Robert DeCandido PhD Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Hello All, I am soon off to do research in a foreign land for the next 12-18 months (Eilat, Israel to study bird, especially raptor, migration). I will need to do a bit of hiking and want to travel light, but sturdy. My question is: is the Gitzo 1227 (3 section, Carbon Fiber) tripod sturdy enough to support a Nikon FM3A with 400 F5.6 lens (and sometimes a 1.4x teleconverter)? By sturdy, I mean no camera shake if I use a shutter release. I absolutely do not want a slight blur to my bird photos (in natural light; no fill flash) because of the tripod. I will be using an Acratech Ultimate Ballhead... I already have a Gitzo 1325 Carbon Fiber tripod with the Kirk B-1 head. This is rock steady, but is a bit on the heavy side to hike/travel with. The Gitzo 1325 is rated to about 27 pounds of support; the 1227 is rated to about 17 pounds. I usually allow 4 pounds of tripod support to one pound of camera. The 400mm lens weighs about 4 pounds and the FM3A weighs less than a pound....Should I err on the conservative side and go with the 1325 or can I safely shoot with a big lens using the 1227? How much tripod do you budget for a long lens? Is my 4:1 ration (tripod carrying capacity vs. weight of lens) correct, or do you use a different ratio? Thank You! I leave Feb. 19th so your help is much appreciated. Robert DeCandido, PhD NYC<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Definitely! I have used the Gitzo 1228 (basicly the same, but 4 sections) all over the world. First I used it with my 400 f/5.6, Nikon F4S or F5, and now with my 500mm f/4+TC14B and Kirk BH-1 head. While it is a light tripod, it is strong enough to carry all that glass. If in a strong wind, I hold onto the top of the lens (Moose Peterson style) and press my cheek against the camera. I noticed that Geo Lepp has used this tripod effectively with similar Canon) equipment in Antactica. As they say, "Go for it!" Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_bridge Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Is it worth $450 to save a pound on a tripod? Your 1325 is only a 1.1 pounds more than the 1227. Your 1325/BH-1 is overkill and will handle a 600 f/4 AFS+2X+D1X if you leave a couple of inches of overlap in each leg section. The 1227 will do just fine for your setup so I see it strictly as a money vs weight trade off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 Between my wife and me we have the 1227, 1228 and 1325. I would say the 1227 (or 1228) is more than sufficient for your 400mm/f5.6 + FM3a body. However, I wouldn't put a 300mm/f2.8 or 500mm/f4 on the 122x tripods. Whether it is worthwhile to buy another expensive tripod to save a pound or so is purely your decision. If you buy from Robert White in the UK or some other dealers outside of North America, you may get a much better deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd_phillips1 Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I have a 1227 and while I am not a nature photographer (I am a professional in the midwest) I found it to be one of the best photographic items I've ever purchased!It will definitely save your back. Mine is used with a Gitzo magnesium head (though the Acra-tech looks very nice) and I have used a F5 with 300 F:4 w/without 1.4 converter and 80-200 AFS w/without 1.4 converter and have had no problems.The center column does have a cap that is threaded and will take any standard screw hook (not 1/4-20 thread) that can be picked up in any hardware store. This can be used to hang your camera bag for added stability if you want.The carbon fiber is a "dead" material and will not transfer vibrations like metal.Yes, you already have a CF tripod that would work....but I can pack the 1227 (with head removed) in my luggage (though it will sometimes throw up a red flag at the airport and the bag will be opened to check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry n. Posted February 5, 2003 Share Posted February 5, 2003 I use a 1228 (which is probably less sturdy than the 1227) with an 80-400 lens and the Kirk BH-1. I found it to be sturdy enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd thacker Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Incidentally (or not so incidentally), this picture you've posted is beautiful. The owl is fantastic - like some sort of space creature. And the bokeh behind the bird is really exceptional, too (so many superlatives!). Taken with the 400/5.6?<P> Our own Bob Atkins had this to say about the 1227 and long lenses:<P> <I>I tried out both the 1227 and 1325 models for use with long lenses (500/4.5 and 600/4). The 1227 is a really nice tripod. It's small. light and stable. Compared to a Bogen 3021, it's lighter, just as tall and a little more stable. It's also 6 times the price, but that's another issue. I've seen a lot of reports in magazines of people using a 600/4 on a 1227 or 1228. Well, maybe under perfect conditions it's OK, but my opinion was that it's FAR from ideal. The stability just isn't there in any kind of wind. The center column doesn't help stability much (even if you don't extend it), since it's just another joint to flex - and the lock is plastic, as is the platform on which you mount the tripod head. All of this adds up to a tripod which is great for lenses up to maybe a 400/5.6, but starts to show it's weakness when you mount a 500/4.5 or especially a 600/4. A great tripod for hiking with moderate lenses, but not a great choice for big telephotos. Weight 3.3 lbs (NOT 3 lbs as sometimes stated).</I><P> Hope Bob doesn't mind my quoting him (I claim fair use!). The balance of his article is found <a href=http://bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/g1325.html> here</a>.<P> Looks like you're in the clear with the 1227-400/5.6 combo. Good luck on your journey. Take more beautiful, startling pics as above. Be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert DeCandido PhD Posted February 6, 2003 Author Share Posted February 6, 2003 Hello Doug, The photo was taken with the Zuiko 50mm F3.5 macro lens...handheld. There was snow on the ground reflecting light back up to the illuminate the owl.Yes, the bokeh is nice...and I used no flash! Good info all! I will be ok with that lens and an Acratech ballhead on the 1227! One last question: I gather it is not so much the focal length of the lens but the weight of the lens that is the critical factor in selecting the correct tripod? So, if there was a 1-2 pound 2500-3500mm lens, it would be perfectly fine on the Gitzo 1227? Note: a 2500-3500mm lens (that weighs 1-2 pounds) already exists and is used regularly by many photographers. See the we site of the great bird photographer Laurence Poh of Malaysia: www.LaurencePoh.com He and his fellow digiscopers use an 80mm Swarovski Spotting Scope with a 20-60x zoom eyepiece (mostly shooting between 20-32x). They attach a digital camera (nikon 990/995/4500 with 3/4x optical zoom as the camera lens) to the scope. So the 3/4x lens of the camera plus 20x magnification of the Spotting SCope equals 2500mm (approx) focal length. So, they have, in effect, a huge and lightweight telephoto lens. So how much tripod should someone budget per pound of lens/camera? Is the 4:1 ratio I posted above too much? What is the ratio for aluminum tripods? Thank You! rdc/nyc<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_bridge Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 RE: Weight / focal length tripod issues. Pardon my engineering jargon, but it is more a matter of torque and angular displacements and vibrations and magnification than simple weight. Lighter weight usually means higher frequency vibrations with more displacement that take longer to damp out. Extend an 8 inch macro slider on your 1325/BH-1 and hang a 200mm micro at 1:1 + 5T+6T diopters vs doing the same on a 1227/Acratech and you'll begin to understand. Same weight, different torque, different stability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj__ Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Given the area you're talking about, I wouldn't buy a new tripod just to achieve a marginal loss of weight. Presumably, you'll do most of your overland travel by jeep. If you are actually going to trek distances of any consequence, the real problem will be the heat and the additional weight from the need to carry water. If you're interested, I was in the area last month and posted some comments, including some on the area around Eilat, on photo.net's Travel section, under Israel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 One issue I forgot to mention earlier: depending on your height (and the ballhead, tripod collar, etc. you happen to use), the 1227 may or may not be tall enough for your camera to reach your eye level while the 1325 is suitable for people at about 6' tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I'll go along with Shun's comment that the height of the 1227 or 1228 is a bit on the short side if you are over 6'. While I often bring a lightweight chair, if I have to stand I do look a little hunchbacked: not a comfortable position. Reminds me of when I took a young lady (blonde?) to a Notre Dame football game. I pointed out the quarterback, the halfbacks, and the fullback. She seemed confused and asked about one of the "backs" she had heard so much about: the Hunchback! Alex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul beiser Posted February 9, 2003 Share Posted February 9, 2003 For an excellent tripod/head article (Thom talks about the Gitzo tripods), go to:http://www.bythom.com/support.htm -Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now