A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Nature > Tripods > Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber...

Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber Tripods

Jim Zipp , Dec 28, 1998; 08:29 a.m.

Has anyone compared the Gitzo 1548 carbon fiber tripod versus the 410 tripod in the field? Arthur Morris states that he "has been able to make sharp images with his 600" using one but is it as good as the 410? They are a huge invistment but the weight savings with already heavy 600's could make them worth it only if they are equally steady.


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Paul Tsong , Dec 28, 1998; 05:50 p.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

Here's what Art Morris says on the nature forum.


There are only 2 choices: the Gitzo 410 or the lightweight Gitzo 1548 Carbon Fiber. Both are strong and sturdy enough to routinely produce--with perfect technique on the photographer's part, sharp images at shutter speeds down to 1/60th of a second. Though the 1548 is expensive, and I wish that it were a bit taller, I absolutely love mine; it is my everyday tripod. When working out of and near my vehicle, say at Bosque Del Apache or Ding Darling, I'll opt for the heavier 410 tripod.

Paul Tsong , Dec 28, 1998; 06:10 p.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me that people complain about the price of these tripods after spending a minimum of $6000 on a lens.

Al shaikh , Dec 28, 1998; 08:00 p.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

I do not think he was complaining, I think he simply does not want to waste money on an expensive doodad without knowing it works. If you have any extra cash laying around that you care to discard I have a really nice tripod made out of carbon fiber toothpicks for sale only 4000 dollars!!(shipping included) Since thats is only 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of a 600/4 I think according to your logic its a steal.

Jim Zipp , Dec 28, 1998; 08:40 p.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

Altaf Shaikh is correct in that I was not complaining about the price of the carbon fiber tripods. I totally agree that after investing large sums of money into long lenses it would be foolish to try to save a few dollars on a tripod. I am more than willing to pay the higher price as long as it is as good as the 410, as I stated in my question. If on the other hand I found it to be only lighter but not quite as good as the 410 I would rather shoulder the extra weight instead.

Martin Feldman , Dec 29, 1998; 12:19 a.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

Jim, let me add that Moose Peterson uses a 1548 with his 600 mm and swears by it.

Don Baccus , Dec 29, 1998; 12:22 a.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

My personal testing led me to conclude that a 13xx Gitzo CF tripod is nearly as rigid and stable as a 410. The 15xx CFs weren't out at the time, so I bought a 1348 and am very happy with it. If I were buying today I'd probably buy the 15xx because it would be total overkill, and why not for the price increment? It should blow a 410 away. I don't subscribe to the theory that greater weight yields inherently more stable tripods, material stiffness plays a role, just ask any designer of tennis rackets, where CF has caused a tremendous revolution.

So, Arthur Morris, IMO, is being overconservative by using his metal 410 close to the car and the 15xx only when further away. I think he's probably giving up rigidity. My personal informal testing makes me think I give up VERY little with a 1348 compared to a 410, and gain a lot in stability over a 340 which I've also tried. My photos are sharp. My photos sell, when I care to market them. So ... I'm happy. My 1348 is a GREAT tripod, and it is my major tripod, my 99% use tripod.

Shun Cheung , Dec 29, 1998; 07:17 a.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

Like Arthur Morris, Art Wolfe also uses the Gitzo 1548 with a Studioball (a very large ballhead) in the field. He wants to maximize stability.

The G1548 is a very large tripod. I have played around with a couple of them, and they sure give you a lot of stability. However, they also cost $900 and weight 6.75 pounds. Now $900 may not be that much more than a $700+ G13xx, but adding two pounds over a G13xx sort of defeats the purpose of using a lighter carbon-fiber tripod. If you really need the stability, I am sure the G1548 is an excellent choice.

When the G1348 was introduced about two years ago, I was interested in it too. (I think that was around the time Don bought his.) However, Gitzo has since introduced the G1325 which has 3 sections (2 joints per leg) instead of 4 sections on the G1348 (3 joints). Since I hate those joints, the G1325 would be my choice now although it is kind of long when closed all the way down; I wonder that may be a problem during air travel. Neither the G1548, G1348 nor G1325 has a center column.

Bob Atkins , Dec 29, 1998; 11:42 a.m.

Response to Gitzo Carbon Fiber Tripods

My choice is a 1325 for use in the field with a 600/4. As Shun says, the 1548 is 2 lbs heavier which is starting to eat into the reason for using a CF tripod in the first place. A 1325 is 4.4 lbs, a 1548 is 6.4 lbs and a 410 is 8.5lbs.

The 1325 seems pretty stable with a 600/4, though I'm sure a 1548 is slightly better. My "shooting from the car with maximum stability" tripod is a Bogen 3051. If you aren't going to carry it, what does weight matter. It weighs 12.5 lbs, is as stable as a rock and costs under $200. I wouldn't think of carrying it in the field or taking it on an airplane, but on car trips it's fine. It's also overkill for anything but a heavy 500+mm lens, at least in 35mm format. A great studio tripod I guess. You're certainly not going to accidentally knock it over!

Kaj Jensen , Dec 29, 1998; 03:28 p.m.

Gitzo 1548 with ArcaSwiss B2 is the one I use from 500 mm and up to 1000 mm. It is substantial more stable than my Gitzo 1325 with ArcaSwiss B1. A rubber disk is placed between the bottom of the ballheads and the topplates of the tripods to make the connections more solid.

    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses