Is a Gitzo G1548 overkill for my purposes?

[douglas_greenberg]

I recently asked a question about possibly upgrading from a Bogen

3221 to a Gitzo G1325 for use with my bird photography rig. The

consensus seemed to be the the G1325 would be a worthwhile upgrade.

However, the truth is that MUCH of the bird photography I do these

days involves really high magnification, i.e., I frequently am

shooting with a Nikon 500mm. f4P plus 1.4x or 2x teleconverters.

That's a lot of potential for vibration. So I'm wondering whether I

would likely get superior results with a G1548, rather than the

lighter G1325. I realize that this tripod is a couple of pounds

heavier, and that's a consideration, as well. But in terms of

performance, would I notice any real difference, or is the G1548

overkill for my situation?

 

BTW, I use an Arca-Swiss B1 with a Wimberley Sidekick.

 

I don't really often walk very long distances carrying my telephoto

rig, so the notion of how the thing feels after hiking "all day

long" is not the main issue here. My typical bird photography

session involves walking maybe a half-mile at most to where the

birds are, then setting up and being patient (hopefully). My hunch

is that the extra weight of the G1548 would be tolerable if I felt

that the extra stability thus achieved were significant.

 

Are there any of you out there who have compared these tripods for

long lens bird photography and can speak from experience? Thanks

for your patience in considering my endless questions, but you

understand that I want to buy ONE new tripod over these next few

years and want to minimize the possibility of "buyer's remorse."

[mark_chappell]

I'd be pretty sure that a 1548 would be a little more stable than a 1325, but can't tell you

in any quantitative way how much more stable it would be. Probably not a lot, but perhaps

enough to make a noticeable difference. I use a 500+2X on a 1325+Sidekick, but mine is

stabilized.

 

My $.02: if you aren't worried about he extra cost and weight, then get the 1548.

[craig_bridge]

IMO: The G1548 fully extended is definitely more stable than the G1325 fully extended; however, if you leave about 3 inches of extra overlap on each G1325 leg section, the stability difference disappears.

 

My use of a G1548 has been limited, but my impressions are that its legs are short compared to my G1410, it wasn't any more stable, the weight difference was minimal, it took extra time extending and locking legs, and its longer collapsed length wasn't a good trade off for me.

 

I base my stability opinion on a couple of years of use of a G1410 and G1325 with full Wimberley gimbal head, Kirk BH-1, and Arca-Swiss B1 with a 600 f/4 AFS lens, D1X, and 1.4x and 2x TC's and some deliberate side by side comparisons of these tripods to determine when the lighter weight setup wasn't sufficient.

 

For me, the answer was when I needed a taller setup or the full gimbal head. A full gimbal head on a G1325 with a heavy lens becomes top heavy and the concern is bumping into the setup and tipping it over.

 

For your 500mm setup, it probably comes down to working height. BEWARE: Neither the G1548 or G1325 are very tall.

[jemini_joseph]

Doug,

I've used Gitzo 320 (Aluminum) and then upgraded to 1548. I've tried 1325 from a friend of mine with 500mm+2X. I felt it had lots of vibration. I could not get any sharp image at all. That's why I went to 1548. I've tried 1325 with fully extended columns. I think if you don't have VR/IS, 1548 won't be an over kill... Good luck

[walang_pangalan]

<i>I've tried 1325 from a friend of mine with 500mm+2X. I felt it had lots of vibration.</i>

 

<p>My 1325 supports a EF 500/4 + 2x more than <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2745849&size=lg">adequentely</a>.

The referenced image was with the IS (and AF) "off". Image stacking only to improve the signal-to-noise ratio prior to sharpening; none of the 17 source images show any evidence of motion blur, even though taken at 1000mm effective focal length at 1/125'th of a second. I recall allowing 3 seconds post mirror lock up for the setup to calm down prior to opening the shutter. Not much wind that I remember.

 

<p>Under what sort of conditions are tripods to be evaluated? In a dead calm with the photographer at a distance with IR remote? Or during a hurricane after the photographer, hands a-grabbin' the camera, has finished 3 Jolt Colas and a thermos of espresso? Maybe one has to test each tripod on a personal basis.

[rob_murray]

A friend of mine shoots similar long lenses and had to go from

a 3 series gitzo to the 420? series without any center column.

A large ball head or Wimberly head is used.

[Rod Sorensen]

Let me try to confuse you a little. :-) I have a Gitzo 1348 (very similar to the 1325) which I've had for several years. It has been a great tripod. I've got a lot of sharp bird images taken with Nikon 500/4 + 1.4 and 2.0 TCs. On the other hand, there have been occasions where it still felt a little wimpy to me, especially after I added a Jobu design Black Widow (kind of like a sidekick, but better). So I purchased a 1548. I've done no scientific comparisons with it, but it has thicker legs and clearly "feels" more stable when using a long lens. I think it has added some keeper images for me. It has also made me less nervous about the balance of the thousands of dollars of gear I have sitting on top of it. So now I always use the 1548 when I'm doing long lens work fairly close to my vehicle. I suspect about 80-90% of the time the two tripods would yield equal image stability. If you want to add the additional 10%, then get the 1548. Do not count of the 1548 to be an all around tripod as it is too big for that. My general philosophy about camera support(tripods, ballheads, etc.) is that we are way too conservative about spending money compared to what we spend for camera bodies, lenses...

[klix]

Doug - a question I would have (for you and others who may have tried both) is:

 

If you're so worried about vibration that you would weigh the difference between the 1325 and 1548, then shouldn't you also consider IF there is a difference in vibration between a B1+Sidekick vs. a full gimbal head?? Just wondering...

[douglas_greenberg]

"If you're so worried about vibration that you would weigh the difference between the 1325 and 1548, then shouldn't you also consider IF there is a difference in vibration between a B1+Sidekick vs. a full gimbal head?? Just wondering..."

 

Absolutely. Is there? Anyone?

I just assumed that based on what the Wimberley folks themselves say (and my own cogitation on the issue), there would not be such a difference. But if there is, I'd like to know about it.

[mark_chappell]

Douglas: I don't know the answer to your question about vibration in the Sidekick vs. 'full'

Wimberley. I doubt if there is a major difference (althoug I'm willing to be surprised). But

consider this: both heads are intended to be used in 'unlocked' mode for smoothly

following moving subjects, which is the main purpose and benefit of a gimbal design. So

it's kind of expected that you'll mostly be keeping hands on the camera (and probably

lens) while shooting, and you'll be using fairly high shutter speeds. In that context, it

seems likely that controlling the kinds of vibrations that ruin sharpness for long-exposure

shots (especially with remote releases, or in wind) are a secondary consideration in gimbal

heads. Of course you can

lock them down to gain as much rigidity as possible, but that's not really a mode they

were optimized for.

[douglas_greenberg]

So what do you think this means in terms of one's choice of tripods? You seem to be saying that given what's going on up at "camera level," the issue of tripod-based vibrations becomes secondary. True?

 

I actually set up my camera rig today to kind of micro-examine it for sources of vibration. What I found is that with everything locked down tight, it seemed (at least) that the biggest source of potential vibration was in the mount interfaces, i.e., the connection between teleconverter and lens, and the lens-to-camera connection itself. These have just enough sloppiness and "give" that that when you tap the camera lightly that is where the vibration seems to come from. If that is the case, then only by doing something drastic like draping a beanbag over the back part of the lens could all of the vibration be eliminated. I doubt that in most situations in the field I am going to do this.

[mark_chappell]

Yes, tripods are not the source of vibration (unless you have one set up in an

earthquake), although they can help dampen them. Vibrations are induced by wind and by

stuff going on in the camera and lens

(for example, mirror slap, shutter movement). That's why for most circumstances it's

probably beneficial to keep your hands planted on the lens and camera -- this can absorb

some of these camera-induced movements. Of course, the 'hands-on' approach isn't a

good idea for a really long exposure -- of

a second or so -- because mirror slap etc. dies out fairly quickly (?? tens of milliseconds

??), and after that (assuming there isnt' any wind or ground movements) the system will be

still for most of the exposure. It's intermediate

exposure times that often cause the most problems (maybe 1/60 to 1/4 second), since

you probably WILL induce some movements if you keep your hands on the system for an

exposure that long, and there isn't enough exposure time for camera-caused vibrations to

die away.

 

Somewere on Bjorn Rorslett's site (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#rating) is

a possibly more eloquent discussion of this issue.

 

If you want extreme stability during longish exposure, use a 'pentapod' system (one of

those awkward gismos that has a couple of brackets between camera body and two of the

tripod legs, in addition to the standard tripod mount). I think Bjorn discusses this, also.

Obviously it is not compatable with following moving targets. In contrast, gimbal heads

are ideal for following action, but are not designed with long exposures in mind.

[douglas_greenberg]

I'm using this rig for bird photography, so really long exposures would be unusual in this context. However, when using teleconverters early on a cloudy morning, it becomes necessary to use shutter speeds of under 1/125 fairly often, and it's here where limiting vibration becomes really crucial. Of course, getting pictures of birds that move at all (and to me, some smaller birds almost seem themselves to "vibrate" when they apparently aren't moving at all) is extremely difficult in this kind of situation.

 

Mirror slap is always an issue. The D100 has an "anti-shock" setting that limits this problem, but of course, this means that there is a delay of several seconds between the time the shutter is depressed and the time the image is captured. If a bird is moving around at all, even moving its head back and forth, this leads to frustration. Firing a "burst" of several exposures in a row can help here, particularly since with digital I can trash the images that show the bird with its back turned to me, etc.

 

I think what may be coming out in this discussion is that it's likely that for my purposes, the difference between a G1325 and a G1548 will be marginal. Only were I to invest in a much larger, heavier lens like a 600mm. f4 would the G1548 clearly be superior.

[tom_hill1]

Douglas, you're absolutely right. I think you'll get greater mileage at reducing vibration by

using impeccable long lens technique verses investing in the larger tripod. Cheers, Tom

[ShunCheung]

Douglar, part of the problem is that the 1548 is pretty heavy. To some degree it partically defeats the purpose to use carbon fiber in the first place. Yeah, if you have a 600mm/f4 with a 2x TC, maybe you'll have to go with the 1548.

[cham_saranasuriya]

Hi,

 

Bjorn uses Sachtler tripods ENG 100??? It is I think similar in weight to 1325 but a lot more sturdier according to him. The catch is they are very very expensive.