RayF Loc: New Jersey

I have a Promaster model 7150 tripod. The weight limit is listed as 11 pounds.

When I try to use it with a Canon 80D with a Tamron 200-500 lens it will not hold the setup in an upward pointing orientation.

I weigh the camera/lens at 5 pounds. Any thoughts as to what the problem may be.

Thank You

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Market leaders like RRS have ball heads with load limits to 18 lbs. They also cost $200 - $300 for the head alone. Ideally, you'll invest in a tripod that lasts forever, rather than getting it right the 2nd or 3rd time. Other top brands include Manfrotto, Gitzo, Benro, Induro. Your post should generate other brands to consider. If you're otherwise happy with your tripod, see if the head can be removed and replaced with something stronger.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

It's the capacity of the head, not of the tripod that concerns you.

RowdyRay Loc: MN

The tripod. Manufacturers lie. Especially cheap brands. Sorry.

Quixdraw Loc: x

I would suggest looking at the top brands, but Used. Got a Manfrotto Tripod, Monopod, Gimbal and Ball head, each for a fraction of their new prices. Condition of all as new, will hold my heaviest lens / camera combos perfectly.

MT Shooter Loc: Montana

Unfortunately there are no accepted standards for tripod/head load ratings. Manufacturers are free to put whatever unrealistic load ratings on them that they want to. Most are WAY over-rated while some are embarassingly under-rated. Its a crap shoot unless you have recommendations from ACTUAL users.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

That tripod is designed for consumer grade light camcorders.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Depends on how you are mounting your rig. Are you using the tripod collar on the lens to attach it to the tripod? Or are you using the 1/4 20 thread on the bottom of the camera to mount on the tripod?
What head are you using? A ball head will present problems with long lenses.
A Gimbal type head is best for long lenses. You can adjust them so the lens camera combo is balanced and then there is no forward or backward motion.
Below is a link to an inexpensive one. However, I believe MT Shooter also carries inexpensive ones that may fit your needs. If he will sell you one is another story.
https://www.amazon.com/Neewer-Professional-Panoramic-Arca-Swiss-13-6kilogram/dp/B01M262LLV/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=wimberely+type+tripod+head&qid=1571136240&sr=8-3-spell

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It is not designed for long lenses and dslr cameras. It's best used with a point and shoot. Even if you were able to replace the head, which I doubt, it would never hold your camera steady enough. Remember, you are asking a camera support to be stable with the equivalent of an 800mm lens. Don't expect a mostly plastic with a few metal parts tripod to do that. Unless you trying to replace your camera, lens and tripod in the near future.

This is what a tripod that would be stable enough for your needs looks like.

https://www.gitzo.com/us-en/tripods/systematic/

However, you don't need to spend that much, you can get a LeoFoto LN 404C which will not be overkill for an 800mm lens.

BTW, as you do your research, you'll find that load capacity only serves to counter the effect of gravity, and it has no direct relationship to whether it will hold your camera and lens still enough to avoid blur from movements. So to avoid spending money on more junk, do the research, decide what your price point you can justify, and look for the tripod with the thickest legs you can find. You are likely to be in the $600 or greater price range for what you need.

Here is a in depth look at the LeoFoto.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Efj52zoMeEU

Not spending enough on a tripod will make you happy until you start using it, after which you will suffer buyer's regret. Better (and much cheaper) to get the right tripod to start with, instead of buying incrementally better tripods over time until you are satisfied with the performance you are getting. No one ever complained about getting a tripod that is too stable.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

When I bought my "new" tripod, the guy in the camera store suggested that I use 5 times the actual weight of my camera + lens when determining the capacity. And yes, it's more about the head than the legs.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

As mentioned in an earlier thread. You may want to consider removing your tripod head and replace it with a stronger head. Top name Brand tripods can range from the lower to mid hundred dollars range. B&H Photo has a wide selection of tripods and heads to choose from.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

I wasted my money on numerous heads including a Wimberley gimbal. I finally ended up with a fluid head.

Could not be any happier.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

That's irrelevant, and a bit of an urban legend. The more appropriate measure is the maximum leg diameter and for all intents and purposes, carbon fiber leg material. Aluminum may have adequate strength (looking at load capacity) but does have a nasty habit of not settling down quickly enough when there is vibration. You'll note that the best tripods do not provide anything other than carbon, and manufacturers like Really Right Stuff and Gitzo do not provide load capacities, because they don't want to mislead anyone. That does not necessarily mean that if a company lists a load capacity they are trying to mislead people, but I am suggesting that load capacity is not reliable when judging stability.

For lenses longer than 600mm the usual recommendation is a max leg section diameter of 39mm or greater. This is not cast in stone. I have a tripod with a 37mm top tube, and I get very good results, using good long lens technique. LeoFoto 404 has a diameter of 41mm, and the Gitzo Series 5 is 43mm. Of course the head is important, but putting a great head on an inadequate tripod makes the tripod the weakest link, and it won't lead to less vibration or better vibration attenuation.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

IT sounds like the Head is insufficient to control the rig. See if you can remove the Head Assy. and purchase a sturdier mount type w/ possibly 3/8" thread instead of the 1/4" common thread-mount. Many times the tripod is solid but the head is unstable.

A good Gimble Assy. might better serve you. There are some for $100.00 and quite capable in managing the larger telephoto lens varieties. (MOVO.COM). I use the Movo along with the Benro tripod (all-in @about $285.00)......35 lb. rated

Good Luck to you.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The "load limit" of a tripod has little or nothing to do with keeping big, heavy gear steady for a shot. Weight ratings are only a rough guide, at best.

Sure, you want a tripod with sufficient capacity for your gear. In general the legs need to be rated for about 3X the weight of your heaviest camera gear PLUS the tripod head and any other accessories that might be attached to camera and lens. The tripod head is usually rated separately and should similarly have around 3X or more capacity, than your heaviest rig.

The diameter of the tripod legs, the design of the head, quality of materials, some assembly factors and locking mechanisms probably have more to do with how well (or not) a tripod works with something heavy.

A long telephoto lens that extends puts a lot of torque on the locking mechanisms of a head too. You don't mention if you have a battery grip on your 80D, but that might actually help by adding weight to the camera for some helpful counter-balance when on the tripod. (I use battery grips on all my cameras, in part for the better balance with big lenses.)

I use Gitzo Series 3 Systematic tripods, which are carbon fiber and have an upper leg diameter around 35 or 36mm. The ones I use with heaviest gear have 3-section legs and no center column, too... for best stability. (I've fairly often used up to around 12 lb. camera and lens combos on them.) There are a number of manufacturers who make similar: RRS, Nest, Benro, etc., etc. I use a full size gimbal on one and a heavy duty ballhead with a gimbal adapter on the other, when working with the longest telephotos (100-400, 500mm and 800mm... sometimes with teleconverters added).

My older model Gitzo tripods are rated for 33 lb. and the ballheads I use are rated for 50 lb. (I think the newer Gitzo have a higher weight rating.)

Yes, a good, sturdy tripod is expensive. (I bought two of my Gitzo used, for about 1/3 the price of new!) But it also will likely last a lifetime, so will end up costing less over the long haul.

Another thing that can help is the Arca-Swiss quick release system. The way it's designed, a longer lens plate on a telephoto lens allows you to slide everything forward or backward on the corresponding mounting platform on the head of the tripod... for better equilibrium. That will put less strain on the holding mechanism of the head adjustments. This works best with IF/IZ lenses... "internal" focusing and zooming.... which don't change length during focusing and zooming... and which probably isn't the case with your lens. I bet it extends when focused or zoomed (or both), changing the balance of the lens and camera. This is a relatively minor problem, though, when using a sturdier tripod and head. My 100-400mm zoom isn't IF, but I have little problem using it even on a gimbal mount.

A gimbal MIGHT help... But you should first get a tripod that has higher weight capacity rating. A "full size" gimbal will replace the head on any tripod completely and sort of makes it "long lens ONLY". There are also gimbal adapters, which work in conjunction with a heavy duty ballhead to make it faster and easier to switch the tripod back for regular use, without need for any tools. ALL gimbals (except one big, heavy one) MUST use the Arca-Swiss quick release system... so you are committed to using that on your cameras and lenses. (Some lenses, such as the Tamron 150-600 "G2" now come with Arca-compatible dovetail built right into the tripod mounting ring foot.)

A gimbal mount won't increase weight capacity. In fact, there are ballheads and pan/tilt heads rated to handle much more weight than most gimbals. The real purpose of a gimbal mount is to allow big, heavy lenses to be smoothly and easily manipulated with a light touch, while tracking moving subjects. Usually a gimbal is used "loose", to allow panning and/or tilting movements. (Gimbal adapters only provide tilt movement... But the ballhead they're paired with provides panning movement.)

Gimbals aren't usually given weight ratings, the way tripod leg sets and heads are. Typical "full size" gimbals are probably able to handle up to about 15 lb. of camera, lens and accessories. There are some very large, heavy duty gimbals that can handle more (but would be a pain to haul around out in the field0. Gimbal adapters are a bit more limited, might be considered safe with up to about 10 lb., although I know folks who have used them with heavier without any problem. There is at least one "mini" gimbal adapter I know of that's more limited... I'd guess to around 5 or 6 lb. The ballheads used with adapters also need to be up to the task... I mention using "heavy duty" ballheads rated for around 50 lb. The least I'd use with a gimbal adapter would be a "mid-size" ballhead that are typically rated for around 30 lb.