Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty Johnson
I've read a lot about how a filmmaker should never get a tripod that has a higher weight capacity than the actual camera they are using because it could mess with the smooth feel when panning and tilting. So if I'm using an XL2 (7.8 lbs) now but could be using a considerably heavier camera later, what else should I TRI to look for?
|
Er, where, exactly, have you read this gem?
I think this can be put down to a slight misunderstanding about how this stuff works.
Any video/ film support system is two completely seperate units married together.
The support unit (tripod) and the pan/ tilt unit (head).
The support only has minimum characteristics (ie. it must be able to support a minimum of the head and camera system, no less) but has no maximum.
Indeed, a 2 ton block of concrete to hold an XL2 would give you a support to die for, if only you could move it!
The pan/ tilt head is a different kettle of fish altogether.
The head has two different applicable characteristics: -
1. Maximum physical weight it can carry under any circumstances (in practise there really is no minimum here except that dictated by 2 below)..
2. Minimum and Maximum weights/ Centre of Gravity it can adequately counterbalance.
This last one is the killer, is the least understood and the cause of more support system grief for the unwary than just about anything else.
Unlike a still camera support system, where the camera is moveable (in three planes usually) to allow frameing but then locked to get the shot, a video/ film support system is designed to move in two planes (usually) and be completely unlocked to allow panning and tilting during the shoot.
In order for this to work, the mass of the camera (and it's relative height above the tilt mechanism pivot point) has to be counterbalanced (usually by a spring/ contoured cam arrangement) so that the camera/ head combination will hold position at any angle of tilt with no pan bar pressure applied whatsoever, nor tilt locks engaged.
Naturally enough, the amount of money that gets thrown at this function pretty well dictates how well the head will adapt to different camera system weight/ cog's.
Go cheap and there's usually just a single inbuilt spring with no adjustment whatsoever. Slightly upmarket you get some adjustment (usually in non contiguous steps), higher still and you get continuously variable between a minimum and maximum figure.
It's pretty obvious that anything below that last category runs the chance of not succesfully counterbalanceing your particular camera system, with the resultant inability to allow the pan bar to be released at the end of any tilt manouvre that does not end with the camera level, or very close to.
This IS NOT a good thing.
So, any pan/ tilt head that can support the maximum weight of your current and proposed camera systems AND has a continuously variable counterbalance system that encompasses those camera weights/ cog's will do the job.
Strangely enough, the more expensive, the better (the biggest proviso with this being that, as the price and camera weight/ cog capability goes up, the MINIMUM weight/ cog's figure usually goes with it, meaning lighter camera systems cannot be used).
Does that make any sense?
CS