Test Results
The stiffness and damping seen here are both quite poor, but about what can be expected from a tripod with the smaller diameter leg tubing seen here. Typically we see such narrow tubing on ultralight tripods. Because of the extra weight in the rest of the tripod, the Leo tests quite poorly on a height and weight adjusted basis. The Leo is the second worst scoring tripod that I have ever tested for this site.
| Yaw Stiffness | 193.7 +/- 1.0 Nm/rad |
| Yaw Damping | 0.12 +/- 0.012 Js/rad |
| Pitch Stiffness | 781.7 +/- 2.4 Nm/rad |
| Pitch Damping | 0.381 +/- 0.038 Js/rad |
The stiffness and damping data are the averages of 10 trials for each measurement. The reported error is the standard error, except in the case of the damping data. I have set the error in the damping at 10% as the standard error metric does not appropriately capture the error in fitting to the data. All of the reported specifications are measured, with the exception of the weight rating. The tripod is measured at full height, with the center column (if applicable) down.
Recommended Gear Limit
The exact gear limit is highly dependent on the external conditions such as wind, and technique, such as the use of a cable release. Under perfectly still conditions using perfect technique, sharp images can be obtained using any tripod. Developing a consistent and broadly applicable set of guidelines for what kind of gear a given tripod can reasonably support is still a work in progress on this site.
Example Test Data
The following data is example raw data from the stiffness and damping measurements. The relevant information with regards to the tripod performance is entirely contained within the stiffness and damping figures presented above. The plots below are solely present so that the tested stiffness and damping figures are believed. Each plot and the corresponding Fourier frequency space plot correspond to one of the ten trials done on each axis to obtain the test results. For a more in depth discussion on the meaning of these graphs, see the methodology section and the “understanding the test results” page.
Very clean data set. Rather poor stiffness and damping.
Again, very clean data set. The damping is better here, likely due to having a little bit of play from multiple center column sections. Stiffness is still poor.