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.

To James: A 300/4.5 should be fine on a 1228. I regularly use my 80-200/2.8 with a 1.6x converter for a 320/4.5 and it's fine. This is despite the fact that my 80-200 is a Nikon so I have to use an after market tripod collar which isn't as steady as a lens with a normal tripod collar.

I'm generally very sceptical to lightweight tripods. There is no such thing as a sturdy tripod. I'm using a Gitzo 505 which is not sturdy enough but better than other tripods I have used. There really is no substitute for weight; the main purpose for a tripod isn't to damp vibration but to prevent vibrations to originate in the first place. To do that you do need mass. The vibrations originates in the camera. If the tripod is too light the energy from the shutter and mirror will make the tripod vibrate regardless of what it is made of. Regardless how well damped the tripod then is, its already too late. Sure, a well damped tripod is better than one that act like a bell - but mass is still the crucial factor.

My Mountaineer has worked well with view camera lenses up to 360mm. I too was concerned about motion, however, I have found that if I hang my pack from the center post in such a manner that the pack touches the ground, yet provides a serious downward pull, the rigidity is superior. If there is any breeze of consequence I don't put the center post up more than a couple of inches. My cable release goes from the camera to the tripod, to the bulb in my hand. If I shine a stationary pocket laser onto the skylight filter and watch for the reflection on a suitable object, I can get a pretty good idea of the vibrations. The camera body without a doubt is the principle offender, settling down to zero motion in around seven seconds with the backpack method of stability. The tripod on the other hand appears to be almost instantly stable. As of this time my only minor complaint about the Mountaineer is the price and the fact that the legs don't slide quite as smoothly as my Tiltal.

I have been using a Gitzo 1349 for seven months with high-speed long lenses. I find it to be rock-solid all the way up to its 78.75" maximum height. The center column can be quickly replaced by a plate (included); it this configuration it goes down to about 4". Stiffness and freedom from vibration exceed those of the Gitzo 341, which is heavier, shorter, and longer when folded. Despite my abusive handling (water immersion, sand, 10' drop, extreme temperatures) it functions perfectly.

I am a mechanical engineer with extensive experience with composite structures. Contrary to repeated claims, reduced mass decreases, not increases, the amplitude of structural vibration for a given stiffness. Gitzo's carbon fiber tripods reduce camera vibration (relative to equivalent metal ones) in three ways -- greater stiffness, greater damping, and less mass.

Stability, however, is sacrificed with a lighter tripod; it is more prone to topple in high winds, or with a badly off-center load. In these circumstances, my loaded photo backpack provides ample ballast.

I value the extra height afforded by the rapid center column, but do not find it otherwise necessary. If you don't need more than 65.75" height, I recommend the Gitzo 1348.

This tripod is superior in every way except cost to the metal equivalent.

Thank you all for the very valuable comments - I am now rather convinced that the small Gitzo is adequate for my purposes (i.e. travel and using a 70-300 zoom).

There is one thing which surprises me a bit: Although living in Germany I learned photographi in the USA and so became used to rising a tripod to full length. In Germany however, everybody stares at me in astonishment when I do so. Here simply nobody rises the tripod higher than neccessary. Have you ever considered to simply sit in front your tripod instead of standing? It becomes much more stable and, well, the small Gitzo will do in most cases, I suppose...

I have a 1349 from the first shipment Bogan received - no problems so far. I have taken it into rainforests for months and am pretty hard on a tripods. If I remember Shaw's article several 1228's leg glue bonds gave way in extremely cold weather. I haven't taken my 1349 into cold weather yet but I still carry some glue just in case a leg falls off.

Sorry for the phony address, but for good reasons I don't have an e-mail address just now. My posting bears directly on the subject, and contains a "solution." Please forgive me.

I shoot the news, and am on my third Gitzo carbon mono pod. Every single one has come unglued, and I'm not some guy who can open a fire hydrant bare handed. In normal, if hectic, use, eventually (1 - 2 weeks) one joint would loosen, and the rest followed quickly. It is not fun trying to set up a 300 2.8 on the sidelines of a high school football game on a piece of wet spaghetti. I don't know which is worse -- not being able to get it secured open, or not being able to break it down. Well, yes I do, but what a pain in the neck!

Specifically, the problem is that when you grasp the uppermost leg, and try to loosen the largest ring to begin extending it for use, the ring just rotates, scraping its way round and round.

When the THIRD one started to come unglued, so did I. But I didn't have the heart to take it back to my dealer, and ask him to hand me a new one, as I had twice before.

I figured out a way to use the thing: To extend it, turn it upside down. Hold on to the middle ring, and loosen the largest ring. Pull out the leg section, and hold on to it tightly. (It helps to have a camera and 300 2.8 hanging down there for ballast, though it looks ridiculous.) Grasping the extended leg firmly, tighten its ring; repeat for the other sections. Reverse the process to break it down. It's easier the next time if you have left an inch or so of shaft exposed.

I really don't think such work-arounds should be necessary. But you all have given me an idea. I'll take this wonder to a bike shop. Maybe they have glue that will hold.

Addendum to the above posting. I thought I'd included my phone. It's 203 438 3408

I've been considering a Gitzo Carbon Fiber tripod for some time now and got a lot out of the discussions from this forum. So I'd like to contribute something back after having bought one (a new tripod, that is). I went down to the local shop and actually went through all of the Gitzo and Bogen tripods, compared the heft of carbon vs metal, brought a laser pointer w/ me to test vibration, put my own weight on the tripods etc to obtain not scientific, but anecdotal evidence as to the stability of the various tripods. What did I find? Well, I settled on the Gitzo carbon fiber 1348. After buying it, I promptly removed the center column and put in place of it the plate that comes with the tripod. The 1348 is so strong and rigid, that I can put my entire weight onto the top of the mounting plate and not observe excessive flex in the legs. The 1228, on the other hand, was much much lighter, but didn't reach eye level standing (I'm 5'8"), and the legs seemed to bow considerably when I pushed on them. The 1348 didn't budge at all, it really is dead, as Phil had commented on the 1228. Both tripods I found were considerably deader than metal ones and by dead I mean that you don't hear or feel any vibration in the tripod when it is hit by anything or "twanged". In addition, vibration detected by a laser pointer and mirror indicated vibration dampening to be excellent, while metal tripods took significantly longer to settle down.

I've used the 1228 for weeks on end in the Aleutians, and throughout the rest of Alaska and New England. Not much in arid zones. I've become used to the top leg loosening. It happens after about two weeks of constant (20-100 extensions/closes per day) use, or 8-10 weeks of intermittent use. I always carry a superglue-type cement; I have found its extremely low viscosity and good holding power the right combination for the joint. Do not ever use a Loctite product here - while great products, they are very specifically for threaded METAL joints. I am 6', and put up with the shorter 1228 (as with other commentators, I don't use the center post) because of 1)weight and 2)compactness. It is indeed terrific to be take it as hand carry. I use it with a 100mm Optolyth spotting scope - for you birders, that's heavier even than the big Swarovski - and find it more stable than anything other birders use. I also use an angled scope, which gives me a 4-5" functional height advantage over straight scopes (i.e., fully mitigates the shorter tripod height). I also do put my 600 f4 on the 1228, and am satisfied. Wind stability? In winds strong enough to cause a problem, the birds I shoot will very rarely be photogenic, or even visible. Hope this helps. Audie.

Besides the 1227 (essentially an 1228 but with three leg sections), Gitzo has also introduced the G1325 and 1329. They are similar to the 1348 and 1349 introduced a year ago but they too have three leg sections.

I have been using a 326 which extends to 58-5/8" without raising the center column. I am 6'1" and with the height of an Arca Swiss B1, the tripod collar on a 500mm lens and the height of the camera body, the 326 is OK for me, perhaps an inch or so too short. (The ballhead, tripod collar and camera add about 10" to the height and brings it to my eye level.)

Don and I are about the same height. I wonder why he needs the 65-3/4" on the 1348. The new 1325 also has no center column and has one fewer leg section to deal with. It opens to 59-7/8" which is over an inch higher than my 326. I think it is suitable for people 6' or so. (Of course, if you attach the camera right on the ballhead without a big lens with a tripod collar, that would be a different story.) The down side, of course, is that it closes to 28", which is 4" longer than Don's 1348.

Price-wise, the 1325 is ~US$650, about $140 cheaper than the 1348.

Along the same lines as Bob Atkin's recent request for fresh comments relating hands-on experience with the 1227 (different thread)....Did anyone find a permanant fix to the "cold weather dismemberment" problem? Is it even a problem with the newer models? Thanks in advance.

Just bought a Gitzo 1227 from B&H for $499.95. It's still in it's 14 day "evaluation" period around the house. I like it alot but wonder is it really worth $500 as compared to the Bogon 3021 (which I've had for years) which is approx < $120. I picked up the 1227 mainly for travel. I'm not really into way out back packing or mountain hikes, etc. I'm using the B1 ball head, my "big" glass is the Nikkor 500 f4.0 and camera body N90s. From what I can tell so far - It's useable with the 500 and N90s - shooting out the kitchen window on a hard floor. I know, not really a scientifc test but I can get a feel for it. It does seem like an improved design over the all metal models - center column release, etc. It is really light, easy to setup and seems very stable.

To start with : I never bought a Gitzo Carbon tripod. I bought a 300mf2.8 second hand thru a dealer in France -Gitzo is produced in France. the dealer lives in a mountainous region end sells lot of heavy glass - and tripods. given the cost, I settled for a Bogen tripod; i also looked at the Gitzo. The dealer - ans his staff - were convinced that one shouldn't exceed the maximum weight indicated by the manufacturer and to calculate that, you also need to take the weight of the ball-head into account. Given the weight of the Bogen ( my tripod is taken into account the next purchase of a 600f4 ) I probably would go for the Gitzo, even if it costs more than double the price of the Bogen.

Extreme cold weather presented no problems for me during a week-long shoot at Yellowstone in January 1998. With temperatures in the minus 40 degree F. range, my 1348 with an F5 and 600/f4 (sometimes with the 1.4X) worked like a dream. (I pile bean bags on top for added stability in the wind, which was frightful.) [Obious hint, also use a cable release to further reduce movement.] Have used the 1228 in Churchill in bone-chilling temps with 300/2.8 and shorter lenses (especially the 20-35) and experienced no problems with the cold. Now, if they could only build a space heater into the Gitzo, I'd be really happy! And for the cost, you'd almost expect it. Bottom line, from Yellowstone in Winter to steaming Amazon conditions, the carbon fibre tripods have been great. And trying to keep up with Galen Rowell in the Rockies will make anyone a fan of the lighter tripods!!!

In reference to the earlier comment about carbon tripods being safer around lightning than metal ones: Don't be too comfortable. Carbon does NOT act as an insulator; it very freely conducts electricity. Which is one reason why it is used in spark plug wires...

I believe everyone's comments regarding Gitzo's carbon fiber tripods to be the valid, but I have a comment of my own to make regarding those who use the heavy 600mms with them. First of all, I really can't understand the point of using a 600mm f/4, a heavy camera body like the F5 or EOS 1N, and large Arca B1 or B1G on a cabon fiber tripod. So basically all you 600 shooters are saying that you can really tell the difference in weight between a 30lb rig and a 26lb rig.(Difference between the 410 rig and the 1348 rig.) I guess that means that because you saved four pounds you can now hike with that slung over your shoulders for miles on end. The idea of saving weight is to save weight on all pieces of equipment so you can go further from the car. This would be analogous to a hiker buying the best set of titanium pots to save weight and then loading his pack with 10 cans of chunky soup, an 8 person cabin tent and a microwave oven. In the end the weight he saved on those expensive pots didn't amount to a pile of shit. I can see the point of the carbon tripods if a person was to go hiking and needed the lightest gear possible, which means taking a lighter camera body, a smaller lens; eliminating weight in all areas. Yes, I went down to my local camera store and put my 600mm f/4 and Nikon F5 and B1G atop the 1348; I honestly couldnt feel that much difference between my 410. To make a long story short, I would recommend buying a Gitzo carbon fiber tripod if you plan to do backpacking or hiking and are going to couple it with a lightweight camera set-up, but I would definitely not recommend spending the way "over-priced" price to lug around your 600mm bird set-up. For those of you with the 500mm f/4 lenses, a carbon fiber tripod would make more sense because you already have the luxury of a lighter setup, and shaving an additional 4 pounds will make it all that much sweeter. Just my two cents worth.

[<em>slight edit here as I removed an earlier post from the thread</em>]... It is about usability in the field. Some of us actually <I>walk</I> with their tripods. And the weight always adds, but never substracts... When you backpack, every saved pound counts, <I>especially</I> if your load is already heavy. It could be the difference between making over the mountain pass in the daylight and dropping before reaching the top. Try it yourself sometimes, if you do not believe me.

<P>Anyway, I think carbon fibre tripods are superior to metal ones in all respects but cost and ruggedness. When the significant increase of tonnage of my glass this winter send me searching for a bigger tripod, I ended up getting carbon fibre Gitzo. Reported ungluing problems worried me some, but I decided to take my chances. Light weight and stability are too good a bait to ignore. If it falls apart, I'll let you guys know.

Actually, since we are talking about ungluing problems, I'll pass on a rumor I heard, originating from Canadian Gitzo distributor in Toronto. Apparently, they said that Gitzo carbon fibre tripods coming into Canadian market are "winterized", and are not susceptible to falling apart in extreme cold (we easily get minus thirty Celsius here up north; folks talking about zero being cold make me laugh...). Something to do with glue used and how the joint are threaded... Folks at McBain camera (pro shop here in Alberta, some really serious guys work there, pro photogs who got tired shooting full-time) told me that out of about a dozen Gitzo CF they sold, none were returned. So there might be something in the rumor. OTOH, this is all complete hearsay. Time will tell if my tripod is faulty...

Robert makes the point about small weight savings not being very important, but he is using not only a 600/4, but also an F5 (heavy) and a B1G (heavy), so for him, maybe a CF tripod makes no sense. He'd "only" save 4 lbs going from a 410 to a 1325, but he could shave off another couple of pounds using a lighter camera and a B1 head. It all adds up if you have to carry it, and the further you have to carry it, the heavier it gets. If you take the viewpoint that small amounts of weight really don't matter that much, you'll end up with a pack weighting 100 lbs instead of 60 lbs, because each of the 40 items in the pack is "only" 1lb heavier than it need be!

The other thing is that most people don't only shoot with a 600/4. Sometimes they use a 300/2.8, or a 300/4, or a 70-200/2.8, or even a 24mm lens! Yes, you can carry two tripods I guess, but that just increases the amount (and weight) of stuff you have to lug on and off the plane, in and out of the car, even if you only carry one of them into the field with you. Otherwise you end up lugging the 8.5lb 410 (with the 3lb head) up the mountain to get those 24mm wideangle shots!

I'm not knocking heavy tripods, I have a 12.5 lb Bogen 3051, but when I use it I only have to carry it as far as the car, then lift it out of the trunk to shoot. I wouldn't take it on a trip unless I was driving and I wouldn't carry it far in the field.

Ever heard the story that some serious hiker saws off the handle of a tooth brush to save an ounce or so? To some people, every bit of weight counts. The four-pound difference between a Gitzo 1348 and a 410 is pretty significant. Keep in mind that Gitzo rates the 1348 (and other 13xx tripods) to support 26.5 pounds while the 410 at 26 pounds, which is the maximum among all 400 series aluminum tripods. The 13xx carbon fiber are very solid while light-weight tripods.

Another point which we sometimes forget is that nature photographers come in all shapes and sizes. I know some 6ft 6in, 300lb photographers who think a 50 lb load is nothing, while there are 5ft 2in, 125lb photographers who have difficulty lifting a 600/4 up onto a tripod. What's a negligable extra load to one might be a significant problem to the other!

Yes, maybe 4lbs is significant, but then again so is the $460 price difference. For $460 dollars Ill endure an extra 4lbs., and spend my money on film or a flight somewhere, or towards a new lens for my 4x5, not on a CF pod that is WAY overpriced for what it is, especially when you hear about the things coming unglued from time to time. I guess maybe Im only 25 and weight doesnt seem to bother me as much as some people. Yes, I agree that when hiking for long distances weight does add up. Ive done plenty of hiking in the Sierra Nevada mountains, so I can attest to that. But on those hikes I did not bring along my 600mm lens or my 410, and I dont imagine anyone else would have either. A 600mm is a "dont go too far from the car" kinda lens, no matter what its mounted on; its heavy any way you look at it. Maybe a mile or two at the most, but I think thats about the limit for most people. So for me, 4lbs over a few miles with frequent stops at a place like the Anhinga trail doesnt make too much of a difference. As far as switching to an Arca B1, not an option for me, I have one but I dont "feel" its adequate for the 600mm.

Once again, photography involves a lot of compromises and what to buy is up to each individuals. Weight happens to be very important to me, and that is why I don't own any 600mm/f4 lens (the cost is an issue as well) and I sure am glad that my G1325 only weights 4 lbs.

Are there any more confirmation of this "CF tripods becoming unglued" rumor? A few months ago my wife and I brought two CF tripods to, among all places, Antarctica and had absolutely no problems in sub-freezing temperature. Our G1228 is an early version. If that has no problems, the chance is that the later productions also have no such "unglue" problem.

Shun, the "coming unglued" rumors are true. It happened to my 1228 which I purchased shortly after they were introduced. Gitzo replaced it no questions asked.

The tripod did last a couple of years before the problem occured so it's a good thing Gitzos have a lifetime warranty.

Paul, sorry that I didn't quite express myself properly. Yes, I understand that some carbon-fiber Gitzos have unglued, but I wonder how wide spread the problem really is. My G1228 is almost three years old and it had absolutely no problems in sub-zero temperature three month ago. Of course neither did my wife's newer G1227. As a precaution, I even brought glue in our trip to Antarctica but never used it.

I have also read various comments from photographers in colder climates such as Canada and quite a few of them have had no problems at all. My guess is that a few early-production models had this problem which has since been corrected. (Keep in mind that the very first model in production was the G1228. For a couple of years that was the only Gitzo carbon-fiber tripod available before the 13xx series was introduced around 1997. So if any CF Gitzo has the unglue problem, it is probably the early G1228's.)

It is nice to know that Gitzo is willing to exchange faulty tripods. However, if your tripod becomes unglued in some remote location and worse yet, your camera and lens get damaged as a result of the tripod malfunctioning, it would be serious problem.

Shun, I personally know four Gitzo owners who had their 1228's come unglued, one multiple times after it was repaired by Gitzo.

Rather than ask a new question, can one of the 1348 owners here post the height of their tripod with just the top three sections deployed? Thanks in advance.

With just three section extended, Gitzo 1348 stands 130cm (51") tall. Quite high already, about the same as Bogen 3021 legs can go. When you extend fourth leg section, it is very tall indeed. I am 6' tall, and it puts camera on the ballhead above my eye level. If you were a few inches shorter, you could leisurely stroll under it.

BTW, I think I figured out a fast and easy way to extend Gitzo legs. It works just opposite from recommended sequence - I extend smallest legs first. This allows me to adjust the lock closest to me, while I hold the tripod near the head. The trick is to tighten each bigger section just a little bit tighter than the previous one (but none too tight). Than nothing locks or slips, and setting up the legs is nice and fast.

All I can add to this is that my 1548 has enabled me to switch from using a 500mm lens to a 600mm lens and really not notice a whole lot of difference in the weight I am carrying around. I also shedded 2 lbs., by switching from a Studioball to a B1. I think that the carbon fiber tripods are worth every penny.

Andrei, thanks for your response. I currently have both the 1325 and 1348 and am comparing them side-by-side to see which one to keep. The 1348 is just the right height for me without the last section, but I think that the 1325 will be my choice, mostly because I can see that the last set of leg locks on the 1348 will always be in mud, dirt or sand if I leave the lowest section fully retracted. I noticed that the collapsed length of the 1325 is actually only 2" longer than the 1348's, despite what it claims in the literature, so the difference in packing the 1348 isn't as much as I'd hoped.

I have never compared a 1325 and a 1348 side by side. I am a bit surprised to learn that when collasped, the 1325 is only two inches longer than the 1348. So maybe the 1325 is a better choice, not to mention that it is about $150 cheaper.

I have compared a 1227 and a 1325 side by side. Since the 1227 has a center column which sticks out by a couple of inches, its collasped length is merely two inches shorter than that for the 1325.

By the way, a friend of mine's brand new 1348 has just become unglued. Apparently the problem is still around.

I think it might help if those discussing height issues of tripods might also mention their personal height. When somebody says the Gitzoid 46783 is perfect for them, I would like to know if she is a 6'4" statuesque super-model, or if he is a 5'2" dumpling. :)

Stanley, there are other factors too. For example, the older Nikon 500mm/f4 P has a very small tripod collar. However, the new AF-S version has a much longer collar whose leg adds another three inches or so to the total height. The problem is that if you switch between a 500mm/f4 (or 600mm/f4) AF-S and a 300mm/f2.8 or f4, suddenly there is a three-inch hight difference and you need to re-adjust the three tripod legs, which is pretty inconvenient.

I kind of doubt that any 6'4" models are reading this forum. They usually position themselves on the other side of the camera. :-)

I spoke with a Bogen rep this past Sunday (3/14/99) and I asked him about the ungluing problem. He said that while the problem was fixed by changing adhesives about a year or so ago, the only way to make sure you had a new one was to buy one of the latest versions, the ones with the anti-twist groove in the center column.

Shun, good point about the added height of tripod collars. I guess we can also include ballheads into that added height. Still, I think that knowing a person's height would make a difference in how we view his or her's opinion of a tripod. I know that at 6'3" many of the tripods we discuss are just plain to small for me. And don't underestimate the number of women who pursue photography. They may not all be 6 foot super-models, but many are very competent photographers, and, like their male counteparts, are usually intelligent, good looking and charming.

Being 6'7" myself, I am very interested in getting that extra height. I have been following the CF threads with great interest since I will probably invest in one later this year. Is the 3 vs. 4 leg sections really that big a deal? I would think 3 sections offers an advantage in stability (ie. less joints).

Mark, I am about 6'1". With the 1325 fully extended, when I put an Arcs-Swiss B1 and then a 300mm lens (small tripod collar) attached to an F5 on it, the whole set up is about an inch or so too short for my eye level. If I use a 500mm AF-S lens, since the big tripod collar adds 3 inches, I need to shorten the tripod legs a bit.

At 6'7", I am afraid that Mark is out of luck with the 1325 (unless he is willing to stoop down on a regular basis). According to the Gitzo catalog, the 1348 extends about 6 inches higher than the 1325 because of the extra leg section, so that tripod may be a possibility. Unfortunately, despite of having 4 sections, the biggest carbon-fiber Gitzo the 1548 extends even a bit shorter than the 1325. Keep in mind that none of these tripods has a center column.

Stanley, I'm 65" tall. With the 1348's upper two sections fully extended, the height of either my 300/2.8 AF-S or F5 mounting plate was just right for me. The 80-200/2.8 AF-S is slightly lower, but I wouldn't adjust the legs for the difference. With the 1325, I have to extend the lower legs about 60% to get the right height, so I extend them first and just leave them that way--it fits nicely into the trunk of my car and then just requires fully extending the upper section to be at the right height. Since the 1325 is lighter, simpler, cheaper and just slightly longer than the 1348 collapsed, it made more sense for me, although someone taller may have come to a difference conclusion.

Hi all..

I am 160 pounds and set a day hiking weight limit of 15 pounds. For more serious hikes the limit is 25-30 pounds which includes the same or less camera gear. The carbon fiber tripod lets me pack 645 kit or a 4x5 with 6x12 back. I reduce the amount of gear to fit within the weight limit, and take even less if possible. Part of the calculation is to use a small lightweight magnesium head or slightly larger magnesium head as needed. With nornal creativity the photographic image can almost always be captured with the gear that is taken.

Cheers..

Helix Camera in Chicago had a special on the Gitzo 1228G, similar to the 1227G, but has 4 section legs. Their price was $397.00! in the sealed box. The Magnesium head was $115.00, though this is not as good as the Arca-Suisse, it is'nt a bad price for a light inexpensive head. Needless to say I grabbed it. There were more there at the time, but I don't know if they are available now.

One aspect of the Gitzo tripods that has only been lightly touched upon in this thread is their modularity and the ease with which they can be customised. Already mentioned is the ability to swap between a centre column and a flat plate, and an extra advantage is the ease with which you can make custom plates; in my case for an antique telescope and a big banquet camera, both of which require a wide platform for lateral stability.

If you have access to a machine shop, and don't mind crouching, a second option is to remove one or more of the lower leg sections and screw a custom-made foot where the leg lock collar used to be. Stripped down to a B1 on a flat plate and only the first two leg sections, my 1349 is amazingly light and stiff, while remaining tall enough to rise above grasses and bracken.

Those doubting that the price of carbon fiber is worth paying will grouch that the above is true of Gitzo's metal tripods as well. But for the larger sizes the weight savings become increasingly significant and in my case it means I actually take a tripod on outdoor trips where I otherwise wouldn't, or that I have a few spare pounds in my rucksack weight budget for larger formats, extra lenses or bottles of Bollinger.

I just discovered that B&H lists the 1228 and 1227 on their Web site as "discontinued." Does anyone know the story behind that?

I noticed the same thing, Dan. And at the same time, I noticed a note on Kirk's web site saying that they are currently "having trouble obtaining" all the Gitzo tripods that they sell.

Is Gitzo coming down with a case of Arca-Swiss disease?

I use a 1227 for view camera work (6x9 Arca and Toyo 45A) with good results. The only problem I found was the flimsy plastic top plate which introduced some flex between the legs and head. I replaced the center column with the short center column from the metal 2 series (since I certainly wouldnt extend the center column much). No change in weight, but significantly less flex!

Hi guys. I am new to this forum,and read all the postings on the carbon fiber tripods. Now that u all lived with them a year or more, what are your thoughts? Is the 1325 and the 1329 sufficient for the 600 F4? Randy

I am not sure why every one is so concerned about tripod height. I have an 055B which I use with a 500 mm f 4.5 lens and rarely go higher than 2 leg sections extended. I will only go higher if I need to get above something or shooting something higher than me. I try to get down to eye level with the subject, I think it makes a difference, especially when shooting a 90mm long bird feeding in a low bush with the 500/1.4x, and a 50mmm extension tube. What exavtly is wrong with crouching behind a tripod. Keeping a low profile seems to help a close by subject relax. This is what I have found when shooting small wild subjects.

Now, really, Chris... Don4t you ever come across shrubs, grass, fences &c so that you must get your camera up to shoot over the junk? Don4t you ever find the only possible camera position where the tripod legs sink in water, mud, or snow? Most of us do, and THAT4s why we need tripod height, not to shoot giraffes!

I own a Gitzo G1329 (though I rarely use the center column, so it mine as well be a G1325). Instead of posting my thoughts here, check out my review on my website under Equipment Reviews.

I've solved the Gitzo problem. Here's the simple solution. When I have to leave the vehicle to walk long distances, I just invite a friend along who plays professional football. All he has to do is carry the Gitzo 410, the Canon 600mm, and a case of beer.

Methinks that some folks "protesteth" too much. It seems like some folks are trying to justify their "carbon fiber" purchase. I agree with Robert, ya can lighten the "load" somewhere else in favor of carrying the "right equipment" for the job. Yeah, I did live in Alaska for nearly four years and climbed two or three of the "hills" they have up there.... <g>

It is interesting that our tripods are getting lighter as (some of) our cameras are getting heavier. Hauling all the AA batteries and spares needed to power a sophisticated SLR might offset the weight savings of carbon fiber. Mr. Landry makes a good point, that beginners need to question and consider every part of a photographic system.

I finally decided to splurge about a year ago and got a Gitzo 1227. Originally, I didn't think I would like the twist-locks on the legs, but now that I have gotten used to them, I love them! It only takes about a quarter of a turn to loosen or tighten them, and they are VERY solid when tightened. The tripod is super-light, but rock-steady, easy to carry, easy to use, just wonderful. If you want to save some money, you can get this tripod from Robert White, a British company, for about $450, as I recall. Much less than anyplace in the states, even with the shipping and duties.

All this is so very funny to me! Sorry for the sarcasm. I own a Gitzo G1228G that is by far the best tripod I've ever got. It is so versatile that it can be easily back-packed anywhere, you can make a conversion to short column (for the US equivalent of $20 BUCKS)so that it can reach ground level and yet support weights up to a 500 mm/F4 (as several contributors had stated). It seems to me that this is THE ultimate tripod. Why all this discussion? Go out and by a G1228!! (or a 1227 if you need to speed up) Also, I can't believe that most American photographers are so (no offence) square-minded about having to have eye-level tripod height?! You do have knees, don't you? :) M. Weber

Bought a 1228 when it was the first and only CF tripod out there, approx. 1996 or so. No glue problem, though I do photograph in Southern California. It is quite stable in sea-water, so when I go in the intertidal, I have no problems with any of it.

Re the tripod being to light, I bought a metal hook at a hard ware store for a buck fifty, and hang my backpack (Lowe Supertrecker AW) on it. Compared to the weight of the tripod, the backpack is MUCH heavier, so you certainly get the stability of a metal tripod. The pack usually weighs something like 30-40 pounds (never put it on a scale), I can hang the pack on the 1228 and nothing happens, no leg buckling, not sliding. Even if I use the centerpost -- I know, a nono, but just for the sake of it -- when the centerpost is tighly fixed, it stays right were it is. So the only problem with that solution is the small footprint of the leg section, and the legs sink in in softer soil types. Buy some rubber shoes for garden furniture at the hardware store for a couple of bucks, and you're back in business.

For full disclosure, what do I use on it? Linhof Profi II, Linhof quick release, OM4 with up to 300 f/4.5, Contax RTS III with Adorama x/y platform (much better than the shaky one from Velbon), 100 mmM with extension tubes plus stacked 50 f/1.4, Zeiss 180/2.8. So comparatively it's all light equipment, but even fully elevated with some hanging weight, it is rock-solid. I do contemplate the taller version, but first get a short column.

I stick a modified Cambo ball head and a Wimberly Sidekick on my 1228. Then I load it up with a canon EOS10D with battery grip and my 500mm f4.5 and go out shooting wildlife. Never had any issues with this rig and the 1228 seems more than capable despite my 'overweighting' it.

I might just say that the legs 'screw' locking mechanism is a bit of a pain when it's so cold out that your hands burn and as any one who uses a Gitzo for photography as opposed to being able to claim they have one will know cleaning the grit and dust out of the joints after a week in the field is a pain in the ass.

Having said that I have had mine for 3 years now and wouldnt change it for any other.

Darren Green