Gitzo, but which one

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I'm considering a Gitzo GT3541LS or a GT3530LS. As far as I understand the main difference is that one has four leg sections while the other has three. I used to be strongly in favor of the leg sections but I also want to strap my tripod to my backpack (I have a Gura Gear Kiboko) and the GT3530 is far to long for that.

I presently have a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF and I'm quite satisfied with that one but I feel that I  may need (or want) to move up the food chain. I'm doing quite a lot of shooting with long but not heavy telephotos like the Minolta 400/4.5 APO with 1.4 extender.

I would really like to hear your input on the issue.

Best regards
Erik

[Peter McLennan]

Hi,

I'm considering a Gitzo GT3541LS or a GT3530LS...

I would really like to hear your input on the issue.

Best regards
Erik

Me, too.  Let's hear it, Gitzo owners.  Weight considerations? 4 vs 3 sections? center column or not? how high is high enough? which series is adequate for what lens range? is carbon fibre worth it?

[JeffKohn]

I actually prefer the 3541XLS Systematic. It's tall enough that most of the time I'm only using 3 leg sections. But the 4th section comes in handy when setting up on a hill or river bank. Fully collapsed it's fairly large, but it will just barely fit in my larger suitcase with head attached, and in my medium suitcase without the head. Although I can strap it to my backpack (Lowepro CompuPrimus AW), it's a bit awkward so I mostly use just carry it over my shoulder (often with camera mounted). For longer, more strenuous hikes where I need to keep my hands free or want to use trekking poles, I have smaller/lighter Gitzo 2-series that I usually use since it more easily straps to the backpack.

If you're looking for a single do-it-all tripod and portability is of concern, the GT3541LS might be a better choice. With the materials in these newer tripods getting stiffer and stiffer I don't know that the 4th leg section really compromises stability (and in difficult conditions such as heavy wind you can always lower the tripod a bit by using 3 sections). The Systematic models are quite a bit bulkier than the ones with columns, so might want to take that into consideration as well.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Regarding the carbon stuff I definitively like it. I'm on my second Velbon Sherpa 630. Carbon fibre feels solid. It doesn't flex like aluminium. The Sherpa is lightweight (around 1.4 kg) and not really expensive (less than half of the price of the Gitzo's). I don't know if the Gitzo is worth the price, and that is part of the reason I am asking.

Best regards
Erik

Me, too.  Let's hear it, Gitzo owners.  Weight considerations? 4 vs 3 sections? center column or not? how high is high enough? which series is adequate for what lens range? is carbon fibre worth it?

[ErikKaffehr]

Thanks for good advice!

Best regards
Erik

I actually prefer the 3541XLS Systematic. It's tall enough that most of the time I'm only using 3 leg sections. But the 4th section comes in handy when setting up on a hill or river bank. Fully collapsed it's fairly large, but it will just barely fit in my larger suitcase with head attached, and in my medium suitcase without the head. Although I can strap it to my backpack (Lowepro CompuPrimus AW), it's a bit awkward so I mostly use just carry it over my shoulder (often with camera mounted). For longer, more strenuous hikes where I need to keep my hands free or want to use trekking poles, I have smaller/lighter Gitzo 2-series that I usually use since it more easily straps to the backpack.

If you're looking for a single do-it-all tripod and portability is of concern, the GT3541LS might be a better choice. With the materials in these newer tripods getting stiffer and stiffer I don't know that the 4th leg section really compromises stability (and in difficult conditions such as heavy wind you can always lower the tripod a bit by using 3 sections). The Systematic models are quite a bit bulkier than the ones with columns, so might want to take that into consideration as well.

[Jerry Clement]

I own a Gitzo GT3530LS that I purchased a year and a bit ago. I purchased the Gitzo to use along with a Jobu Black Widow gimbel head, to suport my canon 500mm f4 IS and must say that I am hooked on the Gitzo. I have had a fair number of tripods over the years and the 3530 is the best tripod that I have owned. I like to demonstrate the Gitzo by suspending my body weight (160 lbs) from the top plate with the tripod extended to about 5 feet. I cannot comment on the 3 leg version over the 4 leg version, however I gave it some thought when I purchased the tripod and I am glad that I went with the 3 leg version and do not consider the additional length a issue when I lash it to the side of my day-pack considering how light this tripod is. Either way, its a great tripod.

[KenS]

I've got several aluminum tripods and have thought about purchasing a carbon fiber or wood tripod for landscape photography (with a Pentax 67).
Searching the Web has provided many conflicting statements about which type and model  tripod is the best.  I've really found no experimental tests which I consider convincing.  What I've done in the past has involved photographing USAF lens test charts (center and corners captured in each frame), and comparing them under the following conditions:
Tripod model, tripod head, shutter speed, lens (focal length), MLU, leg extension and angle, suspension of weights (e.g. camera bag) or bean gag, and ground type (solid like concrete or soft like a meadow).
Tests I've recently done with a laser attached to the lens barrel aimed at a wall (with a USAF lens test chart) 15 to 30 ft away are not accurate enough.

According to the book "Image Clarity - High Resolution Photography" by John Williams desirable tripod characteristics include: "strength, stability (related to both mass and structure), and rigidity".  In my opinion the situation is complex and involves coupling between the camera body and the tripod, dampening, rotational and translational oscillations, etc.  Information which is not so easy to come by let alone evaluate.

Before I spend any more money  ($500 to $700 Gitzo or Induro Carbon Fiber for medium format gear)  I need to be convinced.  Saving a few pounds of weight in the hope (or hype, not proof) that a particular tripod is better than what I've got makes no sense to me.
 
Does anyone know of any rigorous comparisons?

If not, it seems I will need to go the rental route, use the Norman Koren lens test  (Imatest) system, and come to my own conclusions.

Ken

[dchew]

I actually prefer the 3541XLS Systematic. It's tall enough that most of the time I'm only using 3 leg sections. But the 4th section comes in handy when setting up on a hill or river bank. Fully collapsed it's fairly large, but it will just barely fit in my larger suitcase with head attached, and in my medium suitcase without the head. Although I can strap it to my backpack (Lowepro CompuPrimus AW), it's a bit awkward so I mostly use just carry it over my shoulder (often with camera mounted). For longer, more strenuous hikes where I need to keep my hands free or want to use trekking poles, I have smaller/lighter Gitzo 2-series that I usually use since it more easily straps to the backpack.

If you're looking for a single do-it-all tripod and portability is of concern, the GT3541LS might be a better choice. With the materials in these newer tripods getting stiffer and stiffer I don't know that the 4th leg section really compromises stability (and in difficult conditions such as heavy wind you can always lower the tripod a bit by using 3 sections). The Systematic models are quite a bit bulkier than the ones with columns, so might want to take that into consideration as well.

I also use the 3541XLS. The only downside of the systematic is macro because it's a bit difficult to adjust height in small increments.  Besides that, it is a wonderful tripod. If you shoot a lot of macro, you could buy the short column.

On hills it’s wonderful.  A 5 foot tripod quickly becomes a 3-1/2 foot tripod on the side of a hill.  This thing can still go up to eye level even on steep slopes (although the legs can take up quite a radius of real estate)!  

Dave Chew

[Paul Sumi]

I've got the older Gitzo 1348, but having 4 leg sections is a definite advantage on slopes, rock fields, in water, etc.  The taller tripod (65") also means I don't need a center column, which enhances stability.

Paul

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I had used a Manfrotto 55 aluminium tripod with the biggest 3D head with my Pentax 67 (and 300mm lens with extender) always having problems with shake from shutter on that combo (even with MLU). With the Velbon Sherpa (630 CF) I had no problems. IMHO the weakest link matters most and that is probably the top assembly and the center column, this is part of my interest for the "Systematic" series. A problem with CF tripods is of course that they need steady ground, and soil is often quite soft.

In short I really like CF.

Erik

I've got several aluminum tripods and have thought about purchasing a carbon fiber or wood tripod for landscape photography (with a Pentax 67).
Searching the Web has provided many conflicting statements about which type and model  tripod is the best.  I've really found no experimental tests which I consider convincing.  What I've done in the past has involved photographing USAF lens test charts (center and corners captured in each frame), and comparing them under the following conditions:
Tripod model, tripod head, shutter speed, lens (focal length), MLU, leg extension and angle, suspension of weights (e.g. camera bag) or bean gag, and ground type (solid like concrete or soft like a meadow).
Tests I've recently done with a laser attached to the lens barrel aimed at a wall (with a USAF lens test chart) 15 to 30 ft away are not accurate enough.

According to the book "Image Clarity - High Resolution Photography" by John Williams desirable tripod characteristics include: "strength, stability (related to both mass and structure), and rigidity".  In my opinion the situation is complex and involves coupling between the camera body and the tripod, dampening, rotational and translational oscillations, etc.  Information which is not so easy to come by let alone evaluate.

Before I spend any more money  ($500 to $700 Gitzo or Induro Carbon Fiber for medium format gear)  I need to be convinced.  Saving a few pounds of weight in the hope (or hype, not proof) that a particular tripod is better than what I've got makes no sense to me.
 
Does anyone know of any rigorous comparisons?

If not, it seems I will need to go the rental route, use the Norman Koren lens test  (Imatest) system, and come to my own conclusions.

Ken

[KenS]

Hi,

I had used a Manfrotto 55 aluminium tripod with the biggest 3D head with my Pentax 67 (and 300mm lens with extender) always having problems with shake from shutter on that combo (even with MLU). With the Velbon Sherpa (630 CF) I had no problems. IMHO the weakest link matters most and that is probably the top assembly and the center column, this is part of my interest for the "Systematic" series. A problem with CF tripods is of course that they need steady ground, and soil is often quite soft.

In short I really like CF.

Erik

Erik,

Is the Velbon Sherpa the same (or perhaps an older version) of the Velbon El Carmagne 630 CF?  Places like BH Photo don't seem to list that model 'Sherpa'.  Which head did you use with the 630F that provided Pentax stability, at least on solid ground.

Thanks for the info,
Ken

[David Sutton]

Erik,

Is the Velbon Sherpa the same (or perhaps an older version) of the Velbon El Carmagne 630 CF?  Places like BH Photo don't seem to list that model 'Sherpa'.  Which head did you use with the 630F that provided Pentax stability, at least on solid ground.

Thanks for the info,
Ken

The Velbon have different names in different parts of the world, so you are probably right. I have a Velbon Sherpa pro, bought in the UK, carbon fibre with the twist lock legs. I keep thinking about upgrading too but haven't seen much that's both as light and strong. I still feel it is a little light weight for some jobs, but having said that, I've removed the centre column and screwed in a hook under the head, and the other day hung my backpack from it and it became absolutely rock solid. Unbelievable difference even in a breeze.
BTW, it's fitted with a Markins Q-Ball Q3 Emille head and RRS quick release clamp which works fine for a 40D with 400mm f5.6.

[drew]

I have the Gitzo 3541 Systematic and the 2540LVL, having previously had a MKI 1349 and a MKII 1325. There are a number of significant improvements in these tripods over the older versions. They are lighter, feel more rigid and are (even) better finished, but by far the biggest improvement is in the leg locks. With older models, the sections are floating, so they have to be held while locking the locks. Unless you follow a regimen for locking/unlocking, this means that you will tend to overtighten to lock, which leads to frustration with tight locks and premature wear. Because the sections are no longer floating the locks have been transformed and the tripods are so much more user friendly.
Gitzo have done a bit of a sleight of hand with the marketing as the previous models were all 'systematic' i.e. they all took the accessories such as the very useful 1321 levelling base. Now you must buy a systematic version if you want this facility. The 2500 series does not have a systematic version, but the 2540LVL has a very nice levelling column built into it. In fact the 2540LVL is by far the nicest tripod I have owned. It is very light and compact and extremely easy to use and also rigid.
Are Gitzo expensive? Yep, absolutely, but then they are the market leaders with good reason. Do you need to test tripods with charts and laser pointers and so on? Well, if you have plenty of time on your hands. The very fact you are using a tripod at all will almost guarantee that you will get 95% of the photographic goodness that comes with it (and yes that is stat I have pulled out of thin air).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Yes Sherpa and El Carmagne is the same tripod. I originally had a 3D had from Velbon which worked quite well than I added QR plates from Manfrotto which were less functional. After that I went to the Acratech head which is fine except for the QR. Problem is not the QR itself but that I frequently use the release knob instead of the one for panning by misstake. So I wanted a lever type QR, so I bought a RRS BH40 which is the one I'm using.

Unfortunately I'm not really using my Pentax 67 any more because now I'm all digital.

Regarding the Manfrotto 55 I felt that the main problem was the extension column which is flexing little but the legs may also have a little play.

Best regards
Erik

Erik,

Is the Velbon Sherpa the same (or perhaps an older version) of the Velbon El Carmagne 630 CF?  Places like BH Photo don't seem to list that model 'Sherpa'.  Which head did you use with the 630F that provided Pentax stability, at least on solid ground.

Thanks for the info,
Ken

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Thanks for input. I finally decided for the GT3541LS. I'll report back when it arrives.

Best regards
Erik

Hi,

I'm considering a Gitzo GT3541LS or a GT3530LS. As far as I understand the main difference is that one has four leg sections while the other has three. I used to be strongly in favor of the leg sections but I also want to strap my tripod to my backpack (I have a Gura Gear Kiboko) and the GT3530 is far to long for that.

I presently have a Velbon Sherpa Pro 630CF and I'm quite satisfied with that one but I feel that I  may need (or want) to move up the food chain. I'm doing quite a lot of shooting with long but not heavy telephotos like the Minolta 400/4.5 APO with 1.4 extender.

I would really like to hear your input on the issue.

Best regards
Erik

[Peter McLennan]

Great thread, guys.  Thanks for the input.  3541 purchase imminent.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

I had my GT3541LS a few days.

Positives:
Less play, sag, flexing with extreme telephoto (playing around with a Celestron C90 Mak catadioptric spotting scope).
Very lightweight, actually: GT2541LS + Acratech weight just 65 grams more than GT Velbon Sherpa Pro 630 + BH 40.

Negatives:
Top plate interferes with locking lever on RRS BH40 ball head.

Just some more info. I'm a pretty short kind of person around 162 cm so I can do without a lot of extension.

Hi,

Thanks for input. I finally decided for the GT3541LS. I'll report back when it arrives.

Best regards
Erik

[DaveCurtis]

Hi!

I had my GT3541LS a few days.

Negatives:
Top plate interferes with locking lever on RRS BH40 ball head.

Just some more info. I'm a pretty short kind of person around 162 cm so I can do without a lot of extension.

The larger top plate on the series 3 are better matched with the RRS BH55.  Time to get a BH55  

[akclimber]

Hi!

I had my GT3541LS a few days.

Positives:
Less play, sag, flexing with extreme telephoto (playing around with a Celestron C90 Mak catadioptric spotting scope).
Very lightweight, actually: GT2541LS + Acratech weight just 65 grams more than GT Velbon Sherpa Pro 630 + BH 40.

Negatives:
Top plate interferes with locking lever on RRS BH40 ball head.

Just some more info. I'm a pretty short kind of person around 162 cm so I can do without a lot of extension.

Thanks for the update Eric.  As I'm considering this very same combo for a light weight, hiking and travel rig (currently use a BH55 and heavy aluminum Gitzo 1345), I wonder if you can expand on how the top plate interferes with the BH40's locking lever?  Do you mean that the top plate interferes with the clamp's quick release lever when the clamp is in a vertical position or that the top plate somehow interferes with the ballhead's locking lever?

Cheers!

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi!

The top plate interferes with the ball heads locking lever, it's archeted so I can live with that. Just checked, the QR level kan also interfere, no problem for me because I use L-plates (which I higly recommend). I'll go on vacation for four weeks, well right now ;-) so I may not respond for a week or so!

Bye
Erik

Thanks for the update Eric.  As I'm considering this very same combo for a light weight, hiking and travel rig (currently use a BH55 and heavy aluminum Gitzo 1345), I wonder if you can expand on how the top plate interferes with the BH40's locking lever?  Do you mean that the top plate interferes with the clamp's quick release lever when the clamp is in a vertical position or that the top plate somehow interferes with the ballhead's locking lever?

Cheers!