you again for your help.

[Tin Can]

How many 'HD Pro' do you want?

They were rated at 45 lbs, not inflated values of current pretenders

I’m agree with you, is not a good idea use a ball head and light weight tripod with a 8x10.
A new Linhof Vintage Heavy-Duty Pro Tripod cost 3650 $ , and the others that I found on ebay are scrap.
The Leofoto LN-324CH with a G2 geared head (but is also necessary the NP-60 or NP-65) or only the LB-75 (compact camera leveler) is a good choice.
Also Berlenbach is a good choice, but what kind of model you use for a 8x10 ?
Thank you again for your help.

[Drew Wiley]

My wooden tripod for 8x10 is one of the bigger Ries ones. My lightweight carbon fiber version is a Feisol CT3472, which I've modified a bit for sake of a platform-only top, with a 3/8-16 stainless hook below in lieu of an ordinary turnbolt, so I can hang things from it. Feisol does now offer an optional easily interchanged low-profile half-ball device for that particular model, though I don't personally need it. I don't think I'd want to go any lighter than that CF model due to wind issues. Both these tripods have spike feet. The same pair of tripods serve well for my P67 long tele work. But I have lighter wt Ries and Gitzo CF equivalents suitable for 4X5 and regular MF work.

When selecting a tripod, it's best to do a setup simulation, and then do a "tap test" on the camera standards with your heaviest contemplated lens at full working bellows extension, and see how fast things settle down. If it's not almost instantly, your support is unrealistically flimsy. It's like earthquakes here. My house is built above granite bedrock, so the earthquake shocks go through very quickly. But many lots and even entire neighborhoods are built on mudstone or even artificial landfill, which wiggles like jello during a quake. Hypothetical dead weight ratings of tripods and heads are largely meaningless. That's like the misleading weight ratings advertised on ladders - it might be rated for a 250 lb man standing motionless on one of the rungs; but the minute he scratches his nose, the flimsy thing topples.

[Ari]

There's definitely a need for big, heavy and stable tripods for 8x10 work.
There's also a need for a lightweight, easy-to-schlep tripod that makes informal 8x10 sorties more enjoyable and less bogged down with gear.
For those times I'll take the camera, a 210 and a 300 lens and a couple of film holders, and I'll enjoy being outdoors as much as I enjoy bringing my 8x10 along.
If I had to bring my regular 5-lb tripod on those informal occasions I'd just stay home or use my iPhone.

[Drew Wiley]

"Regular 5 lb tripod" ??? - That's pretty darn light to begin with for most LF applications, and already a bit unrealistically light for 8x10 format. I don't know if anyone would actually pay for the kind of serious CF tubing that might get you way down there in weight. No camera shop option will. The trend has been the other direction, toward cheaper CF plys. Back when I was selling fabrication equipment to the America's Cup yacht teams, I was given samples of their own selection of custom kevlar-reinforced CF materials. Unfortunately, they went for the lightest versions for sake of overall lighter weight, and it proved fatal when a mast snapped. Now the rules have changed. But they put in the technical work up front, in terms of what can be potential done with carbon fiber tubing and a big enough budget, without going to an outright aerospace level of thinking.

I was looking at some especially stiff CF tubing samples last week. There's a current post of the New Products section of the forum right now with a hypothetical new lightwt model idea; but a lot has to do with the specific reinforcing material and number of plys involved, and not just the tubing diameter. I'm not interested in making another tripod in my own shop - been there, done that. My philosophy is why run around on a treadmill at home or in a stinky gym, when just a little more weight in the camera pack will benefit more out in fresh air?

[Ari]

Yes, Drew, 5-pound tripods are the norm these days, they're even considered on the heavy side. I confess that I've used even lighter tripods to support my 8x10 and GX680 (which weighs more than my current 8x10).
The FLM CP38-L4, and other tripod brands in that range, is plenty for any 8x10 camera, thanks to better tripod design and improved materials.
So yes, in my case, 5 pounds is big, bulky and a bit heavy, and I'm looking to see how much lighter a tripod I can use to make sharp 8x10 images before the experiment becomes pointless.

[Drew Wiley]

What is "normal" nowadays seems to be flimsy toys. I am quite aware of what really works, and what doesn't. If you missed the point, I already mentioned that I sold the supplies and equipment used on the most expensive carbon-fiber vessels on earth (not the CF material itself). One of them cost over a billion dollars to build. I supplied the same folks with stuff and advice related to hardwood yachts and buildings in prior years, and still keep in touch with some of them. I certainly don't have a Materials Science degree; but I'm obviously not ignorant about choice materials for tripods either, not by a long shot.

And I've been shooting 8x10 a long time, and just a few minutes ago finished framing an 8x10 color print that involved an 8x10 chrome original and an 8X10 b&w contrast mask to produce a master printing chrome, which was in turn used to make an RA4 printing internegative by contact - that would amount to over a hundred dollars just in film at today's prices for that one image, even before starting printing! But the quality of the color is exceptional, and there is ample detail for a much larger print. Do you think I'd gamble that kind of result over potential vibrations during the long original exposure involved? No, not everyone has the same expectations. But every single time I have closely look at negs of one of those, "It worked for me using such and such a setup", the truth was apparent. It didn't work all that well.

Gosh, I've carried LF on my back for well over ten thousand miles before I stopped counting, often in very rugged terrain, days on end. Now almost 72, I'm always thinking about ways to progressively lighten the load. But there are better places to look than the tripod. People whine about tripods, but then use cases and bags full of heavy redundant sponge rubber padding, when they could just as well use lightweight bubble packing. Or they could simply toss the tripod head and save two or more pounds going "headless" like I do (no wisecracks, please.... any of us into LF photography have obviously lost our minds). But good luck with your experimenting. I've done many many failed experiments myself, just to learn the actual boundaries of this or that potential product. I was paid for many years to test products as part of my overall job, and outright given expensive equipment to review, and was trusted to state things factually, which is by no means common. Most equipment reviews are 90% BS.

[eolo14]

I also use a Berlebach for my 8x10, 7x17 and 11x14. Great stuff!
https://www.berlebach.de/en/

What model of Berlenbach do you use ?
And about the head on it ?

Thank you

[Tin Can]

I am also interested in the new FLM tripod

I don't need an airplane tripod

Yes, Drew, 5-pound tripods are the norm these days, they're even considered on the heavy side. I confess that I've used even lighter tripods to support my 8x10 and GX680 (which weighs more than my current 8x10).
The FLM CP38-L4, and other tripod brands in that range, is plenty for any 8x10 camera, thanks to better tripod design and improved materials.
So yes, in my case, 5 pounds is big, bulky and a bit heavy, and I'm looking to see how much lighter a tripod I can use to make sharp 8x10 images before the experiment becomes pointless.

[Drew Wiley]

Ari - I already have the Feisol equivalent of the variety of FLM tripod you're describing, and I'm glad I bought it. And yes, limiting the number of sections would reduce overall weight a bit while at the same time strengthening torsion, but at the expense of collapsible compactness. There is one site which reviews tripods intelligently : thecentercolumn.com. Still, it's not until you have your actual specific camera in position that the practical effect can be realistically evaluated; and flatbed 8x10's introduce about twice the wobble-potential torque vector as equivalent 4x5's, and even more if intervening narrow heads are involved. But aside from that fact, there's a point at which a tripod simply becomes too light to "anchor" it to the ground. It's probable that if I take the 8x10 for a walk in the next two days, I'll have my lightweight Feisol tucked under the top cover to the pack, simply because I'm recovering from a bad round of shoulder bursitis and don't want to tempt that condition with the big Ries strapped to the back of the pack bouncing up and down a bit on downhill sections. And I invested in that lighter CF tripod with old age in mind.

HOWEVER, despite being torque and vibration stable in that manner I have adapted it, there simply isn't enough bully mass weight to the CF version to prevent the whole nine yards being deflected in wind gusts. I can't turn my back on it in March gusts or the 8x10 can, and has, become a kite, tripod n' all. I'm just darn lucky that it's never landed on either the lens or groundglass, but always had a soft landing on its side on soft foliage. I've had that happen even with the Ries, but only in much more serious wind velocities. Now I'm scared to use irreplaceable view cameras in high winds. But I have gotten quite a few exceptional shots in the mountains gambling with the wind in younger years. Now I'm more likely to put TMY400 in my 6x9 RF and just hand shoot it under those circumstances, since any tripod is just going to blow over anyway. In other words, what are the real-world conditions in mind, and not just static specs tested in a passive lab or studio? For some of us at least, that is what counts.

I've hauled 8x10 gear up some awfully steep mtn slopes, and then got just one crack at the shot I wanted before the clouds or lighting suddenly changed; and any amount of camera vibration would have ruined all that effort and opportunity. It really get finicky when I'm shooting with a 600 lens at full bellows extension. But that's what I do. Now I've got all kinds of crisp 8x10 negs and chromes on hand suited to serious enlargement, which would have never transpired using lighter tripods.