Three or four section Gitzo?

<p>I have an old Gitzo "reporter" tripod with four sections and without the newer Anti Leg Rotating System and I always thought it was a bit of a hassle to work quickly with this tripod. It also lacks the "Power Disc" with locking screws. This is a fairly small tripod, only about 50cm (19,7 inches) long.<br /><br />Anyway, I am about to buy a new carbon fibre Gitzo and am thinking about if I should get the four section GT3541 or the three section GT3531? The three section GT3531 is 66cm (26 inches), which is 11 cm longer (4,3 inches) than the GT3541, but it would be nice to have only three sections. However, the 55cm (21,6 inches) GT3541 might be a nicer size to carry around?<br /><br />What do you think are the pros and cons with three vs. four sections? Are the three section tripods very much more clumsy to carry around? Are the advantages with three sections worth the bigger size?</p>

<p>I have one of each Gitzo CF 1227 and 1228, the three section for non-hiking work and the four section for backpacking. The three section seems more stable as the lower leg is larger and is a little easier to use in the field. The four section compacts more for backpacks and I usually only use the first three sections. I wouldn't hesitate to carry the three section in a backpack even with the larger size because it's slightly lighter. Not much help but both will work.</p>

<p>I've thought about this every time I've bought a tripod and have never bought a three section. I use a CF G-1228 from way back and the choice then was between a G-1227 or 1228. It took me two months and many store visits before I made up my mind. I couldn't really discriminate between them with respect to rigidity etc and I eventually went with the more portable G-1228.</p>

<p>Recently I bought a 1541T for travel and the specs of that tripod easily exceed the 1228, it can take more than twice the load and is half the weight. It has the 6X CF and the anti-rotate legs and looks like a wimp beside the 1228, but it's incredibly rigid and sturdy. I'm about to retire the 1228 to backup status and get a 3541LS systematic having once again gone for a four section. </p>

<p>Most of the opinion on forums like Nikonians figure that the performance of the 6X CF is just so good that you don't really need a three section for most applications. Actually a surprising number of people use the 3541LS as a three section and only use the bottom section when absolutely necessary. They say that especially in the wind that's an incredibly sturdy configuration. These 6X CF tripods are really rigid, and while I originally leaned to the 3531 my experience with the new 1541T leads me to believe that the 3541LS is more suitable for me, and is also more portable.</p>

<p>I have a 1541T and a 2541, both 4 section pods. I will think that the smaller travel size is a far bigger advantage for me than a very small (I have never seen it in real world photos) increase in stability and strength</p>

<p>The four section GT-3541 is stiff enough for anything I put on it, including video with a 600mm (equivalent) lens. The smallest leg sections are nearly 1" in diameter. I have not found any significant difference in stiffness compared to the GT-3531. When you remove the head, it fits easily into a 24" suitcase for travel. The 3-section is 4" longer when folded, so the legs must be disassembled to fit in a suitcase. Make sure you get the GT-3541LS (Systematic) model.</p>

<p>For those who want a lighter tripod (perhaps a second choice), the GT-2541 is much stiffer than the aluminum version, and would probably work well in the field. The aluminum version is too willowy to handle lenses longer than 200mm except in still air.</p>

<p>Why do many people seem to prefer the "L"ong and "S"systematic versions? Isn't it great to have a center column? I use it a lot, not all the way up, but just for minor adjustments. I think I really want a center column...</p>

<p>The "L" version is 58" tall without a column, whereas the non-L version is 52", including 2" for the nut and column support. I don't often use the height, but it's there when I do.</p>

<p>You can add a column to the "Systematic" tripod at any time, but you can't remove the column assembly (just the column itself) from the non-S version. For maximum stability, most people prefer to use a flat plate or leveling platform instead of a column. The only time I use a column is for portraits, when I have a level floor (leveling not required) and need to make fine adjustments to the height without making the client wait.</p>

<p>Columns diminish the stability of the tripod. Gitzo columns don't wobble, but they do create a lever arm which makes the tripod more susceptible to vibrations and wind. The nut assembly alone is 2" tall - twice as tall as a leveling head.</p>

<p>For a really heavy camera (or for fine adjustments), you can add a geared column to a Systematic tripod. The non-Systematic tripods have only a rapid column option.</p>

<p>A Gitzo 3541 is an expensive tripod, but one which will last for a very long time. A Systematic tripod is adaptable as your needs evolve (and pocketbook recovers).</p>

<p>What Edward said. The 3541LS is a system tripod and you can add components like a center column if you need them. It comes without one though for maximum rigidity, something that's immediately apparent when you see one. Look at the thickness/mass of the 3541LS base in the pic below. </p><div></div>

<p>Hmm, I might be very stubborn here, but I am very sceptical about getting a systematic. I understand that there is slightly better stability, but I can't really imagine not using a column for small adjustments. Maybe I should have a few photo outings with my old tripod and not use the column and see how I do? :)<br /><br />Is the systematic with a colum attached more stable and less susceptible to wind than the GT3541(L) with the non-removable column? If I decide I always want a column, should I still get the systematic? The column also costs money...<br /><br />The L-version of the GT3541 does take the viewfinder almost all the way up to my eye with the column down, but to be honest, do you need that? I hardly even use the whole length of the legs. The "L" is also 5cm longer when down and slightly heavier.<br /><br />Is the "L" version as stable as the non-"L"? To me, longer legs sounds like it would be less stable..?!<br /><br />I'm still very open and have not decided, I would appreciate more comments :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>... I am very sceptical about getting a systematic. I understand that there is slightly better stability, but I can't really imagine not using a column for small adjustments.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>With the systematic you can add the regular "rapid" column or if you need very precise movement you can add the geared column, so you have two choices.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe I should have a few photo outings with my old tripod and not use the column and see how I do? :)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should... :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is the systematic with a colum attached more stable and less susceptible to wind than the GT3541(L) with the non-removable column? If I decide I always want a column, should I still get the systematic? The column also costs money...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I can't answer this but I'll theorize that a systematic might always be more stable because of the thickness of the base. I've seen a comparison photo on a forum somewhere (Nikonians?) and the difference is large.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is the "L" version as stable as the non-"L"? To me, longer legs sounds like it would be less stable..?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can't answer this because these are different tripods. But given two otherwise identical tripods the one with shorter legs is always going to be more stable. That's why people with a preference for three section legs will buy a four section model but only use the bottom section in an emergency. They prefer an extra leg section to a column. Gitzo makes a 3541XLS model to cover this requirement.</p>

<p>I rarely use the bottom section of my GT-3540LS because I can't see through the viewfinder very well with the tripod fully extended (I'm 5'10"). When I use a 3-section tripod, I have to leave one section partly collapsed, which means I have to adjust the leg length each time I open it. It just takes a few seconds, but seconds add up.</p>

<p>Shorter tripods are not necessarily more stable. It depends on the wind, the load, the leg circle and the stiffness of the legs. The legs of a 3540 are rigid at any height, but if you have a long lens the tripod can get tippy if you only extend the legs half way or less. The legs can be set to any of three angles, and the middle notch is stable even in a 30 mph wind (Chicago).</p>

<p>You can save about $50 if you buy an aluminum column rather than the CF version. It fits (it's what I use) perfectly, and is only a few ounces heavier. I have a stub column too (about 3" long), which lets me get down to ground level with the legs spread flat.</p>