Low-level tripod-leg settings. How useful?

[craig_andrew_yuill]

I'd like to buy a sturdier tripod to replace my wobbly old Velbon. I

have considered getting one of the following: the Manfrotto 455

(Bogen 3221), Gitzo 1320, and Gitzo 1340. Both the Manfrotto and the

1340 can be lowered to below 1 foot when their legs are splayed far

apart. The 1320, on the other hand, can only be lowered to around a

foot and a half, unless one buys the short column and moves the legs

beyond the lockable positions. The 320 probably has the best overall

mix of features for my needs. I wouldn't mind it if the tripod had a

short column for times when I need to make slight vertical

adjustments, like when trying to shoot pictures of birdies who are

moving amongst branches. I would also like to get a tripod whose legs

can be locked in place when they are spread far apart (a feature

which the 1320 apparently lacks). How useful do people actually find

this feature to be? Do any of you Gitzo 1320 / 320 owners actually

miss this feature? How about the Manfrotto/Bogen and Gitzo 1340 / 340

owners? Do you use this feature? Does it actually work? People

mentioned in a couple of earlier threads that they use clamps,

beanbags, home-made plates, etc., which would suggest that it may not

be that great. Could anyone please comment?

[kevinoneil]

The 320 (w/o center column) and 340 both work the same way for low level work in that you release the leg locks at the top of the legs. The connections between the tripod and the legs are "stiff" enough that it doesn't effect the stability of the tripod in that the tripod stays at the level you are working (i.e., it doesn't creep lower). You really need to try this out to understand how well it works.

 

I have both a 320 and 1340, and find the ability of the tripod to go to the ground extremely important. The fact that the legs *don't* lock in place is also important because it is rare that the ground is level, so you want to be able to adjust each leg separately. When you place a leg on a Gitzo tripod, it stays in that position. In addition, the weight of the camera pushing down on the the three legs also keeps the legs in place.

 

Between the two I think the 1340 is a slightly better tripod. The tripod to head connection on the 340/1340 is more secure since it is a flat plate. On the 320/1320 you are mounting the head to the center column, and even when it is tightened down, there is some play. I ended up drilling a hole through the center column plate into the tripod and then using a machine screw to obtain a good tight mount.

[tom_bass1]

I recently wrestled with the same tripod choice and ended up

getting the 1340 -- mainly because of the gain in stability of

mounting the head directly to the flat plate, as Kevin mentions.

This makes a big difference with big lenses. You don't mention

what size lenses you're using, but if you're into bird photography,

you'll find a 500/600mm lens and ball head on a flat plate is a

noticeable improvement in stability than mounting them on a

rapid column. Even with the column removed and the optional

screw-in plate installed, you still are plagued by vibrations under

less than ideal conditions.

 

The minute adjustments in height that you mention are handled

very quickly by bringing the legs in or extending them out. They

do stay where you want them to, and if they ever loosen, three

quick turns of a wrench will bring them back to factory new.

[robert_p._boner]

I have the 320 and 410. The 320 has only two spread angles, and the 410 has 3. I find the latter much more useful. The 340/1340 has 3 spread angles, so I would prefer that one over the 320.

[steve_c.2]

I recently had the same question and after speaking to some people at Bogen I have decided to purchase the Gitzo 1341 because overall it has the most versatility.

[walther_adler]

For macro work in the field, sometimes you must be able to bring your tripod right down to ground level. If not, you will fiddle with clamps on legs, beanbags, versed centerposts an so on until you are frustrated enough to buy a new tripod or to modify your old one (like I did): I own a Manfrotto 055 Triminor that has been tuned by an instrument worker. He removed the centerpost, installed an alloy plate with 3/8" screw instead and added a fourth leg stop at 900 on all three legs. I paid $60 for the whole operation; now this piece is a joy to work with. Believe me: One foot above the ground is still too high!

[steve_c.2]

I recently had the same question and after speaking to some people at Bogen I have decided to purchase the Gitzo 1341 because overall it has the most versatility. I also posted a similar question on the Original site under what tripod for Bogen Mini Geared Head.

[les_gyug]

I use the Gitzo 226 with legs that lock into 3 positions as they splay apart. With the centre column in, there is a definite limit to how low you can go. But you don't need the centre column. Just take it out and substitute a 3/8 or 1/4 hexagon bolt of the right length, put washers on the bolt so that it doesn't go right through the center column hole, and screw the head directly onto the bolt. It's cheap, it works, and you can "quickly" replace the whole centre column when you want it.

 

I also use the leg splaying for when I have the scope (and sometimes the camera) on the tripod and want to sit on the ground (especially if I am using the scope for long periods in one spot). Without the ability to splay the legs, I can't fit my own legs under the tripod when sitting (at least not very well).

[rob_heifner]

Craig, I have owned the Bogen 3220 (which is just the aluminum version of the 3221) and I used a hacksaw to get rid of the center column. I do a lot of macro work and needed a sturdy tripod that went to ground level. I have a smaller Gitzo (126) that has the short center column and works great with light weight setups, but even the short column prevents absolute ground level ability. In deciding between the 320 and 1340, I chose the 1340. It has the flat plate, which gives the most solid and secure platform to the ballhead, and can go flat to the ground. It is also about 1/2 pound lighter than the 320. It is also sturdy enough to handle my largest lens setup 300/2.8 L and EOS 3. The 1340 has everything that I need (and I'm not in a position to get the 1325 CF model - over twice the cost of the 1340 or 320). It can handle my macro work with the lowest possible positioning as well as being sturdy enough to handle my largest setup. With the Kirk BH-1 ballhead the entire outfit comes in at just under 8 lbs. All three tripods are within about 3/4 of a lb. of each other. You really can't make a BAD decision with any of the three tripods you are looking at, it's just a matter of what will work best for YOU.

[john_wall1]

I'll just second or third or fourth the kudos for the 1340 with a ball head. It does indeed go all the way down, and I use it for macro a lot. I have a 200mm macro lens with a collar, though. If you had to flop over to vertical at ground level with a no-collar rig, you might run into some trouble with the legs being in the way, though not necessarily insurmountable trouble. Flopping my 24mm over is not an entirely smooth operation.

[chuck_greene]

Craig,

 

I'll be redundant and toss in my praise for the Gitzo 340 (or 1340 as it's also called) and a ball head. I used a Bogen 3001 for years which is a real pain because I'm 6'2" tall. In searching for a new tripod last year I looked at the Gitzo 340/341 and the lastest version of the 3021/3221 (with the 2 section center column). I opted for a Gitzo over a Bogen for 2 reasons:

 

1) The added height of the Gitzo over the Bogen. With the 340 fully extended on level ground my camera viewfinder is at my eye level, with a 3021/3221 I still had to raise the center post a few inches.

 

2) The 340 goes flat on the ground without having to detach anything, unlike the 3021/3221 where you have to detach the bottom portion of the centerpost. I also thought it would not be too hard to lose either the allen wrench used to loosen the set screw holding the bottom portion of the Bogen's centerpost, or the set screw itself. I think the 340 also goes slightly lower to the ground (something like 1 to 3 inches) than the Bogen.

 

FYI, the Gitzo 340 and the 341 have the same legs I believe, the only difference is the 340 is supplied with a flat plate and the 341 comes with a center column. I decided to buy the 340 over the 341 because I thought I would benefit more from the flat plate, and if I started encountering situations where I needed added height I could always buy the center column seperately and install it in place of the flate plate.

 

I use the lowest leg angle setting, not all the time, but enough that I would not buy another tripod without that capability. The Gitzo leg locks (the ones that control the angle of the leg spread) are fine, perhaps a tad slower than my little Bogen 3001. I do miss the the Bogen style knobs to control leg height, setting up my Gitzo is definitely slower than a Bogen, especially fine tuning the height for macro work. The only thing I would change about the Gitzo is to put Bogen style knobs on the legs to adjust the leg height.

 

If you are at least 6' tall and want a beefy tripod I would go for the Gitzo 340. If you are really short and aren't going to put a monster lens on it go for the Bogen, hacksaw the center column down like Rob suggested and get someone to add a fourth leg position stop like Walther mentioned. Kirk Enterprises modifies Bogen tripods like this BTW.

 

Good luck and let us know what you decide.

[piotr_mikolajczyk]

Please, remember that the beauty of the Manfrotto 455 is that you can easily remove the center column and place it horizontally in the groove in the base plate. You not only get a side arm without buying one but you can get your camera lower to the ground (by the height of the head at least, by playing with the legs you can tilt the side arm more to the ground). The 455 is supplied with two center columns (short and long), BTW. The only downside is that the tightening screw has to be really tightened well or the column mounted horizontally can still turn in the groove when you mount a heavier lens (or an MF camera).

 

Indeed, some Gitzo models go lower to the ground than the 455 but, AFAIK, they are all models without the center column.

 

I am 180cm (5'11'', if you wish) and found the 455 a good combination of portability, weight, max height when extended, and minimum height for low angle work.

 

Piotr

[craig_andrew_yuill]

<p>I'd like to thank everyone for expressing their opinions on this matter. I asked about the usefulness of being able to lower a tripod close to the ground because I purchased my current tripod, a Velbon VS-3, based on a desire I had several years ago to own a fairly-compact tripod with an articulated center post. I've rarely used that feature, and it has actually proven to be the greatest source of unsteadiness. Camera shake is quite apparent when I shoot with a telephoto lens. I don't want to get equipment with features for which I will actually have little or no use, especially if those features prove to be a weakness.</p>

<p>FWIW, I've taken a fair amount of shots over the last year using a Nikkor 300mm f/4.5 ED lens, often with a TC14 converter. I have used a lens as large as a 300mm f/2.8, and feel that a 500mm f/4 lens might be in the cards sometime down the road. Although some feel that my particular lens/converter combo is mediocre, I get enough odd shots here and there that I am convinced that imperfect technique, rather than optics, are the real cause of the mediocrity. I feel that the lack of a truly-steady tripod is preventing me from getting the most out of my lens.</p>

<p>I often shoot while standing and looking up. The Velbon is really too short for this task. The Manfrotto is OK. The Gitzos seem to be the best. Recently, however, I've been using the tripod while sitting on the ground. The Manfrotto and the two Gitzos have leg spreads that would allow me to sit/kneel in a reasonably-comfortable position under the tripod (rather that awkwardly wrapping my legs around the tripod legs). Once in a while I shoot low to the ground. The Manfrotto and Gitzo 1340 seem to be the best for this.</p>

<p>To be honest the Manfrotto alone would be a major improvement over the Velbon. But I've always liked the fit, finish, and sturdiness of the Gitzos, which I think are second to none in all of these regards. People seem to think that 3xx-series Gitzos would be a better choice than the Manfrotto for larger lenses, one of which I'd like to pick up sometime in the future. These days I try very hard to make the correct purchase the first time around. At this moment I'm leaning toward the 1340.</p>

[craig_andrew_yuill]

Well, you won't believe this one. I decided to try out the Manfrotto 455, Gitzo 340, and, for comparison purposes, the Gitzo 1325 Mk2 CF. The Gitzo 340 was definitely steadier when full extended than the Manfrotto 455. I also quickly came to the conclusion that the Gitzo 1325 was steadier than the 340. At this store it was also twice the cost. The sales rep. took an extraordinary amount of pity on me and, given the fact that I am a long-time good customer at that store, and that the 1325 had been collecting dust for a while, slashed the equivalent of $100 US (actually, $150 CDN) off of the price. It was an offer I couldn't turn down. So, for about 70% more than the cost of the 340 I have a tripod that should REALLY meet my needs for many years to come. Once again, I'd like to thank all who responded to my original post. Now, I'm off to do a little shooting. :-)

[mats nilson photography]

How about this alternative? Don't throw away your money on costly, though excellent, tripods. I have bought the kind of tripod that is used for geodetic surveys for the equivalent of $80 (in Sweden). It is heavy (=stable) and indestructible, goes from 0 to 170 cm and all legs move independently. Since the tripod was that cheap, I could afford to invest in an Arca-Swiss monoball instead. The only possible draw-back is that it doesn't get shorter than one metre when collapsed, but on the other hand - portability invariably comes at the expence of stability. (One source of similar tripods that I know of in the US: http://www.benmeadows.com)

[birdsofearth]

I am using 1348, which goes down upto 4 inches! I have seen very very rare situations where you have to go that much down (ground level). If one is shooting many ground level subjects from a distance then this might be the feature one needs! e.g. shooting turtles, crabs, shore birds etc. Based on my personal experience I can say that I have used that feature less that 2-3% of the shooting time! In that position you can not move quickly. Again shooting at that level is not easy unless you are also flat on the ground :) !