Gitzo 3 leg sections vs. 4 leg sections

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread

Is there any difference in stability and weight-bearing ability between the Gitzo 1325, which has three leg sections and no center column, and the Gitzo 1348, which has four leg sections and no center column? The tripod would support my Wisner 4x5 traditional and the MF system that I have been contemplating (right now, the Pentax 67-II is in first place, followed by the Contax 645AF and the Mamiya 7-II - vastly different cameras, I know!). Thanks.

-- Josh Divack (jdivack@worldnet.att.net), December 12, 2001

Answers

max size for the 1325 is 149 cm and for the 1348 is 167 cm, so the 1348 is 18 cm taller (if you ad the center column and don't extand it : +/-5cm) here comes an another question : what's the maximum size of the Gitzo 1348 without using the smaller legs ? I was going to buy the 1329 (1325+column) for stability reason, then i found out that with my size (1.93m), my camera (technikardan S 45), my tripod head (manfroto 410), in need a tripod max size of 1.50m to stand up and focussing without needing any chair... In fact you have to compare apples and apples, if the 1349 (1348+column) without using the smaller legs is the same size as the 1325, i'm shure stability must be similar, and you have a tripod that can be expand for specific use at 2,02m

-- dg (sacripant@online.fr), December 12, 2001.

I have a 1349 with four leg sections. I avoid using the smallest sections unless they're absolutely necessary, but they do come in handy when on uneven ground, or in need of a higher vantage point. I'd get the four section tripod for convenience. Gitzo has combined the 1348 and 1349 and supplies both a top plate and column so you can use the tripod as desired.

-- J. Wolfe (bigbad810@hotmail.com), December 12, 2001.

I went Carbon Fiber a couple of months ago. My first choice was to go with the G1325 because of the 3 legs vs 4 legs issue. Then I realized that the G1325 was a bit shorter than my G340 it was supposed to replace. The G340 height was perfect for me on flat ground (I am 1.80m about 6') but sometimes short when shooting from a slope. I didn't want to use a short column. I finally decided to purchase the G1349 which comes with center column (just for the rare occasion I would need it) and flat plate (that will always be on, making it a G1348). I am very happy with my choice. First, the 4th leg extension is not much of a deal for setup. Sometimes I leave the last leg partially extended so I do not have to extend or close it. Second, the last two legs provide suffisant extension in most cases. Third, the shorter closed lenght of the tripod makes it easier to travel with. Fourth, the additional height is extremely useful. I was shooting in the Eastern Sierra last October and really appreciated the 4th leg extension. When the top two legs are extended the tripod is about 1.25m, with the bottom two legs it is 1.35m about what I need with my 4x5. Stability is any configuration is outstanding. The G340 was great but this one is even better. What makes it outstanding is how vibrations are dampened. A fully extended conventional tripod takes about 5-10s to absord a hit before vibrations are eliminated, a carbon fiber just 2-3s. I did this test with the tripods heavily loaded with an Arca-Swiss B1, Nikon F5, Nikon 400/3.5 w/ TC-301 2x extender and Kirk long plate.

-- Georges Pelpel (gpelpel@attbi.com), December 12, 2001.

The three section 1325 is analogous to a Morris Mini Minor at 100 k/h: it's maxed out at any reasonable height. The 1348 on the other hand has stability to spare. I am 6' tall and typically set up my 1349 with the top two sections extended all but 6" and the smallest section extended only 6". Stability decreases significantly if any section (of any tripod) is extended all the way because nesting one section inside the one above it creates more friction and decreases lateral play. Extended all the way the sections are closer to merely being butted end to end; it is more like the sections are balancing on top of each other rather than tightly grabbing each other.

-- John Hennessy (northbay@directcon.net), December 12, 2001.

I would avoid a four-section legset on principle, since it offers too much potential for instability. Though I am cautious about centre columns they do come in handy sometimes, and if not extended more than a very few inches don't affect stability adversely. Half the time I use a 1410 (no column) with Mamiya RZ and Cambo kit, and the rest of the time I'm using an old Cremaillere 3 (precursor of the 1300 series) with 3-section legs and centre column (plus Arca B1) to support Nikons. The old Gitzo performs fine, a great field tripod, though I wouldn't feel so happy to use it with MF/LF - and frankly if you're contemplating a Pentax 67, go for something heftier, like a steel girder sunk into the ground down to bedrock level. This might damp down the dreaded P67 shutter vibrations, but only if you use sandbags on top of the camera as well. Perhaps I exaggerate - but I do advise a 1400 series Gitzo for the Pentax. Cannot advise on carbon fibre.

-- Anthony Harrison (AnthonyHar@aol.com), December 12, 2001.


John, that is a very interesting comment on not extending the leg sections all of the way. Thanks.

-- Josh Divack (jdivack@worldnet.att.net), December 12, 2001.

I doubt there's any significant difference in either stability or capacity between the 3 and 4 section Gitzo's. The main differences I found between 3 and 4 sections are the added height you can get out of the 4 section (about 7 inches more), the reduced folded length of a 4 section leg (only about 2 inches), and the reduced weight of the 3 section tripod (a little less than half a pound).

I finally chose the 1325 and have been very satisfied. I'm 6ft tall and I mount my Canham DLC on an ArcaSwiss B1. I also use a Mamiya 7II on the same ArcaSwiss head and I find the tripod to have plenty of height for these setups (in fact, I've marked my legs because, on level ground, the setup is too high if I fully extend the legs).

I usually carry my equipment in a backpack, so the weight savings was nice (though not really critical, since I could find a lighter head if it was that important). I probably would have gone with the 4 leg sections if the folded height difference between the two was more substantial (maybe in the neighborhood of 5 inches would have swayed me towards the 1348).

-- Tim Klein (timklein@qwest.net), December 12, 2001.


I'd have to disagree with the statements about stability being greatly enhanced by under-extending leg sections.

On cheap tripods with small clasps that hold the leg sections, leaving some of the leg section nested inside the other probably adds stability. On higher quality tripods though, you're dealing with much larger gripping surfaces that are holding large diamter rigid tubing. If these mechanisms aren't holding the section tight, then you'd feel some wobble in the leg section if you wiggled it. This doesn't happen at all with the hefty Gitzo tripods I've used, and I've never heard any complaints about the 1325 being "maxed out" even fully extended.

Also, keep in mind that a 4 section tripod is going to use smaller diameter tubing in the bottom section than a 3 section tripod. Any added stability from leaving sections nested would probably be outweighed by the smaller diameter of the lowest leg sections (that's why, if you're going to leave a section unextended, you always do it at the bottom).

Both tripods are rated for exactly the same weight, so I wouldn't worry too much about stability differences.

-- Tim Klein (timklein@qwest.net), December 12, 2001.


You're going to get a lot of different answers from a lot of different folks. We all have our own unique needs and preferences. Someone who's 6'4" will have different requirements for height than someone who's 5'4". Someone who backpacks will have different preferences than someone who shoots near the car, or in a studio.

You didn't specifically mention why you wanted the weight savings of carbon fiber - or if the weight savings is your main motivation. It was for me. I hike and backpack a lot with my 4x5 gear (so I definitely like to keep the weight to something more reasonable than 160 lb.). To me, the main motivation to justify the expense of a carbon fiber tripod was the weight savings. When the 1349 first came out, I was disappointed to find out it was only 1/2 lb. (5.5 lb. vs. 6.0 lb.) lighter than the metal 340 model. Granted, the 1349 also has a center column and four leg sections instead of three, but neither were features I wanted anyway (I wanted a lighter weight version of the 340 - three leg sections and no center column).

The 1325, at 4.4 lb. is another 1.1 lb. lighter than the 1349. That swung my decision in favor of the 1325. For my needs it is perfect. I've used it with a number of cameras - the heaviest a Linhof Technikardan TK45S at about 8 lb. So far, it has handled everything I've tried to put on it. I am a bit puzzled by the comments about the height of the 1325. I'm 6'4" and it's plenty tall for me. In fact, it's the tallest tripod I've ever owned. With the legs fully extended and my Linhof (or my Toho FC-45X) mounted atop an Arca Swiss B1 head, the center of the ground glass is right at my eye level. In fact, if I want to check the top corners for vignetting (by looking through the cut corners), I need to stand on my toes. For me, it's the perfect height - I wouldn't want it any taller. Of course, this is on level ground. On a slope, I occasionally have to bend a little, but that's why I have a waist.

One other consideration, the 1325 is also a fair amount less expensive than the 1349. It doesn't fold up as small as the four leg section models, but that is not a concern for me. I have flown with it a couple times and it easily fits in an airline overhead (I haven't tried to fly with it since Sept. 11. so you might want to check to see if it still meets carry-on regs).

These are just my opinions based on my needs and preferences. I don't doubt for a second that others are equally as happy with their 1349/1348 Gitzos. They really are great tripods that combine outstanding rigidity and very light weight. They are expensive, but built very well. The 1325 is by far the best tripod I've ever owned and I can't even imagine anything better for my needs.

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), December 12, 2001.


The G1325 weights 4 1/2 lbs, the G1348 4 3/4 lbs. That's only 1/4 lb difference for 7" additional extension and 2" lenght reduction when closed.

-- Georges Pelpel (gpelpel@attbi.com), December 12, 2001.


Georges,

Picking nits here, but accoring to www.gitzo.com, the 1348 weighs 2.2kg and the 1325 2.0kg. That's 4.84 lb. vs. 4.4 lb. - a difference of just over 7 oz. Again, this is just based on my own personal needs, but for me it came down to do I want to pay more money to carry around more weight when I don't need either the 7" of added height or the 2" of reduced collapsed length. For my needs the 1325 was plenty tall enough, collapsed as short as I need it to, weighs 7 oz. less and costs quite a bit less than the 1348, too. Also, the 1348 has 50% more leg collars (9 vs. 6) to loosen/tighten every time I set it up and put it away. Certianly not a show stopper, but again I didn't need the "extras" of the 1348, so why pay for them and put up with them. I'm not saying others would come to the same conclusions - they probably won't, just explaining what works best for me and why. If someone needs the extra height of the 1348, by all means, go for it.

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), December 12, 2001.


By way of explanation, I had been using a Bogen 3021 with my Wisner for many years and decided to treat myself to a CF tripod this past summer to try to bring down the weight somewhat. I bought the Gitzo 1227 and have sort of regretted it, as while it is very light it seems - to me - to be just a little shaky for the Wisner. So I have decided to buy one of the 13XX series Gitzo CF, even if it ends up not being much lighter than the Bogen 3021 I started with, especially since I am interested in the MF systems as well.

-- Josh Divack (jdivack@worldnet.att.net), December 12, 2001.

Josh,

If you're moving from a 3021, you'll be amazed at the difference in the 1325/48. I used the 3011 (same legs as the 3021, different locks) prior to getting my Gitzo, and I can tell you that the stability is absolutely superior.

As for the height question that Kerry presented, I think the use of the Arca Swiss head might have something to do with the differences in user experiences. The Arca adds quite a bit of height on its own, and some heads might not add nearly as much. Keep the height of the head you'll use in mind Josh; It, along with your height, will probably make a good bit of difference in whether or not the 1325 is tall enough for you.

-- Tim Klein (timklein@qwest.net), December 12, 2001.


Josh,

Wow, deja vu all over again... I used a Bogen 3021 for years as my main tripod (and even used a Wisner Tech Field for much of that time period). The 3021 was a geat value and served me well, but as Tim said, a 1325 or 1348 will make a world of difference. They are both taller (not counting the center column - which I always tried to avoid using), lighter and a lot more rigid than the 3021.

As fate would have it, I also have a 1227 that I use for backpacking with my little Toho FC-45X (less than three pounds). It's pretty close to the same height as the 3021 (maybe a 1/2" shorter), but a couple of pounds lighter. I actually found my 1227 to be more rigid than the 3021 it replaced. Keep in mind this was a 3021 that had seen many years of rugged use and was starting to show its age.

Also, the rigidity will depend on which head you are using. I use the Arca Swiss B1 with my 1325 and think it's a great combination. I've used a number of ballheads with the 1227 over the years (trying to get the lightest head that will support whatever camera I am using with it). The heaviest camera I ever used on my 1227 was a Canham DLC (couple ounces shy of five pounds) with a Linhof Profi II ballhead with a RRS Arca style QR clamp. That combo was passable, but about the most I'd consider that leg set to reasonably handle. Your Wisner Traditional is about six pounds, so the 1325/1348 would probably be a better match - just make sure you also get a sturdy head (preferrably with a good, sturdy QR clamp).

WRT to the "height issue" the best thing I cam recommend is to take your camera down to a shop that stocks one or both models and try it out. If the 1325 is tall enough (it will be noticeably taller than either the 1227 or the 3021 you are used to), go for it. If it looks like you'll need more height, go for the 1348. The AS B1 I am using adds 4" to the height. And the two cameras I am currently using (Linhof Technikardan TK45S and Toho FC-45X) are also rather "tall". They are both monorail designs with the camera back sitting well above the base where the rail attaches to the tripod QR clamp. So, that also probably adds a little to my impression that the 1325 is plenty tall enough for me at 6'4".

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), December 12, 2001.


Kerry, you have been very helpful in your comments. I took some time yesterday to go over to B&H and look at the 1325 and the 1348/49, and instinctively I like the 3 section tripod better - although it may be that it is closer to what I was using - and like you I never found the Bogen 3021 to be too low with the 3047 head and Wisner combination. I doubt that the Arca B1, which will be next on my shopping list, is lower profile than the 3047. Now, if only I could figure out my MF options.

-- Josh Divack (jdivack@worldnet.att.net), December 12, 2001.


Josh,

I too had the 3047 for about eight years. While it's easy to use and plenty sturdy for a 4x5, it is one heavy head. I no longer have a 3047 to do a side by side comparison, but it's probably a little taller than the AS. Of course, the AS is a lot lighter and doesn't have handles sticking out all over the place to get caught on every passing branch. As much as I like my B1, after using nothing but three axis heads for the first 8 years I shot large format, getting used to a ballhead took a while. I really didn't feel comfortable with the B1 until I'd used it full time for about a year. Of course, now I'm glad I took the time to get used to it. Now using it is second nature for me, and everytime I hit the trail I appreciate the compact size and light weight. I now use ballheads for all my large format shooting. Again, perhaps not for everyone, but it works for me.

Kerry

-- Kerry Thalmann (largeformat@thalmann.com), December 12, 2001.


Josh, you're luckier than most if you can stroll into B&H and compare side by side. Many of us have to buy LF gear sight unseen. And on that subject, Robt White is much less expensive than B&H. I feel guilty suggesting you buy from White after using B&H's gear to comparison shop, but it is so much cheaper you won't feel guilty! Besides, in my case at least, B&H has profitedly well over the years. Both have very good service, if you don't already know.

-- John Hennessy (northbay@directcon.net), December 12, 2001.

John, you are right about Robert White. While I ordinarily purchase from B&H, the price savings are so substantial at Robert White on the Gitzo products that I am going to place my order from them. While I am at it, I thin that I am going to retire my Bogen 3047 head and pick up the Arca-Swiss B1 and a Gitzo leveling base as well, to complement the new legset.

-- Josh Divack (jdivack@worldnet.att.net), December 13, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ