Tripod for 8x10”

I've gone to using a Ries J100-2 with a J250 head. It's perfect for my Kodak 2D 8x10. A Berlebach Uni would be the European equivalent. I definitely would not use a ballhead for an 8x10.


Kent in SD

If you live in Italy, how about Manfrotto. I have been carrying this tripod around since the 1984. It if very versatile. I even have used it with Minox.
I went the the Ries site but could not find any information about the weight or size of the tripods. The pictures on the site were very small too. Hard to get a good idea of what the tripods look like collapsed and extended. Lack of a geared center post seems like a curious omission.

ic-racer said:

If you live in Italy, how about Manfrotto. I have been carrying this tripod around since the 1984. It if very versatile. I even have used it with Minox.
View attachment 274428

Click to expand...

Ha! I have that exact tripod. Bought in about 1980. Solid, it will hold anything I have (up to 8x10). Yes, it is heavy, but I am sure also quite inexpensive on the used market. Fast to set up with the one lever leg release and lock. The 3 way head handles view cameras nicely. Kind of a Chevrolet of tripods, but gets the job done.

For legs, look at Induro carbon fiber legs - I have a CT314 (they have changed the model numbers now, but look for a 3-series leg set - it will hold just about any camera you put on top. The only camera I have that I haven't tried on it is my 14x17). For a head, a Gitzo low-profile pan/tilt head is an excellent option. As others have mentioned, a ball head is a bad combination with any 8x10 camera, even if it is rated to handle the weight. And no matter what, quick-release plates are an absolute no-no. Do NOT get a tripod head that uses quick-release plates for your 8x10. All it takes is one accidental bump to release the locking mechanism, and your beautiful camera will go crashing to the ground.

TheFlyingCamera said:

...quick-release plates are an absolute no-no. Do NOT get a tripod head that uses quick-release plates for your 8x10. All it takes is one accidental bump to release the locking mechanism, and your beautiful camera will go crashing to the ground.

Click to expand...

I disagree. The Really Right Stuff lever-lock clamps are extremely secure and not subject to complete release by anything other than firm, intentional action.

There were and are plates appropriate for larger cameras. Previously Kirk Enterprises offered one 4-inches square, which is affixed to my 8x10 in the image in this post:


Today I'd use this Sunwayfoto plate:


Another approach is replacing the standard baseplate / tripod receptacle(s) with a custom Arca-compatible baseplate. That's what I did on my 5x7 and wholeplate Ebony cameras, as seen in the images in this post:

The ONLY correct answer is, It all depends. There are different expectations of allowable carry weight or bulk, different kinds of cameras different torque vectors and potential wobble affecting stability. Some people use mainly short lenses, while others use long ones, hence long bellows extensions way more subject to the force of wind gusts. Doing things in a studio is quite different than out in the field, which for me often meant a lot of high altitude work in all kinds of weather. What other camera systems do you intend to use with that same tripod? Etc, etc.

Since I have a Phillips flatbed folder 8X10, my strategy has been to have on hand two different tripods for 8X10 shooting, or alternately, for long MF teles which can be even more difficult to keep truly stable than an 8X10. I have a large Ries tripod with spike feet which I love for its bully mass and sheer reliability under all kinds of conditions. But I also have a much lighter weight modified Feisol CT3472 carbon fiber unit, which certainly supports both systems well, but lacks the bully mass. If needed, I have equipped it with a hook below the top which can be used to hold a mesh bag full of rocks for sake of more weight, but haven't ever done that yet. I consider it as part of my old age insurance, if there comes a time the Ries is simply too heavy to hike with. I have a parallel pair of tripods for 4x5 usage : a lighter Ries and a lighter Gitzo CF.

I never use tripod heads for LF work - they're totally redundant except for shooting almost straight down; just unnecessary extra weight, and generally the weak link in the whole system when it comes to stability. If you absolutely must use a head with a flatbed 8X10, it should itself be of a "platform" design and low-profile, like the Ries head or large Gitzo low pan-tilt. And now certain tripods will accept relatively large diameter hemispherical half-ball inserts that lay low in the platform top of the tripod itself, in lieu of a center column (another worse-than-useless item when it comes to view camera work). But real ball heads with a stem on them - well, a basic understanding of torque vector physics should immediately inform you what a bad idea those are. Sinar has its own especially secure head design for sake of its monorails; but I just use the low-profile older Norma rail clamp itself.

I do have one of those old heavy cast Bogen-Manfrotto heads. It's perhaps the most solid choice for a traditional head for a limited budget. But it's nowhere near as stable as my no-head option. I kept it for certain studio applications. Hardly ideal in the field, unless you need something to double as a boat anchor.

DREW WILEY said:

...never use tripod heads for LF work - they're totally redundant except for shooting almost straight down; just unnecessary extra weight, and generally the weak link in the whole system when it comes to stability...

Click to expand...

In your never-humble, know-everything-about-everything opinion.

DREW WILEY said:

...real ball heads with a stem on them - well, a basic understanding of torque vector physics should immediately inform you what a bad idea those are...

Click to expand...

The statics and dynamics courses in my college engineering curriculum imparted well more than a basic understanding of those factors. And, one post above yours, there's a link to to a picture of my utterly stable 8x10 Phillips / Gitzo 3-series / Burzynski ball head combination.

For maximum stability I level my tripods and use an effective head. Unevenly leveled tripods have a greater possibility of falling over. That’s really bad for torque-vector-smash-on-the-ground situations.

Lachlan Young said:

Series 5 Systematic Gitzo legs & Series 5 low profile 3-way head.

Click to expand...

What Lachlan said.

Wooden tripods were leveled without heads for decades in a lot more precarious places than many LF typically encounter, namely by early surveyors with transits. My dad started out as a surveyor for the Grand Coulee dam project. I remember first learning with an old brass transit and a set of wooden legs under it. Nowadays, electronic theodolites, auto-levels, and lasers are the norm. But none of that voids how it was routinely done before, or how it can still be done. They don't fall over once you learn the basics of working with legs only. I'm not against tripod heads. I use em with smaller cameras. But nothing is as stable as bolting right to the top of a tripod with a suitably large platform. Fact. Simple physics. And not really all that difficult.

DREW WILEY said:

...the Grand Coulee dam project...nothing is as stable as bolting right to the top of a tripod with a suitably large platform...not really all that difficult.

Click to expand...

Why not combine all those things and use what Adams described. "A cubic yard of solid concrete with a 1/4″-20 bolt sticking out of the top." Shouldn't be very difficult. I suppose you'd reject the idea because anything less than a 3/8"-16 bolt is insufficiently stable.

Sal, don't you have more productive things to do? My method lightens the overall weight. People spend more and more money these days to shave off a couple of pounds of carry weight of their 8x10, then add it right back on trying to find a stable enough tripod head. With ball-head designs, they have to be either especially massive or of an exceptional expensive alloy and machining to even begin to compete in the 8X10 league.

And remember, those old surveyors were held to much higher standards of accuracy when setting up and aiming a transit than landscape photographers ever need. They routinely did it in many precarious and remote locations, sometimes atop high altitude peaks that weren't climbed again by climbers per se until many years later.

And I don't need to be told about concrete being heavy. After his surveyor role, my dad went on to be the concrete inspector for the beginning of the Central Valley Project. When that was done, he brought home lots of leftover scraps of 1-1/2 inch diameter rebar (yep, inch and a half !), used the same concrete formula on the house he was building as the dam used, and then after that, took up ornamental rock work as a weekend hobby. He welded up a wheelbarrow twice the capacity as ones you can buy, bought out the scrap pile of a local granite quarry, and had the cement mixer running most of the summer - with me pushing the wheelbarrow as a teenager. The darn granite fireplace itself was so big that I practiced rock climbing on it. The moral of that story is that I never want to see another sack of cement in my life! So that fact alone should refute your allegation that I desire a concrete tripod.