Gitzo carbon fiber tripods

[bliorg]

In reference to the earlier comment about carbon tripods being safer

around lightning than metal ones: Don't be too comfortable. Carbon

does NOT act as an insulator; it very freely conducts electricity.

Which is one reason why it is used in spark plug wires...

[robert_landry]

I believe everyone's comments regarding Gitzo's carbon fiber tripods to be the valid, but I have a comment of my own to make regarding those who use the heavy 600mm�s with them. First of all, I really can't understand the point of using a 600mm f/4, a heavy camera body like the F5 or EOS 1N, and large Arca B1 or B1G on a cabon fiber tripod. So basically all you 600 shooters are saying that you can really tell the difference in weight between a 30lb rig and a 26lb rig.(Difference between the 410 rig and the 1348 rig.) I guess that means that because you saved four pounds you can now hike with that slung over your shoulders for miles on end. The idea of saving weight is to save weight on all pieces of equipment so you can go further from the car. This would be analogous to a hiker buying the best set of titanium pots to save weight and then loading his pack with 10 cans of chunky soup, an 8 person cabin tent and a microwave oven. In the end the weight he saved on those expensive pots didn't amount to a pile of shit. I can see the point of the carbon tripods if a person was to go hiking and needed the lightest gear possible, which means taking a lighter camera body, a smaller lens; eliminating weight in all areas. Yes, I went down to my local camera store and put my 600mm f/4 and Nikon F5 and B1G atop the 1348; I honestly couldn�t feel that much difference between my 410. To make a long story short, I would recommend buying a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod if you plan to do backpacking or hiking and are going to couple it with a lightweight camera set-up, but I would definitely not recommend spending the way "over-priced" price to lug around your 600mm bird set-up. For those of you with the 500mm f/4 lenses, a carbon fiber tripod would make more sense because you already have the luxury of a lighter setup, and shaving an additional 4 pounds will make it all that much sweeter. Just my two cents worth.

[frolov]

[<em>slight edit here as I removed an earlier post from the thread</em>]... It

is about usability in the field. Some of us actually <I>walk</I> with

their tripods. And the weight always adds, but never substracts... When

you backpack, every saved pound counts, <I>especially</I> if your load

is already heavy. It could be the difference between making over the

mountain pass in the daylight and dropping before reaching the top. Try

it yourself sometimes, if you do not believe me.

 

<P>Anyway, I think carbon fibre tripods are superior to metal ones in

all respects but cost and ruggedness. When the significant increase of

tonnage of my glass this winter send me searching for a bigger tripod,

I ended up getting carbon fibre Gitzo. Reported ungluing problems

worried me some, but I decided to take my chances. Light weight and

stability are too good a bait to ignore. If it falls apart, I'll let

you guys know.

[frolov]

Actually, since we are talking about ungluing problems, I'll pass on

a rumor I heard, originating from Canadian Gitzo distributor in

Toronto. Apparently, they said that Gitzo carbon fibre tripods coming

into Canadian market are "winterized", and are not susceptible to

falling apart in extreme cold (we easily get minus thirty Celsius here

up north; folks talking about zero being cold make me laugh...).

Something to do with glue used and how the joint are threaded... Folks

at McBain camera (pro shop here in Alberta, some really serious guys

work there, pro photogs who got tired shooting full-time) told me that

out of about a dozen Gitzo CF they sold, none were returned. So there

might be something in the rumor. OTOH, this is all complete hearsay.

Time will tell if my tripod is faulty...

[bobatkins]

Robert makes the point about small weight savings not being very

important, but he is using not only a 600/4, but also an F5 (heavy)

and a B1G (heavy), so for him, maybe a CF tripod makes no sense. He'd

"only" save 4 lbs going from a 410 to a 1325, but he could shave off

another couple of pounds using a lighter camera and a B1 head. It

all adds up if you have to carry it, and the further you have to

carry it, the heavier it gets. If you take the viewpoint that small

amounts of weight really don't matter that much, you'll end up with

a pack weighting 100 lbs instead of 60 lbs, because each of the 40

items in the pack is "only" 1lb heavier than it need be!

 

<p>

The other thing is that most people don't <em>only</em> shoot with

a 600/4. Sometimes they use a 300/2.8, or a 300/4, or a 70-200/2.8,

or even a 24mm lens! Yes, you can carry two tripods I guess, but

that just increases the amount (and weight) of stuff you have to lug on and off

the plane, in and out of the car, even if you only carry one of

them into the field with you. Otherwise you end up lugging the 8.5lb 410 (with the 3lb head)

up the mountain to get those 24mm wideangle shots!

<p>

I'm not knocking heavy tripods, I have a 12.5 lb Bogen 3051, but

when I use it I only have to carry it as far as the car, then

lift it out of the trunk to shoot. I wouldn't take it on a trip

unless I was driving and I wouldn't carry it far in the field.

[ShunCheung]

Ever heard the story that some serious hiker saws off the handle of a tooth brush to save an ounce or so? To some people, every bit of weight counts. The four-pound difference between a Gitzo 1348 and a 410 is pretty significant. Keep in mind that Gitzo rates the 1348 (and other 13xx tripods) to support 26.5 pounds while the 410 at 26 pounds, which is the maximum among all 400 series aluminum tripods. The 13xx carbon fiber are very solid while light-weight tripods.

[bobatkins]

Another point which we sometimes forget is that nature photographers

come in all shapes and sizes. I know some 6ft 6in, 300lb photographers who think a 50 lb load is nothing, while there are 5ft 2in, 125lb

photographers who have difficulty lifting a 600/4 up onto a tripod.

What's a negligable extra load to one might be a significant problem

to the other!

[robert_landry]

Yes, maybe 4lbs is significant, but then again so is the $460 price difference. For $460 dollars I�ll endure an extra 4lbs., and spend my money on film or a flight somewhere, or towards a new lens for my 4x5, not on a CF pod that is WAY overpriced for what it is, especially when you hear about the things coming unglued from time to time. I guess maybe I�m only 25 and weight doesn�t seem to bother me as much as some people. Yes, I agree that when hiking for long distances weight does add up. I�ve done plenty of hiking in the Sierra Nevada mountains, so I can attest to that. But on those hikes I did not bring along my 600mm lens or my 410, and I don�t imagine anyone else would have either. A 600mm is a "don�t go too far from the car" kinda lens, no matter what it�s mounted on; it�s heavy any way you look at it. Maybe a mile or two at the most, but I think that�s about the limit for most people. So for me, 4lbs over a few miles with frequent stops at a place like the Anhinga trail doesn�t make too much of a difference. As far as switching to an Arca B1, not an option for me, I have one but I don�t "feel" it�s adequate for the 600mm.

[ShunCheung]

Once again, photography involves a lot of compromises and what to buy is up to each individuals. Weight happens to be very important to me, and that is why I don't own any 600mm/f4 lens (the cost is an issue as well) and I sure am glad that my G1325 only weights 4 lbs.

 

Are there any more confirmation of this "CF tripods becoming unglued" rumor? A few months ago my wife and I brought two CF tripods to, among all places, Antarctica and had absolutely no problems in sub-freezing temperature. Our G1228 is an early version. If that has no problems, the chance is that the later productions also have no such "unglue" problem.

[paul_wilson2]

Shun, the "coming unglued" rumors are true. It happened to my 1228 which I purchased shortly after they were introduced. Gitzo replaced it no questions asked.

 

The tripod did last a couple of years before the problem occured so it's a good thing Gitzos have a lifetime warranty.

[ShunCheung]

Paul, sorry that I didn't quite express myself properly. Yes, I understand that some carbon-fiber Gitzos have unglued, but I wonder how wide spread the problem really is. My G1228 is almost three years old and it had absolutely no problems in sub-zero temperature three month ago. Of course neither did my wife's newer G1227. As a precaution, I even brought glue in our trip to Antarctica but never used it.

 

I have also read various comments from photographers in colder climates such as Canada and quite a few of them have had no problems at all. My guess is that a few early-production models had this problem which has since been corrected. (Keep in mind that the very first model in production was the G1228. For a couple of years that was the only Gitzo carbon-fiber tripod available before the 13xx series was introduced around 1997. So if any CF Gitzo has the unglue

problem, it is probably the early G1228's.)

 

It is nice to know that Gitzo is willing to exchange faulty tripods. However, if your tripod becomes unglued in some remote location and worse yet, your camera and lens get damaged as a result of the tripod malfunctioning, it would be serious problem.

[danny_weber]

Shun, I personally know four Gitzo owners who had their 1228's come unglued, one multiple times after it was repaired by Gitzo.

 

Rather than ask a new question, can one of the 1348 owners here post the height of their tripod with just the top three sections deployed? Thanks in advance.

[frolov]

With just three section extended, Gitzo 1348 stands 130cm (51") tall. Quite high already, about the same as Bogen 3021 legs can go. When you extend fourth leg section, it is very tall indeed. I am 6' tall, and it puts camera on the ballhead above my eye level. If you were a few inches shorter, you could leisurely stroll under it.

 

<P>BTW, I think I figured out a fast and easy way to extend Gitzo legs. It works just opposite from recommended sequence - I extend smallest legs first. This allows me to adjust the lock closest to me, while I hold the tripod near the head. The trick is to tighten each bigger section just a little bit tighter than the previous one (but none too tight). Than nothing locks or slips, and setting up the legs is nice and fast.

[bob_royse]

All I can add to this is that my 1548 has enabled me to switch from using a 500mm lens to a 600mm lens and really not notice a whole lot of difference in the weight I am carrying around. I also shedded 2 lbs., by switching from a Studioball to a B1. I think that the carbon fiber tripods are worth every penny.

[danny_weber]

Andrei, thanks for your response. I currently have both the 1325 and 1348 and am comparing them side-by-side to see which one to keep. The 1348 is just the right height for me without the last section, but I think that the 1325 will be my choice, mostly because I can see that the last set of leg locks on the 1348 will always be in mud, dirt or sand if I leave the lowest section fully retracted. I noticed that the collapsed length of the 1325 is actually only 2" longer than the 1348's, despite what it claims in the literature, so the difference in packing the 1348 isn't as much as I'd hoped.

[ShunCheung]

I have never compared a 1325 and a 1348 side by side. I am a bit surprised to learn that when collasped, the 1325 is only two inches longer than the 1348. So maybe the 1325 is a better choice, not to mention that it is about $150 cheaper.

 

I have compared a 1227 and a 1325 side by side. Since the 1227 has a center column which sticks out by a couple of inches, its collasped length is merely two inches shorter than that for the 1325.

 

By the way, a friend of mine's brand new 1348 has just become unglued. Apparently the problem is still around.

[stanley_mcmanus]

I think it might help if those discussing height issues of tripods might also mention their personal height. When somebody says the Gitzoid 46783 is perfect for them, I would like to know if she is a 6'4" statuesque super-model, or if he is a 5'2" dumpling. :)

[ShunCheung]

Stanley, there are other factors too. For example, the older Nikon 500mm/f4 P has a very small tripod collar. However, the new AF-S version has a much longer collar whose leg adds another three inches or so to the total height. The problem is that if you switch between a 500mm/f4 (or 600mm/f4) AF-S and a 300mm/f2.8 or f4, suddenly there is a three-inch hight difference and you need to re-adjust the three tripod legs, which is pretty inconvenient.

 

I kind of doubt that any 6'4" models are reading this forum. They usually position themselves on the other side of the camera. :-)

[ellis_vener_photography]

I spoke with a Bogen rep this past Sunday (3/14/99) and I asked him about the ungluing problem. He said that while the problem was fixed by changing adhesives about a year or so ago, the only way to make sure you had a new one was to buy one of the latest versions, the ones with the anti-twist groove in the center column.

[stanley_mcmanus]

Shun, good point about the added height of tripod collars. I guess we can also include ballheads into that added height. Still, I think that knowing a person's height would make a difference in how we view his or her's opinion of a tripod. I know that at 6'3" many of the tripods we discuss are just plain to small for me. And don't underestimate the number of women who pursue photography. They may not all be 6 foot super-models, but many are very competent photographers, and, like their male counteparts, are usually intelligent, good looking and charming.

[mark___1]

Being 6'7" myself, I am very interested in getting that extra height. I have been following the CF threads with great interest since I will probably invest in one later this year. Is the 3 vs. 4 leg sections really that big a deal? I would think 3 sections offers an advantage in stability (ie. less joints).

[ShunCheung]

Mark, I am about 6'1". With the 1325 fully extended, when I put an Arcs-Swiss B1 and then a 300mm lens (small tripod collar) attached to an F5 on it, the whole set up is about an inch or so too short for my eye level. If I use a 500mm AF-S lens, since the big tripod collar adds 3 inches, I need to shorten the tripod legs a bit.

 

At 6'7", I am afraid that Mark is out of luck with the 1325 (unless he is willing to stoop down on a regular basis). According to the Gitzo catalog, the 1348 extends about 6 inches higher than the 1325 because of the extra leg section, so that tripod may be a possibility. Unfortunately, despite of having 4 sections, the biggest carbon-fiber Gitzo the 1548 extends even a bit shorter than the 1325. Keep in mind that none of these tripods has a center column.

[danny_weber]

Stanley, I'm 65" tall. With the 1348's upper two sections fully extended, the height of either my 300/2.8 AF-S or F5 mounting plate was just right for me. The 80-200/2.8 AF-S is slightly lower, but I wouldn't adjust the legs for the difference. With the 1325, I have to extend the lower legs about 60% to get the right height, so I extend them first and just leave them that way--it fits nicely into the trunk of my car and then just requires fully extending the upper section to be at the right height. Since the 1325 is lighter, simpler, cheaper and just slightly longer than the 1348 collapsed, it made more sense for me, although someone taller may have come to a difference conclusion.

[watson___]

Hi all..

 

I am 160 pounds and set a day hiking weight limit of 15 pounds. For more serious hikes the limit is 25-30 pounds which includes the same or less camera gear. The carbon fiber tripod lets me pack 645 kit or a 4x5 with 6x12 back. I reduce the amount of gear to fit within the weight limit, and take even less if possible. Part of the calculation is to use a small lightweight magnesium head or slightly larger magnesium head as needed. With nornal creativity the photographic image can almost always be captured with the gear that is taken.

 

Cheers..

[alex_lofquist]

Helix Camera in Chicago had a special on the Gitzo 1228G, similar to the 1227G, but has 4 section legs. Their price was $397.00! in the sealed box. The Magnesium head was $115.00, though this is not as good as the Arca-Suisse, it is'nt a bad price for a light inexpensive head. Needless to say I grabbed it. There were more there at the time, but I don't know if they are available now.