I'm looking to purchase a new tripod, but I wanted to make sure that it is reasonably future proof (assuming that the largest lens I ever buy would be the Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS II). Under the assumption that my hypothetical setup weighs around 7 pounds, what should be the rated strength of the tripod that I buy?
To be more precise, will I see an improvement in image quality if I buy the strongest available tripod from Really Right Stuff (rated for ~100 pounds) vs. a quality tripod from Manfrotto (rated for ~20 pounds), assuming I use a Canon 5D Mark III and 70-200 f2.8 IS II? I understand that such tripods are necessary for longer lenses, but for smaller lenses is there a point of diminishing returns as the rated tripod strength increases?
Answer
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. This has proven to be sufficient stable for most cases but when it is very windy, I often add weight to keep the whole thing even more stable. So a tripod with a hook for adding weight is a good feature.
How much a tripod will hold is not purely dependent on weight. If your equipment is off-center it will be more stressful for the tripod. With a long lens for example, you can often attach it directly to the tripod which makes it more centered. Also consider your movements, if you shoot in portrait orientation or with the camera to one side, such as for taking shots towards the ground, I would recommend some tripod which is rated even higher, say 3 or 4X your intended load.
Dont forget that the same stress occurs to the ball-head, so make sure you get one which is rated similarly to the tripod you choose. Same thing if you add a levelling base.
No comments:
Post a Comment