Been on my Mind: Gitzo 1541T + Markins Q10 Why?

So this has been on my mind for a while... between a tripod legs and head, the max load of the total system is limited by the weakest link. So why is the Gitzo 1541T (max load of 17lb) so frequently recommended/paired with the Markins Q10 (max load of 100lb)? Doesn't the ballhead here seem super overkill? Or is it there just aren't many good ballheads that don't support like 100 pounds?

I've been looking at the same legs but with the Markins Q30 Traveller instead of the Q10. I don't think there is any reason for the head to support 100 pounds. I just think it should be able to handle 10 to 15 pounds with no creeping and it would be fine.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

themadman wrote in post #11656404
So why is the Gitzo 1541T (max load of 17lb) so frequently recommended/paired with the Markins Q10 (max load of 100lb)?

I'm a relative newcomer to this site, but my perspective is that the 1541T is consistently paired with the Markins Q3T, not the Q10.

peter_n wrote in post #11657935
I'm a relative newcomer to this site, but my perspective is that the 1541T is consistently paired with the Markins Q3T, not the Q10.

If not consistently, then predominantly. I'm using the non-traveler version of this combo (older GT1540 legs + Q3) and find it to be an excellent light-weight setup.

That is what I have and it is a lovely combination. The best thing is that it comes with me so it actually gets used.

peter_n wrote in post #11657935
I'm a relative newcomer to this site, but my perspective is that the 1541T is consistently paired with the Markins Q3T, not the Q10.

Usual setup is indeed with the Q3T, However I just wanted to mention that the the larger heads are nice in practice because they adjust much smoother and easier than travel heads.

Regardless of which Markins, I mean the Q3T still holds 60pounds which is 3.5x the mac weight capacity of the 1541T.

So the giant ball heads are just for ease of operation, since even the Q3 Travel dwarfs what most tripods can hold.

It's not just about load ratings. The Q3 is designed for lenses up to 200mm, regardless of their weight. Dampening also factors into the equation.

rvdw98 wrote in post #11660285
It's not just about load ratings. The Q3 is designed for lenses up to 200mm, regardless of their weight. Dampening also factors into the equation.

Hmm... why do they bother with weight ratings then? I can't imagine any camera + 200mm lens weighing over 60 pounds.

(Thanks for the answer so far, I am not trying to be argumentative, I am truly curious about this situation)

Why do they list a car's maximum speed, when you're not allowed to drive that fast anywhere?

The fact that it can, doesn't mean that you must. Also, it's likely that the load rating is a design consequence rather than a goal.

rvdw98 wrote in post #11660472
Why do they list a car's maximum speed, when you're not allowed to drive that fast anywhere?

The fact that it can, doesn't mean that you must. Also, it's likely that the load rating is a design consequence rather than a goal.

Well... car enthusiasts go to tracks where you can if you want, and not many car manufactures actually advertise it unless it is a 180MPH + super car. But I guess point taken, so the max weight is more an indication of performance rather than something that will actually be applied.

So why can't the ball head hold a 400mm lens for example since it has such a massive weight capacity? Do manufacturers just like stating the weight capacity as a marketing "gimmick" (for lack of better word).

Edit: I mean weight should be directly correlated with all other forces on a ballhead, so if the ballhead can hold 60pounds, why can't I mount as big of a lens as I want on it?

Load ratings are not standardized and as such not directly and reliably comparable between legs and heads. For example, those 60 pounds may well be a measure of downward force only, while the head is much less resistant to lateral forces. Longer lenses will not cause the ball head to buckle or collapse, but may result in vibrations because the locking mechanism was designed to stabilize only shorter lenses.

Hmm... sounds good to me Thanks

rvdw98 wrote in post #11660666
Load ratings are not standardized and as such not directly and reliably comparable between legs and heads. For example, those 60 pounds may well be a measure of downward force only, while the head is much less resistant to lateral forces. Longer lenses will not cause the ball head to buckle or collapse, but may result in vibrations because the locking mechanism was designed to stabilize only shorter lenses.

Don't forget that these long teles have a collar that balances the weight evenly front and back. I've used a 100-400 on the above combo and on the Feisol 3441t with the Q3t easily.

Just to clarify: my comments were strictly aimed at the manufacturer's formal specs. Actual, real-life performance is a whole other ball of wax.