camera body to lens weight ratio

[jann1033]

any ideas here? ie my rebel xt, haven't ever seen any limits on what you can attach but would one of the 4 lb lens be to much iyo?( not thinking that one you needed a crane to lift, just a normal lens )know you would normally use a tripod/tripod ring except how about the is versions, would they still be hand held? just seems like a lot to carry and hold

 

[boBQuincy]

My guess is at some point it becomes an issue of the lens weighing more than the camera, so the maximum weight on the mount would be the camera's weight (which isn't all that much, at just over 1 lb).
At that point we would definitely want to use a tripod mount on the lens and carry the camera around by the lens (which I often do anyway).

It does get to be a lot to carry and hold, especially after a long WDW day. A monopod helps a lot. How we suffer for our art...

 

[mabas9395]

I think there are two separate issues when it comes to lens weight. The first is how much can weight can you hold before the user introduces camera shake? There is no one answer here since it involves too many variables, including shutter speed, IS or not and user strength/skill.

The other issue is how much weight can the camera mount hold before it starts to do some damage? This is why you see longer lenses with tripod mounts. The weight of the unsupported lens puts pressure on the mount so the lens is mounted on the tripod instead and the body is left hanging.

This is a good example: http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/42362624

I haven't seen any actual specs posted but that would be interesting to know. I do know that any lens I will ever consider buying will not be too heavy for the mount, but will probably be too heavy for me for long periods.

 

[jann1033]

My guess is at some point it becomes an issue of the lens weighing more than the camera, so the maximum weight on the mount would be the camera's weight (which isn't all that much, at just over 1 lb).
At that point we would definitely want to use a tripod mount on the lens and carry the camera around by the lens (which I often do anyway).

It does get to be a lot to carry and hold, especially after a long WDW day. A monopod helps a lot. How we suffer for our art...

this was what i was thinking and with a tripod/tripod mount wouldn't really matter but if you are handholding it the weight would be more on the camera it would seem or at least equal..one lens i looked at ( and thought it was to heavy to carry around) was 4 lbs which made wonder if it would even be safe to use on my rebel with plastic body although the actual mount is metal

 

[gruZ]

When I'm using a heavier lens, I tend to hold the entire "rig" by the lens and not the camera body. This takes care of the weight of the lens, and also provides better balance when I'm not using a tripod. Even when not taking a picture, and moving with the camera on the strap, I will hold the rig by the lens.

As an aside and not to hi-jack the thread - why is it I whenever I see someone with an expensive camera, they almost never are wearing the strap, but instead let it dangle from the camera? Can't quite figure that one out...

 

[jann1033]

yikes i am a nervous wreck unless the strap is around my neck,
course one of these 4 lbers would probably break my neck but that's another topic

 

[boBQuincy]

Like Gruz, I tend to hold the lens instead of the camera, especially with longer lenses. The most steady method is considered to be: left hand under the lens, right hand holding the camera grip. Neither should be held too tightly as that increases vibration (yeah, like I'm gonna' hold a $1200 lens loosely).

It is a very rare occasion when I have the strap around my neck, it is almost always wrapped around my left wrist so the camera will (hopefully) stop before it hits the ground.