Hot answers tagged

37

Your fears are absolutely justified. But, digging in… The lens mount itself is bolted to the camera’s lightbox. In order to damage the mount, we would need to stress it to the point of damaging itself, the bolts holding it to the lightbox, or the lightbox itself. The weight of the camera is important only insofar as one could infer the sturdiness of these ...


7

You should be just fine holding it by the camera alone, it's the same effect as having your camera on a tripod. A 24-70 F2.8 is also relatively short so it won't be asking to much of your lens mount. In general lenses that are really to heavy or to long for the camera to support by itself will have their own tripod collar. Lenses around 1000 grams aren't ...


7

I wouldn't be concerned on a 200D. It's a good sturdy body, so should have no issues with a lens of that weight. The 200D has an aluminium chassis, which will be easily strong enough to hold a lens of that size and weight. A friend of mine uses a 600D which I believe has the same armature, and has used some very hefty lenses on it without any need to ...


6

Q: I was slightly afraid of bending the lens mount if I hold the camera body without supporting the lens with my second hand. Were those fears justified? Or can I safely mount any lens on any compatible camera without worrying about the weight? Bending the lens mount on the camera is unlikely, something else is virtually certain to give out first. ...


6

It's not just the weight of the camera that's a concern, but the torque that it will apply to the mounting ring on the lens (and in the camera, of course). Torque is turning force, and it's calculated by multiplying force (weight, in this case) by distance from the center of rotation. So, if we guess that your camera is 4" deep from the mount to the back of ...


5

It depends how the head is made. Most ball-heads move a little which is called drift. A millimeter or two is common but should not be more for anything reasonable. Otherwise it makes framing rather hard. Certain ball-heads are designed specifically to prevent this and are called non-drift heads. Manfrotto for example has a Hydrostatic series like that. The ...


4

A heavier tripod is indeed more stable, as it lowers the center of gravity. A 200 g plastic tripod with a 1 kg camera mounted could easily topple over. A 30 kg studio tripod won't topple over, even with a 3 kg camera mounted. A second reason why heavier is better is that a heavier tripod will have a more sturdy construction. Plastic tripods should be ...


4

Using Catia (Mechanical engineering software), I tried to answer your question by retro-engineering the canon parts. I found a 3D model of a canon lens from grabcad.com and isolated the lens mount geometry. I compared its dimensions to the ones of my lenses and found them accurate enough. On the following view, you can see the lens mount. I used brass as a ...


4

In my opinion, that ballhead is too lightweight for uses beyond holding smaller DSLRs with shorter/lighter lenses. Many tripod and ballhead manufacturers overstate their "rated" weight. For instance, the Sirui C-10X says it has a capacity of 28.7 lbs. But what is that, in photographic equipment terms? A Nikon D810 weighs 1.98 lb (990 g). With a 600 mm ƒ/4G ...


4

In general, if the manufacturer feels that the lens design is excessive for the cameras they produce they install a tripod collar/lens foot. This allows the lesser weight of the camera body to hang from the heavier lens instead of the other way around. If it is a lens that has a tripod collar/lens foot then you are likely pushing your luck if supporting the ...


4

You are able to use slower shutter speeds because you switched to a larger sensor. A given amount of movement is relatively smaller compared with a larger sensor than a smaller one, proportional to the crop factor. The type or cause of the movement does not matter (angular, linear, rotational, whatever). The 1/20 sec vs 1/30 sec speeds you mention ...


3

With a 2kg lens, I wouldn't expect any problems; and lenses heavier than that aren't for 'walkaround' use. Those 500 mm prime lenses you mentioned weight in general at least 4-5 kg, and even then they say "may damage the mount" A lot depends on how you carry it by the camera. If the lens is vertical (pointing up or down), you won't have any problems with ...


3

What are the benefits of having one more leg section? Being I am 175 cm tall, I will never use the legs fully extended on a plane. More sections reduces the length of the tripod while folded. This is most desirable for travelling. As a side-effect, there is a slight loss of rigidity since the extra tube is more narrow and maybe a more time to setup. ...


3

The Sirui C-10X ballhead has a capacity of 28.7 lb, about 13 kg (source : http://mob.sirui-photo.com/productseries.php?productclassid=28). Your Nikon 300mm f4 AF weights about 1.3 kg and a regular camera body is about 1 kg (1.2 kg top for Nikon D3x : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Nikon_DSLR_cameras) so the total weight your ball has to carry ...


2

Legs, yes; head, no. Most tripods (when new, at least) will actually support more than their rated limit comfortably in "normal" position, where the legs are splayed out somewhere around 20 degrees, but not in the wide stance (if it has one). With compacts and travel tripods, where the tubes start getting pretty thin, you'll want to avoid overloading them ...


2

This 300mm seems to be lightweight (755g), but definitely not cheap! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1111442-REG/nikon_2223_af_s_nikkor_300mm_f_4e.html


2

A sturdier tripod is indeed more sturdy but you will reach a point of diminishing returns. Unfortunately, the load specified by manufacturers is not measured in a standard way, so you can only compare two tripods of the same brand by looking at the maximum load. Normally, I recommend a tripod rated to about twice the actual intended load, just to be safe. ...


2

As there is no answer I'll post my "answer" here As stated by other posts, it shouldn't really matter and really the torque matters than the direct weight, as a longer lens of the same weight has more effect on the lens. If a lens does not have a collar it should not matter at all. That being said, when walking a shorter lens is easier to maneuver with if ...


2

The 1D Mark II was 55.5 oz. The 5D Mark III + BG-E11 grip + 2 LP-E6N batteries is about 59 oz. The heaviest flash Canon has sold in the recent past is the 600EX-RT which is 18.5 oz with batteries installed. The WFT-E8A is another 1.35 oz. Add that up and you're at 79 oz. which is about 17 oz. less than a 6 pound CCD camera. The EF mount should be able to ...


1

Lens mounts are fairly sturdy things - but why risk it when the good people at manfrotto make these? I can't comment about the particular lens and body combo - but I will say that adding the adapter adds an additional weak point. So, I think you're better off not chancing it and getting something like the linked item to add some telephoto support.


1

Payload is anything that isn't tripod. Camera + lens + flash + stabilizer weight + anything else you might want to attach. While the tripod itself should be able to hold 8kg (or 12kg, if you consider the safety ratio Romeo Ninov describes), the hook attached to it may not. You will have to make a judgment call based on the apparent quality of the hook. ...


1

My personal calculations (based on my degree of mechanical engineering): Safety ratio 1.5 (avg) which mean tripod can handle 1.5*8kg=12kg. Your camera+lens+accessories attached to camera and lens = (for example) 4kg. So you can attach maximum of 12kg-4kg=8kg And again: this is my personal calculation which is not based on any documentation from the ...


1

The following presumes the assumption stated in the question: the same focal length of 55mm is being used for both cameras. There are several factors that could be at work here: With a larger sensor and the same focal length, it takes larger camera movements to move a point on the image projected by the lens that corresponds to a point in the scene the ...


1

The weight may have to do. The shutter has to accelerate quite brutally at the top, and gets rapidly stopped at the bottom. Both create impulses on the camery. Heavier cameras distribute the impulses better. Given that shutter mass likely does NOT increase similar to camera mass, it is one possible explanation. Never thought about it before, though.


1

Beside the effect from full frame sensor (bigger photo cells) there is physiological effect. Your mind command muscles to hold strongly the camera because of the weight (bigger for full frame camera). Same is true when you add accessories to the camera line battery grip or heavier lens. But this effect have limitations in sense of the force and how long this ...


1

You might want to rephrase your question in a more general way (e.g. "What features are needed in a tripod to make it suitable for long exposures?") It's not as simple as more weight = better for long exposures. For that, what matters is rigidity and stability. So, larger diameter sections (a large diameter tube is more rigid than a small diameter one as ...


1

I don't have the answer for you but the answer is maybe obvious : if it were a classic mechanical problem, I would say that the lens capacity shouldn't exceed the capacity of the body (using no lens collar): If you body can support a 2 kg lens on the body mount, then the same weight is supported by the lens mount ; If your lens comes with a collar for your ...


1

I haven't used Carbon Fiber tripods a lot but both look like good choices. The rotatable center is nice for positioning said camera is weird orientations. I've used mainly aluminum and I have had no issues carrying it around all day. However, if weight IS a problem consider the Carbon Fiber variant. I have NOT used ManFrotto Tripod but I've seen them in a ...


1

The answer depends. It depends in part on what you are shooting - pairing it with the Wimberly Head it sounds like you may be shooting moving subjects. With moving subjects you don't expect the tripod to hold your lens perfectly still, you use your tripod to carry the weight of the camera and lens, and you hold the camera body in your hand and press the ...


1

Alternatively more MegaPixels and good technique can cut weight by going to a shorter focal length. Trading in the D700 for a D800 triples your pixel count, then you could effectively multiply your current lens focal lengths by 1.5 through cropping and good shooting technique. ~ Another vote for lightweight and telephoto don't mix. I'm wanting Nikon AF-S ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible