Tripod weight capacity, what are the rules?

Dear Board,

I am looking at purchasing either a Canon 100-400L IS or a Sigma 150-500 OS for use with a gripped 20D.

Based on the specs for the lenses and the camera I figure I am looking at 6 to 7 pounds of camera and lens that will need to be supported by the tripod.

When I look at tripods, let's use Manfrotto for example, the weight capacities seem to jump from 11 pounds all the way up to 17+ pounds. Therefore, I was kind of wondering if there is a rule of thumb to use when selecting a tripod?

With Manfrotto a 190XB should hold what I plan to use, but should I be looking at the 55XB instead? I'm 6'5" tall and neither tripod will be tall enough to use at eye level but I'm more concerned about the safety margin and I'd appreciate any advice that you care to offer.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

There is no single 'tripod weight capacity' standard that is adhered to by tripod manufactures. One manufacturer's claims of 10lb. could be another manufacturer's claims of 20lb. yet both have equivalent instability.

My advice for your decision about 190 vs. 055...the 190 should be chosen by hikers to trek distances and want to keep their burden absolutely as light as they can, while the 055 is better suited for those who are not so mobile by foot and maybe want something for a few hours shooting and a few hours venture on foot. This is particularly valid (even without the mobility issue) because of your use of supertelephoto FL lenses. I have used medium format gear and 250-500mm lenses on the Bogen 3221 (predecessor to the Manfrotto 055) and the winds on the beaches would torque the whole works because the lens would act like a sail and catch the wind, creating twisting motion about the center column.

As one person recently showed in a photo on POTN, the tripod that claims a modest 10-20 lb. can support the weight of a full grown man HANGING FROM IT!

There seems to be no universal standard on rating the weight capacity of tripods, ie one manufacturer rates their's much more conservatively or liberally than another. You can only compare the RELATIVE capacity within a brand. I've heard that 3x the weight of the gear being mounted (lens, camera, other accessories) is a GENERAL rule-of-thumb. Know that the weight capacity rating does not predict the fail point of the tripod but rather reflects on the tripod's ability to adequately (and thus subjectively) dampen the gear mounted on it. With proper technique and no wind, a 190 would allow some sharp images, but not as high a % as with a quality larger (055) and/or carbon fiber vs aluminum tripod.

At 6'5", the 190X is definitely too short for your use even if you'd mostly be using in a crouched/kneeling position. I strongly recommend sizing a tripod for your normal usage WITHOUT raising the center column (ie a monopod atop a tripod) except in the rarest and most necessary of conditions. I'd recommend a Gitzo 3542XLS....but they're probably a lot pricier than what you're looking for.

Dear Board,

I appreciate the answers I've received but I guess I wasn't very clear with my questions? I've never used a tripod except for interior self timer shots and I'm looking for something entirely different from what I've done. I've been reading the stickied threads about tripods and I find a lot of recommendations but nothing that addresses my biggest concern.

My greatest concern is about a safety margin between the weight of the gear loaded on the tripod and the tripod's capacity. I know that bad things can happen to well intentioned people and I'm wondering if it matters that the tripod and head has 2X's or 3X's the capacity of the load it is bearing?

The weight of the tripod I purchase is not a great concern. I do not plan to hike great distances to set up. Most of the places I will use the tripod will either be pre-existing hunting blinds or along walking trails in local parks.

If possible I would like a tripod that offers a center leg that can be used as a monopod. I am willing to spend $ 250.00-300.00 for legs and a head if that matters. I don't expect to get something that works for $ 150.00 either, but I am pretty well stuck on a maximum of $ 300.00.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Tim,
I referred to the fact tha an adult man could swing over 150lbs. on his tripod, while the tripod supposed load carrying capacity was less than 20lb., to demonstrate clearly that 'load' is a very ambigous term! Certainly a product with only a 20 lb. load should not be able to support 150+ lbs. man, should it?!

I also referred to 'weight of tripod' only in the context of your own debate about 190 vs. 055...to make that a selection criteria for those needing to carry minimum weight.

But at the same time as telling you that 'load' is a very subjective and many-definition term, I also referred to the fact that the very long FL of lenses cause a greater need for 'stability' (read 'torsional resistance to wind'), and that would be a factor in your choice.

One last factor, which I had not previously mentioned, is 'vibrational damping', which is when induced vibration is quickly diminished...imagine the guitar string made of thick rubber vs. one made of thin wire!

Unfortunately with your height if you want to shoot at eye level you will need one of the taller tripods (expensive), as it is taller it will have to be more rigid (expensive) and taller tripods are mostly made by the more expensive manufacturers. I think you are getting the idea, a decent tripod for you will not be cheap.
Russ61 mentioned the Gitzo 3542 XLS which would be an excellent piece of kit and last for years (I have one of the shorter versions.
Whilst the likes of Gitzo and RRS product are the Bees Knees there are a number of manufacturers producing quality tripods at more realistic prices eg Feisol etc.
The best thing you can do is go to a camera shop and try a few out, you should also try then out for rigidity. You cannot have too much tripod but you can certainly have too little!

Wilt wrote in post #15540048
Tim,
I referred to the fact tha an adult man could swing over 150lbs. on his tripod, while the tripod supposed load carrying capacity was less than 20lb., to demonstrate clearly that 'load' is a very ambigous term! Certainly a product with only a 20 lb. load should not be able to take 150+ lbs., should it?!

I also referred to 'weight of tripod' only in the context of your own debate about 190 vs. 055...to make that a selection criteria for those needing to carry minimum weight.
But at the same time as telling you that 'load' is a very subjective and many-definition term, I also referred to the fact that the very long FL of lenses cause a greater need for 'stability' (read 'torsional resistance to wind')

Dear Wilt,

I'm getting all that you are saying and I don't want to be a nuisance so I'll ask this, is anyone using the lenses I am considering on their camera?

If so what tripod are you using and how is it working out for you?

I'm guessing you guys have the same sort of fondness for newbies as is generally displayed on the flyfishing message boards I frequent?

I'll keep trying though, I'm nothing if not persistant.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

My greatest concern is about a safety margin between the weight of the gear loaded on the tripod and the tripod's capacity. I know that bad things can happen to well intentioned people and I'm wondering if it matters that the tripod and head has 2X's or 3X's the capacity of the load it is bearing?

Tim Murphy [/QUOTE]

Weight ratings are difficult to verify and not necessarily a good guide for example the Gizo 3 series tripods are rated for about 36lbs but are batch tested at over 200lbs. A Manfrotto 55 will certainly hold my heaviest setup (800 F 5.6 + 1D4 - 6Kilo, tripod is rated at 7Kilo) but is most certainly not the tool for the job. As a VERY rough guide your tripod should be rated for at least twice the weight of any combination of camera, lens and head you are likely to put on it.

jtmiv wrote in post #15540090
is anyone using the lenses I am considering on their camera?

If so what tripod are you using and how is it working out for you?

Most folks would tell you to get something in the class of the Gitzo 3500 at a minimum.
The Gitzo 2500 is suited well with a ballhead category that Markins says 'up to 300mm'. I have used 400mm on my Gitzo 25xx, but only to shoot the lunar total eclipse; I wouldn't normally go past 300mm or so. If I was a long lens guy routinely, I would select the Gitzo 35xx. The Manfrotto 055 is in the same class as the Gitzo 25xx (but the 055 is not as stable).

Since Gitzo is exceptionally expensive consideration for most casual photographers, look for other product with similar characteristics at a lesser price tag.

johnf3f wrote in post #15540096
My greatest concern is about a safety margin between the weight of the gear loaded on the tripod and the tripod's capacity. I know that bad things can happen to well intentioned people and I'm wondering if it matters that the tripod and head has 2X's or 3X's the capacity of the load it is bearing?

Tim Murphy

Weight ratings are difficult to verify and not necessarily a good guide for example the Gizo 3 series tripods are rated for about 36lbs but are batch tested at over 200lbs. A Manfrotto 55 will certainly hold my heaviest setup (800 F 5.6 + 1D4 - 6Kilo, tripod is rated at 7Kilo) but is most certainly not the tool for the job. As a VERY rough guide your tripod should be rated for at least twice the weight of any combination of camera, lens and head you are likely to put on it.

Dear John,

Now you are talking. With what you said you've convinced me that a tripod with the capacity of the Manfrotto 55 is at the minimum of where I should be looking to find safe support for my gear.

I figure I can stoop and bend over from time to time if the tripod won't quite reach to eye level? Many times when I use the tripod I will be seated in a hunting blind so the maximum height won't be much of an issue.

Thank you,

Tim Murphy

Tripod height ought to be the LAST specification driving choice... Folks too often ignore the fact that many times the BEST height for the camera is found NOT AT EYE LEVEL!

Yes, shooter comfort cannot be ignored, but it should not alone drive selection of a tripod.
Others may have their own rankings, by I would select based on

1. Stability for lens FL and vibrational dampening first,
   
2. Height and weight, third
   
3. Collapsed length, fourth
   

1. Stability for lens FL and vibrational dampening first,
   
2. Height and ability to support massive (15 lb.) monorail camera, second
   
3. Collapsed length and weight, fifth
   

I'm also looking to buy a new tripod soon and have been comparing features of various legs with price. At this time I'm seriously looking at the 055XPROB for several reasons. It is only 20 dollars more than the 190XProB,about 13 inches taller,it is heavier but the load bearing capacity is advertised at 4 lbs more. I own and use frequently the 680B Manfrotto monopod, a 60D with 150-500 Sigma on top of it and I'm very satisfied with it. I'm assuming the 055X tripod will be of similar build quality. There are obviously better tripods but the price climbs quickly and for my use can't justify spending more than the 055 sells for.The 055cxpro3 is tempting, with the lighter carbon legs and support it has but I have to draw the line somewhere.
I'm also interested in others opinions as there may be better choices that I'm not aware of. I live in a rural area, 160 miles from the nearest store that would stock good tripods so it is not easy for me to compare them in person. As of now I'm sure leaning toward the 055xprob with a 498rc2 ball head, can buy both for 240.00 US dollars.

Dear grizz,

Thank you for the recommendation of the Manfrotto 680B even if it wasn't your intent with your question or the answer I was seeking with my questions.

There is nothing like hearing first hand from a user and I figure if it works well for you with the Sigma 150-500 OS then it will work well for me also should I go in that direction as that is the way I leaning right now.

Like yourself I don't have the ability to check things out at a camera shop nearby. I might wind up spending more than $ 250- 300.00 for everything but if it all works I'll be better off in the end.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

jtmiv,
I can speak highly of the (Bogen 3221, now updated to the) Manfrotto 055. I was very happy with it for many years...UNTIL I took a medium format kit on a trip to Hawaii, and some variable, gusty winds there showed me how it was lacking in the resistance to wind torsion against a long lens medium format rig.
Most folks who write on POTN simply have not had to shoot in more rigorous situations, so they simply do not know how well or how poorly their tripods fare. I see lots of satisfaction with Benro and Feisol and Induro, but I really wonder how those would fare in Hawaiian gusts.

Dear Wilt,

Like yourself I've heard good things about the Bogen 3221/Manfrotto 055.

I recognize that everything is a compromise of sorts and know that one thing won't do everything well in all conditions. Still, it's definitely worth hearing of your experience in Hawaii.

From what I've read here and in other reviews on the web I'm thinking that the Manfrotto 055 legs and something like the RC492 ball head will work fine for what I intend to do in the conditions that I will normally expect.

If something like that set up won't work because of conditions I figure the deer and bear can fend for themselves and I'll try again another nicer time.

Regards,

Tim Murphy