Height of G1548 with only 3 sections extended?

[jemini_joseph]

I guess this is a simple question. Can anybody tell me what's the

height of G1548 with only 3 sections extended? I found I need only

52" for the tripod and rest of the height I'll get it with the head

and lense's tripod mount. <br><br>

Another question is about the size of G1548. I've almost decided to

buy 1548. But just curious if it's too large. I have a 1340 tripod

now and height and weight are OK. Is there anybody who has used both?

So is there a huge difference in size? I know the weight is same.

<br><br>

Third and last question. Is that possible to remove the last (lowest)

section of the Gitzo tripods? <br>

Thanks in advance

<br><br><a href="http://www.color-pictures.com" target="w-2">Color-

pictures.com</a>

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi,

 

If no answers should try in the camera equipment forum!!!

[Rod Sorensen]

44 inches to the top of the platform with only 3 sections extended.

Compared to my 1348, I would estimate the diameter of the legs to be about

25-30% greater.

I don't think it is possible to remove one of the leg sections and I certainly

wouldn't recommend it.

Too large??? Depends what you use it for.

I'm not sure you are going to get any more answers that will help you with this.

You'll have to consider your needs, make a decision and then not worry about

it. It will never be perfect.

[mlfly]

I have the 1548 now and had a 340 for years and years and am a big fan of the 340. The 1548 actually folds up small enough and fits in my suitcase. It also will handle a 600 with the 1.4x where the 340 comes up short with the extender (works fine with the 600 only). Regarding the lowest leg section, it helps get you some extra height if needed - I keep it extended about 8" or so. If you don't have a 600 and use it with the extender, you can get by with less tripod, IMO. Having said that, I wouldn't sell mine.

 

Mike

[jemini_joseph]

Thanks Cham, Rod and Mike.<br>

It seems this is a silly question. I'll be using my 500mm with 1.4X and 2X teleconverters. I'm happy with 340 with lens alone. <br>

From what Rod said the height of the lower column is around 14"? From the pictures I thought the lower column is the shortest and I could keep it collapsed all the time and still get the height I want. (52")<br><br>

Mike, I'm concerned only about long tele photography. I won't worry about carrying this tripod for general stuff. I guess I'm in the right direction. I'm going to order it today. <br>

Thanks again

[Rod Sorensen]

Jemini,

No, you can't get 52 inches with the bottom leg section fully collapsed. Here's how I did the test. I took my 1548, fully extended the top two leg sections, set it up, got out a tape measure and measured. It is truly 44 inches to the top of the platform - not an estimate, a fact.

[jemini_joseph]

Doug,<br>

Thanks a lot for the time and effort. It may be kind of stupid to spend time on talking this because I've already ordered the tripod last night. It was a tough decision for an amateur photographer to spend 700 dollars on a tripod. I've learned big time that tripod is equally important as lens in bird photography. That's why I end up spending it. Besides if I want to sell it in eBay I might lose 100 dollars maximum. <br><br>

I was thinking this way. Since the total height of 1548 is 58" and folded length is 23", the bottom most section would be around 8-10 inches. From picture the bottom leg is around half the height of top most leg. It's reasonable to think that the top section around 20". One thing I didn't consider was the loss of height due to elevation. Anyway it's not worth spending time on it. Don't worry about it. I'll know it withing couple of days.:) Thanks again.

[Rod Sorensen]

The specifics - each leg section is about 16.5-17 inches. The bottom one is actually the longest. The total height of the legs then is about 66 or 67 inches, translating to a tripod height of about 58 inches when you open up the legs. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? :-)

[jemini_joseph]

"Remember the Pythagorean theorem? :-)" <br>

I forgot that for a while even though I'm a maths major. :) <br>

I realized that the height of legs are more than the height of the tripod. The picture mislead me too. I'll see it on Thursday. Curious to try how much of a difference this will make compared to 340.

I might be able to get a field experience on 17-18 weekend with eagle watching in Wisconsin.

[jemini_joseph]

I've got the tripod last night<br>

Wow!!. This is big. Big and stable. Even at 1000mm I can see the lens

is dead. I guess it can even absorb the vibration causes by MLU. That means I should be able to get sharp pictues in the lowest shutter speed. I'm very happy with it. The leg sections are really thick. I guess you will get much more attention of people with this tripod. Anyway 500mm lens itself is good enough to draw people's attention. So that doesn't matter. <br>

My theory about the height was wrong. The images on gitzo web site is not real. They are computer generated pictures. Thanks again guys..