Complete: my Gitzo GT0530 + Markins Q3

[Tsmith]

My light weight tripod setup is done, at a total weight of 2.5 lbs. Straps on my Gregory Z30 backpack (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1071/1042520386_c8507258ef.jpg%3Fv%3D0&imgrefurl=http://flickr.com/photos/25058965%40N00/1042520386&usg=__hDGLf1oUiTOpD-wPJJS6w48fHGY=&h=500&w=408&sz=99&hl=en&start=6&um=1&tbnid=BIwBNsg0qwJnnM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGregory%2BZ30%2Bbackpack%26um%3D1%26h l%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN) with ease. I know going into this its not going to support a big telephoto lens but thats not what its intended for. The EOS 40D + 70-200 f/4L are no problem at all and honestly I don't see where a lens like the 100-400 or 300 f/4L IS would be either. The setup is surprisingly sturdy for such a compact tripod. Mostly It'll be used with my EF-S 10-22 and 17-40 f/4L.

I did have the Kirk BH-3 but decided it was slightly too much for the tripod. Sold it off and just got the Markin's Q3 and its a perfect fit.

http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/94751464/original.jpghttp://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/94751463/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/smith_xt/image/94751462/original.jpg

[1downfall]

lookin sweet Tony!! how things been with you

[slappy sam]

I'm drooling.

I need to decide between the gt0530 and the gt1540T. The 1540T is considerably more expensive (its about $600) and I think possibly a bit heavier, but it holds the same weight. It also collapses to about 15-16"... I can't decide.

It would be mainly used for traveling and hiking, and I like the fact that I could put the 1540T inside a bag.

[Tsmith]

sam _ I went back and forth on both models too and even told myself if I didn't feel comfortable with the GT0530 that It'd go back to B&H Photo in exchange plus $$$ for the GT1504. Its a keeper for me and being that it's has 3 leg sections vs 4 makes it pretty sturdy but not as compact folded up. With the Q3 attached mine is 23" overall collapsed.

[TheHoff]

Great looking rig.

It is funny how skinny those legs look when compared to tripods just 10 or 20 years ago before the common use of carbon fiber. They look almost toothpick-like compared to the standard metal tripods we used to lug around, but it is likely more stable and surely dampens more vibration.

[slappy sam]

sam _ I went back and forth on both models too and even told myself if I didn't feel comfortable with the GT0530 that It'd go back to B&H Photo in exchange plus $$$ for the GT1504. Its a keeper for me and being that it's has 3 leg sections vs 4 makes it pretty sturdy but not as compact folded up. With the Q3 attached mine is 23" overall collapsed.
Yeah the thing is that I feel like there are so many pros to each one I don't know which would be the one to go with. Either way they will all be a step up (in terms of weight and size) from my 3021bpro with its 329rc4 head, which weighs like 8 lbs.

Pros for the 0530:
-Price is significantly better
-3 leg sections = more stable
-Its actually lighter, I'm pretty sure, and holds the same weight

Pros for the 1540T:
-Holds the same weight
-Still doesn't weigh very much
-Without a head I could fit it in a bag very easily, even with a head I think it would be fine which is a pretty big deal for a few reasons
1. I can fit it in a carryon airport bag fairly easily (sweet!)
2. People won't see a tripod on the exterior of my backpack and know there is camera gear inside - this is a pretty big deal to me

[TheHoff]

For increased stability, don't extend the last leg section -- if you can sit and use the tripod, all the better, right? I'd say if 95% of the time the tripod will be hiking around compared to 5% in use, then don't compromise on the hiking features like size and weight when you can increase stability once you get there by using fewer leg sections or weighting the column.

[slappy sam]

For increased stability, don't extend the last leg section -- if you can sit and use the tripod, all the better, right? I'd say if 95% of the time the tripod will be hiking around compared to 5% in use, then don't compromise on the hiking features like size and weight when you can increase stability once you get there by using fewer leg sections or weighting the column.
Right. The thing is that both are extremely lightweight, extend to an adequate height, so it is just a trade off for a longer collapsed, but cheaper and .4lb lighter tripod, or one that is smaller collapsed and heavier/more pricey.

0530:
20.9" height, 1.6lb weight

1540T:
15.4" height, 2lb weight

Anyway, I should probably stop taking this thread off topic. Sorry.

[Tsmith]

For increased stability, don't extend the last leg section -- if you can sit and use the tripod, all the better, right? I'd say if 95% of the time the tripod will be hiking around compared to 5% in use, then don't compromise on the hiking features like size and weight when you can increase stability once you get there by using fewer leg sections or weighting the column.

Kinda my same way of thinking on this _ ;)

Right. The thing is that both are extremely lightweight, extend to an adequate height, so it is just a trade off for a longer collapsed, but cheaper and .4lb lighter tripod, or one that is smaller collapsed and heavier/more pricey.

0530:
20.9" height, 1.6lb weight

1540T:
15.4" height, 2lb weight

Anyway, I should probably stop taking this thread off topic. Sorry.

decisions decisions _ no problem at all, talk it up.

[Tareq]

So should i buy that Q3 for my GT1540T?
ok, the ballhead is Q3, what about the base? clamp? plate? QR ....etc

[foxbat]

I've spent a year now using the 0530 as my light hiking tripod. It's true that the lowest leg sections are very thin and fully extended it's not particularly tall but the payback is that tiny 700g weight (plus head) that means you will take it where other tripods would get left behind in the hotel room. It really is no effort at all to carry it with you on even the most demanding treks. Folded up I just hook one leg over my belt and can forget it's there!

[Tsmith]

I've spent a year now using the 0530 as my light hiking tripod. It's true that the lowest leg sections are very thin and fully extended it's not particularly tall but the payback is that tiny 700g weight (plus head) that means you will take it where other tripods would get left behind in the hotel room. It really is no effort at all to carry it with you on even the most demanding treks. Folded up I just hook one leg over my belt and can forget it's there!

It is a sweet setup to use as intended. Thanks to you and a couple of naturescape.net members it solidified my decision _ ;)

[xpsentity]

I've been considering this *exact* setup for some time now. I had a few threads going here and there, and the general consensus seemed to be that the 0530 was not stable enough for my uses.

I'm curious how stable it really feels with general wide angle zooms on it. I do quite a bit of slow shutterspeed / long exposure work, and as such it really needs to be very still. I anticipate weighting the center column with my hiking pack as I'm shooting for an added bit. I seem to spend a great deal of time standing in the middle of rivers as well - how do you feel it would hold up with the water vibration? My 3021 is literally *unmoving* in that situation - I've done 30-90 seconds with perfect results.

However, I am sick of carrying around an 8lb setup with a pack around 20-50lbs depending on location (Not photo gear, backpacking gear). Weight is a huge concern for me, which is why I'm trying to stick with a 0-series.

Next year I'll be taking this tripod setup around the world - Milford Track, Everest Base Camp, extensive South America travel, etc. As such, it's very important I make the right choice ;) Any insight would be very helpful.

[slappy sam]

I've been considering this *exact* setup for some time now. I had a few threads going here and there, and the general consensus seemed to be that the 0530 was not stable enough for my uses.

I'm curious how stable it really feels with general wide angle zooms on it. I do quite a bit of slow shutterspeed / long exposure work, and as such it really needs to be very still. I anticipate weighting the center column with my hiking pack as I'm shooting for an added bit. I seem to spend a great deal of time standing in the middle of rivers as well - how do you feel it would hold up with the water vibration? My 3021 is literally *unmoving* in that situation - I've done 30-90 seconds with perfect results.

However, I am sick of carrying around an 8lb setup with a pack around 20-50lbs depending on location (Not photo gear, backpacking gear). Weight is a huge concern for me, which is why I'm trying to stick with a 0-series.

Next year I'll be taking this tripod setup around the world - Milford Track, Everest Base Camp, extensive South America travel, etc. As such, it's very important I make the right choice ;) Any insight would be very helpful.
The 1540 (not the T) is only a touch heavier and supposedly holds 18 lbs as opposed to 11, therefore I'm guessing its sturdier. And if you don't extend all the legs so it functions like a 3 section like the 0530 it is probably even sturdier. I think it weighs approx .3 lb more than the 0530.

[xpsentity]

The 1540 (not the T) is only a touch heavier and supposedly holds 18 lbs as opposed to 11, therefore I'm guessing its sturdier. And if you don't extend all the legs so it functions like a 3 section like the 0530 it is probably even sturdier. I think it weighs approx .3 lb more than the 0530.

The 1530 / 1540 both weigh .9lbs more than their 0-series counterparts. I'm not against it, but if it's not needed...

Those two would be the heaviest options I'm considering.

[slappy sam]

The 1530 / 1540 both weigh .9lbs more than their 0-series counterparts. I'm not against it, but if it's not needed...

Those two would be the heaviest options I'm considering.
Ooh, I didn't know that. I thought it was less than the difference between the 0530 and 1540T, which is .4 lbs. Yeah, .9 lbs is kinda pushing it when you are only talking about tripods weighing approx 2 lb anyway.

[ed rader]

My light weight tripod setup is done, at a total weight of 2.5 lbs. Straps on my North Face backpack with ease. I know going into this its not going to support a big telephoto lens but thats not what its intended for. The EOS 40D + 70-200 f/4L are no problem at all and honestly I don't see where a lens like the 100-400 or 300 f/4L IS would be either. The setup is surprisingly sturdy for such a compact tripod. Mostly It'll be used with my EF-S 10-22 and 17-40 f/4L.

I did have the Kirk BH-3 but decided it was slightly too much for the tripod. Sold it off and just got the Markin's Q3 and its a perfect fit.





looking good Toney....what's the weight of that head?

ed rader

[AMG911]

If I may make 1 suggestion. Replace the centre column with a Markins TB20.
e.g. www.photoproshop.com. It is sturdier than the plastic top plate and it allows you tripod to get really low too!

[jhom]

The Q3 weighs in at 0.84 lbs (385 g) with the standard Markins quickshoe.

[Tsmith]

I seem to spend a great deal of time standing in the middle of rivers as well - how do you feel it would hold up with the water vibration? My 3021 is literally *unmoving* in that situation - I've done 30-90 seconds with perfect results.

However, I am sick of carrying around an 8lb setup with a pack around 20-50lbs depending on location (Not photo gear, backpacking gear). Weight is a huge concern for me, which is why I'm trying to stick with a 0-series.

That's the very reason I parted ways with my Manfrotto 3001BD setup, just to darn bulky and heavy for any convince while hiking. Thing always spent way more time left behind than on the trails.

I honestly can't say whether or not the 0530 would serve your purpose or not in those situations. Guess it might would depend how swift the water was flowing. So far in my normal testing outdoors its been as solid as the 3001BD ever was, just 4 lbs lighter while doing it. Yes its light weight but at the same time its very well built and using the hook off the center column would help making it even more stable as you pointed out.

I often wonder if the negative feedback actually comes from people who have actually used the tripod or if their opinion is solely based on specifications _ :confused:

I am looking forward to packing and using it this coming July on another GNP 7 day hking trip. Results will tell _ :cool:

[slappy sam]

Tsmith, thanks for this review. It helped a lot in my decision.

I think I'm gonna purchase this setup. Got my birthday thursday and I should be getting some cash from that. The 0530 is currently $333 at amazon ($40 rebate), so that would be $603 + shipping from markins for the whole deal.

How is the resale value on this gear?

[xpsentity]

Resale is excellent, it's Gitzo and Markins =)

Just got my Q3 today to pair with my 1530.. talk about ultralight.

[Tsmith]

Hey glad it helped out in your decision making process. The setup does works using with my 70-200 f/4L on a tripod collar.

Resale is excellent, it's Gitzo and Markins =)

Just got my Q3 today to pair with my 1530.. talk about ultralight.

And solid built. I love the tension adjustment screw made into the Ballhead knob.

[Ball4]

Resale is excellent, it's Gitzo and Markins =)

Just got my Q3 today to pair with my 1530.. talk about ultralight.

How's the setup holding up? What's the heaviest lens you've put on it so far and how are the results?

After going back and forth 5,000 times between the 1 series and 2 series, I ordered a 2540 then rejected UPS' delivery. Well, just purchased the 1530 locally this afternoon and am now ready to order the Q3. No more flip flopping!

Did you purchase the Markins camera plate or an L-bracket? If you're using the plate, have you experienced any stability issues when rotating the ballhead 90 degrees to the portrait orientation?

[RPCrowe]

Get a Kirk ASC-3 Snap Collar for the Markins. This will take the strain off the ball head if you decide to carry a camera/lens attached to your tripod. It is a good $25 investment in the safety of your equipment.

http://www.kirkphoto.com/ballheads.html#snapcollar

[Alexiz]

A question to Toney (or others using the Q3 and the 24-105 F4/L lens): how is the head holding the 40D with this lens, especially when positioned for a vertical shot? I've been rather unhappy with the way the 450D/24-105 combo behaved with lighter Manfrotto heads. Balancing was all right with the 70-200 F4 attached because of the nicely centered collar; but the 24-105 throws the camera off-balance since the center of gravity is shifted substantially with this lens. As a result, you have to tighten the ball screw real hard (and tighten it like hell when doing a vertical shot) to ensure there's no drift. How's the Q3 doing in this regard (with the 24-105 and lighter bodies in particular)?

[Tsmith]

A question to Toney (or others using the Q3 and the 24-105 F4/L lens): how is the head holding the 40D with this lens, especially when positioned for a vertical shot? I've been rather unhappy with the way the 450D/24-105 combo behaved with lighter Manfrotto heads. Balancing was all right with the 70-200 F4 attached because of the nicely centered collar; but the 24-105 throws the camera off-balance since the center of gravity is shifted substantially with this lens. As a result, you have to tighten the ball screw real hard (and tighten it like hell when doing a vertical shot) to ensure there's no drift. How's the Q3 doing in this regard (with the 24-105 and lighter bodies in particular)?

Just saw this: the Markins Q3 has a tension adjustment for the Ball Head knob that controls the movement your experiencing with the Manfrotto heads. Thats the very reason I was so unhappy with my 486CR2 and the 488CR2 uses the same design yet has a panning base.

[jhom]

A question to Toney (or others using the Q3 and the 24-105 F4/L lens): how is the head holding the 40D with this lens, especially when positioned for a vertical shot? I've been rather unhappy with the way the 450D/24-105 combo behaved with lighter Manfrotto heads. Balancing was all right with the 70-200 F4 attached because of the nicely centered collar; but the 24-105 throws the camera off-balance since the center of gravity is shifted substantially with this lens. As a result, you have to tighten the ball screw real hard (and tighten it like hell when doing a vertical shot) to ensure there's no drift. How's the Q3 doing in this regard (with the 24-105 and lighter bodies in particular)?

The Q3 is a phenomenal ballhead for its size. Lens droop is almost nonexistant if you stay within its design parameters. Even with a larger lens such as a 300 f2.8L IS, the Q3 is steady as a rock. Its tension control system is superb.

I can say without reservation, none of the Manfrottos I have used 484, 486, 488, and even the 468MG hold or function as well as the Q3.

[Alexiz]

Thanks, guys, appreciate it. I guess it's time to switch from the 486 for me too.

Alex

[p_jolicoeur]

If I may make 1 suggestion. Replace the centre column with a Markins TB20...

It's a bad idea to add the Markins TB-20 to this tripod: adds 4.2 oz / 120 grams to a tripod thats meant to be ultra light, cost $83 + S&H, and anyway the new Gitzo's have the "Ground-Level Set feature wich allows you to remove the center column to save weight and get the camera closer to the ground. The upper disk is removed from the center column and inserted directly into the upper casting using the column hook. No tools required."

The Markins TB-20 was useful for the older models that did not have this feature.

[ben_r_]

Uhhhh.... This thread was probably posted when the older models were current... Did you check the date before you posted?

[p_jolicoeur]

The GT0530 (www.bogenimaging.us/Jahia/site/bius/pid/6780?kindOfProductCollectionRequest=productDetail&productCode=GT0530&productDescription=Mountaineer 6X tripod&curBrandId=BGI&market=MKT1) have the Ground-Level Set feature as well as the GT0531.

[arcticfox3]

What's the height from the ground to the viewfinder? I was thinking of getting one of this as well. But, I am afraid it's not tall enough.

[Tsmith]

What's the height from the ground to the viewfinder? I was thinking of getting one of this as well. But, I am afraid it's not tall enough.

With center column extended maximum height is like 51.5" + your ballhead then the camera. I you need me to I can set it up tomorrow and get you the true measurement.

PM me if I forget as I've got several pending things to get done in the morning.

[michaelnel]

A question to Toney (or others using the Q3 and the 24-105 F4/L lens): how is the head holding the 40D with this lens, especially when positioned for a vertical shot?

The best setup for verticals is to have an L-bracket on the camera. You can get them from Really Right Stuff and Kirk Photo. With an L bracket the camera stays centered over the head instead of getting all unbalanced like it does when you flip it over to the side.

Once you've used an L-bracket, you won't want to do verticals without one. Unfortunately, they are pretty expensive for what they are.

[Tareq]

The best setup for verticals is to have an L-bracket on the camera. You can get them from Really Right Stuff and Kirk Photo. With an L bracket the camera stays centered over the head instead of getting all unbalanced like it does when you flip it over to the side.

Once you've used an L-bracket, you won't want to do verticals without one. Unfortunately, they are pretty expensive for what they are.

Highly recommended, with that L-bracket i love to do vertical shots more than before, easy and quick, i bought for my 1-series MKII and MKIII and now i am going to buy for hasselblad.