Gitzo carbon fiber tripods

Where was the blurb? Magazine? Newsletter?

So far all reports are very positive. See Moose Peterson's web page for example. He seems to love both the small (1228) and larger (3 and 4 series) models. I don't recall reading any negative comments anywhere. I'm still skeptical, but then I haven't bought one yet, so I can afford to be!

I've had the 1228 for about a year now and I'm very happy with it. In fact, if mine got stolen or if I bought a big lens and needed a bigger tripod, I'd probably get another Gitzo carbon model. Like I've said before, I don't think the 1228 was quite worth $500 but it was close.

As far as falling apart, I haven't had a problem. I try to treat it well but it has taken some knocks and still looks new. I can't really see why it would fall apart. Carbon fiber bonded to aluminum is a pretty well proven technology being used on bikes, planes, etc.

The info on the delicacy of these tripods is in the July 97 Guilfoyle Report. Sorry I left that off on the original posting.

Well, I just read his comments, and I've owned a 1348 for about two months now, so I'll make a few of my own. Personally, I found the announcement of major increases in the price of the newsletter and an additional $100/yr for the online "bonus haps" more startling, but that's another story...

First, I absolutely agree that people who buy the 200-series mountaineer expecting to be able to use seriously heavy glass on it are fools. I never even considered this as an option. He is also right that the 200-series tripod isn't much lighter than its metal counterpart. Most of his comments aren't really negative comments about the 200-series Mountaineer, but rather about people using them as though they're a 410. He's right. It's not a 410. I'd use it for lighter gear when I want to keep total weight down, just as I currently do my 200-series metal Gitzo. I've never put my 600/4 on this tripod, and if I owned the 200-series Mountaineer I wouldn't, either.

As far as it breaking, he specifically mentions the top plate. I thought this was the same metal piece as used in the metal 200-series equivalent, but could be wrong. If I'm right, though, it's not a problem specific to the carbon fiber model, but rather this lightweight series in general.

In the case of the 1348, I've compared it side-by-side with a 340, and the metal top plate is identical as far as I can see, so any weakness here is shared with the 340 - Shaw's standard tripod.

As far as his comment that "only mass stops vibration", he's wrong. Carbon fiber is more effective at damping vibration than aluminum. This is a fact. This is one reason why it's such a great material for tennis rackets, for instance. And it's always much easier to add mass to a tripod than to remove it, at least if you want the tripod to remain functional.

I'm surprised John considers a 340 adequate for a really long lens (he says it's his standard tripod). My 1348's lower leg section is relatively small diameter carbon fiber tubing - but so is the 340's lower leg section...

I felt a 340 was inadequate for a 600/4 in my fooling around down at Pro Photo here in town. A 410 is more than adequate. A 1348 seemed more sturdy than a 340 to me, though not quite as sturdy as a 410. The price difference was about $300 between a 1348 and a 410, which caused me to nearly buy a 410. I did get the 1348 because I do lug my tripod around a lot, including to my annual raptor migration project which is a backpacking situation. Not only do I lug stuff up there every year but I lug stuff all over the mountain for the few weeks I'm there. And I'm getting older...

Anyway, if I'd thought a 340 was adequate, I would've bought one. But I didn't feel it was, so the choice was between the 410 and 1348 from my point of view. I don't remember just how much lighter a 1348 is than a 410, but the difference is greater than difference between a 1348 and 340.

As far as the legs coming unglued, this is the first I've heard of it. I did have the opportunity to talk to some users before buying mine and none experienced this. Of course, none of them had been to Antartica. Durability was a question I had given the hybrid nature of the legs (i.e. the center plate and leg swivels are metal). If mine comes unglued, you'll hear about it just moments after Gitzo does. The Goshutes, the 9,000 ft Great Basin range where I band hawks, will present it with reasonably extreme conditions, from 100 degrees at the bottom to some nights in the teens, at least. Lots of UV, too. Humidity from bone-dry to dripping. Lots of lightning, another advantage of a non-metal tripod! The place wore out my tent after a few seasons, and dried out and cracked and otherwise trashed my rocking chair, we'll see what it does to my tripod.

John seems to imply that it's not hard to reglue the leg if it does come loose. That's some comfort.

I haven't read John Shaw's comments, though I'd like to if there's someone who could forward them to me(if the newsletter is that much $, then I don't blame anybody if they don't). Even some highlights would be nice.

It seems from Don's answer though, that people are trying to put big glass on the 1228. How big? Gitzo lists the capacity of the 1228 at 6kg. One of these days I'd like to get a Nikon 400/3.5 which weighs 98 ounces. Along with my N90s or F3, which weigh 30 ounces each, this would be 8lbs. So, according to Gitzo, this should be a viable combo. Should I believe them? I would probably get a bigger tripod but it would be nice to be able to take the 1228 while backpacking.

I don't get the GR (too expensive since I'm not in the business of making a living by selling my work) so I didn't see John Shaw's direct comments. However I believe that the longest lens he uses is a Nikon 500/4. That certainly has been the case for many years unless he has caught "big lens fever". So for him, a 340 might be perfectly fine.

I think that Lepp's comments about using a 1228 with a 600/4 probably got some people thinking it was adequate. Actually I think he said it was usable if the wind wasn't blowing. I suppose it probably is, but so is my 3221. That doesn't make it a really good choice though. Lepp's comments even had me thinking about a 1228 for a while, but thankfully I was skeptical enough not to take the plunge. Galen Rowell has also highly praised the 1228 in his OP column, but some people tend to forget that he doesn't shoot big glass either.

I don't think the "weight rating" of a tripod is a reliable guide to how stable it is with that weight on it in the form of a lens. It probably means it won't collapse or be totally useless! After all the Bogen 3001 is rated for 11 lbs but I don't think I'd want to put a 500/4 on it with the legs extended!

Shaw mentioned seeing folks using glass up to 500, presumably 500/4.5 and 500/4. Bob mentioned Lepp's comments about putting a 600/4, which just seemed silly to me. Shaw mentioned that, since the 1228 is short, people were doing this with the center column extended.

I hate the center column I have on my 200-series metal Gitzo, and can't imagine putting even a 500 on it raised. That was a big point in Shaw's commentary - "would you do this if it weren't carbon fiber"? Of course not, and he's right you shouldn't even if it is. Even if it were solid enough, it would be dangerously top-heavy with the center column fully extended, as the leg spread's not that wide.

The 1348, though, goes up to about 65" without use of a center column - which is why I bought this model (no center column to hate).

Shaw points out that the 1348 isn't really much lighter than a 340, but fails to mention that the 340 only extends to 60 1/2 inches (5 ft). So, the 1348's a bit lighter and extends a bit higher while being fully capable of holding a 600/4 while doing so. 60 1/2 inches extension isn't enough for me (I'm 6 ft), which was another reason my comparison was with the 410 (64 1/2" height). At my size, the few extra inches help when shooting on slopes.

So, his comments regarding using the 1228 are well-taken. I only hope his reports of tripods coming unglued are symptoms of start-up problems with Gitzo that they've solved.

If my tripod gets unglued, so will I :)

In the same issue, it's mentioned that Art Wolfe had his entire kit stolen from his van in San Francisco, including his cherished Nikkor 200-400/4. And 500 rolls of film as he was on his way home from a shoot. Offering $1,000 reward.

I guess I have less an answer than a further question. I don't use anything bigger than a 300 f4.5 and don't ever expect to. What I do, however, is travel into outback places in small planes with an extreme weight/size limit on baggage. A 1228 is two pounds lighter and several inches shorter than a 224, meaning it can go in a carry-on for a commercial flight then right into the Beaver or Otter and into the bush, all in the same small bag. Lots of people seem to offer cautions against the Gitzo tripods with four-section legs (vs. three-section). The 1228 has four-section legs yet it seems immune, mostly, to this criticism. So do people who've used this tripod on lenses of reasonable size find it does a better job of holding a camera rock-steady than other tripods of similar portability? If so, then at least for my purposes it doesn't matter what it costs.

James, I suggest that if all possible you play with one and decide for yourself. A 300/4.5 is a fairly light, and fairly short, lens. I think the need to use the center column to get height is probably the biggest issue, not the third leg joint.

I've only briefly played with a 1228 in the field, since I knew it was inadequate for my bird-shooting needs. Two weeks ago I ran across a couple who had a brand-new 1228 supporting, not a camera, but an equally brand-new Leica spotting scope with a 20-60x zoom. The tripod seemed very adequate for this purpose, though to be honest I spent a lot more time drooling over the scope than paying attention to the tripod! The scope has an 80mm front element, while a Canon 300/4 takes either a 72mm or 77mm filter, so size/weight is probably comparable in rough terms.

There was no wind, though.