3 Section versus 4 section Gitzos

[sml]

I have read here and heard elsewhere that the 3 section leg Gitzos are supposedly more stable than the 4 section equivalent models.
I have also heard that the 4 sections collapse to a smaller size--easier for transport.
But, there doesn't seem to be much comment on the third factor--is the three section really significantly easier to handle (setup and breakdown) than the four section model?

I am on "hold" with my purchase while the "new model" (2531 and 2541) start to arrive in stores. I had previously determined to get the 2531 due to the stability. However, I am also thinking that the smaller it is, the more likely I'll have it with me. But....I don't like the idea of pulling out and adjusting all four legs....seems like it might get to be a pain and offset the advantage of the smaller size.

I'm interested in users' experience. And I'm open to reconsider my choice based on feedback here.
Thanks.

[argyle]

I have the Gitzo GT2540. I don't see any difference in stability between this model and the 3-section model. I've had the tripod on clifftops in fairly strong winds, and also thigh-high in pretty fast moving water...never any problems with vibration. The fourth section on the GT2540 is fairly stout, unlike some other brands where the fourth section is sometimes pencil thin. You won't have any issues with the 3 or 4 section tripod...I mainly went for the 4 since I do a lot of hiking and like the extra shortness when its collapsed. The belief that all 4-section tripods are automatically not as stable as their 3-section counterparts is a myth...it all depends on the manufacturer of the tripod.

As far as opening goes, its a cinch, especially with Gitzo's re-designed leg locks. Basically, when its folded, you wrap your fist around the leg locks as a group, give a 1/4 twist to loosen them all at the same time, then simply extend the leg and tighten. You'll have to tighten each individually, but you'd have to do that with any tripod anyway. I can set up in well under thirty seconds and be ready to shoot. With lever locks, you'd be undoing one lock at a time.

[sml]

I had a feeling that was the case, Argyle. It seems most people on this forum have the four section tripods, but I have found so many articles that suggest using the three section model....and some of the salepeople I have spoken with.
As I mentioned above, the more I think about it....if it's smaller and easier to transport, I will use it more. That's probably more important in the long run...I assume you agree. Again, thanks for answering my concern about setting up (and down!) the "40" series.

It's interesting...on another note, I've noticed that some people also swear by the Explorer models due to their added versatility. But, I think there are some who think they sacrifice to much stability. Again, I am learning that, with tripods, it is really a matter of what works best for one's purpose and usage--they're all "good" choices or options. Same probably applies to the ballheads...

[René Damkot]

My guess would be that the biggest difference between 3 and 4 section tripods would be caused because the lowest section of the 4 section tripod is quite a bit thinner that that of the 3 section one. I'd be less concerned about the leg locKs.
(I've got a 1348 at home with 4 leg locks corroded locked. Believe me, there's no play *whatsoever* there ;))

[Wilt]

It depends upon how tall you are, too! If you are over 6' and you want the legs extended to accomodate your height, then you end up using 4 sections, and you incur the additional time to loosen then extend and then lock 4 sections rather than three to get to same height. If you are petite woman, then you might only need to extend three sections for either tripod!

[argyle]

My guess would be that the biggest difference between 3 and 4 section tripods would be caused because the lowest section of the 4 section tripod is quite a bit thinner that that of the 3 section one. I'd be less concerned about the leg locKs.
(I've got a 1348 at home with 4 leg locks corroded locked. Believe me, there's no play *whatsoever* there ;))

I measured the fourth section of my GT2540...the leg OD is between 5/8" and 11/16" or 17mm to 18mm (don't have a caliper handy to get precise). This is hardly pencil-thin. OTOH, I have an Amvona POS where the bottom section is virtually pencil-thin. It all depends on the manufacturer and the load rating. I wouldn't expect a tripod that's spec'd out for 26 pounds or so to have pencil-thin legs.

There really is no additional time to open the new Gitzo locks. All locks on each leg open at once with just a 1/4-turn, then lock each one individually with the same 1/4-turn. We're talking basically seconds... I can literally unfold the tripod, lock everything in place, and attach the camera via an L-bracket in well under thirty seconds...the extra section doesn't slow me down at all. The bottom line is, one needs to get the proper tripod that will meet his or her needs.

[René Damkot]

I measured the fourth section of my GT2540...the leg OD is between 5/8" and 11/16" or 17mm to 18mm
According to Gitzo it's 16mm (5/8") One section less means 20mm (3/4").
That's a 25% difference...

From back when I cycled a lot, here is a page (http://www.ibiscycles.com/tech/materials_101/2/) that says "as a tube's diameter increases (D), the stiffness increases to the third power of that number"

[Wilt]

There really is no additional time to open the new Gitzo locks. All locks on each leg open at once with just a 1/4-turn, then lock each one individually with the same 1/4-turn. We're talking basically seconds... I can literally unfold the tripod, lock everything in place, and attach the camera via an L-bracket in well under thirty seconds...the extra section doesn't slow me down at all. The bottom line is, one needs to get the proper tripod that will meet his or her needs.

Unless Gitzo had figured out a way to release all locks at a single motion, and then relock all locks at a single motion, it will take a measureable increase in time to do 4 sections than 3...'a few seconds' is a measureable amount of time, which might matter for some!

[sml]

When I was researching which head to buy (I actually haven't bought it yet since I'm waiting for the 2531 and 2541 to hit the market!), I contacted Markins and RRS to ask for their recommendations based on my gear, etc. Both of them indicated that they "prefer" the three section to the four.
The "practicalities," though, of size could offset some of the perceived stability issues, I'm guessing.
I am at a total loss....I have no experience or expertise with any of this gear! So, I am relying on feedback from this forum and other web resources in addition to the recommendations of retailers.
I keep going back and forth between the two styles in my head. For that matter, I keep going back and forth between the M10 and BH-40 in my head, too! I can't wait for this to be resolved--I wish these legs would get to the stores already! I want to go back to taking my tripod for granted as I did for the past 30 years....

I wonder if anyone has gone from a 3 to a four or vice versa because they felt that what they had wasn't working out for them??

[sml]

Unless Gitzo had figured out a way to release all locks at a single motion, and the relock all locks at a single motion, it will take a measureable increase in time to do 4 sections than 3...'a few seconds' is a measureable amount of time, which might matter for some!

I am concerned about that, too, since my "old" tripod takes too long to set up and break down. It actually can discourage me, sometimes, from using it--depending on how lazy I am.

[jhom]

I am concerned about that, too, since my "old" tripod takes too long to set up and break down. It actually can discourage me, sometimes, from using it--depending on how lazy I am.

I highly doubt the additional small amount of time (a few extra seconds) will discourage the use of a 4 section Gitzo. The design of the new Gitzos with ALR and g-locks make setup and breakdown a non-issue.

[argyle]

Unless Gitzo had figured out a way to release all locks at a single motion...

They did. When in the folded position, the leg locks are pretty much butted up against one another. To unlock, you simply wrap your fist around all three, give them a 1/4-turn simultaneously, and then extend all leg sections at once (repeat the same sequence for the remaining two legs). Naturally, you have to lock each leg separately (as you would with any tripod)...but its a very quick 1/4-turn in the opposite direction.

As far as diameter goes...I measured with a ruler (not very accurate) and got 17mm. Rene posted that the Gitzo spec is 16mm, that's fine. Can't really quibble over a single millimeter... The only thing that I can relate, other than hypothesizing over engineering and design data, is my real-world experience with the GT2540. In windy conditions, as well as in fast-moving water, I did not notice any detrimental effects when using the 4-section tripod. Since it performed very well in my arduous conditions, I doubt very much that in 'normal' ideal conditions the user would be able to tell a difference (unless he or she is mounting strain gauges to measure deflection). But we're talking about a top-of-the-line tripod manufacturer...I'll grant that in 'lesser' brands, there may be a very noticeable difference between the 3 and 4 section tripods (case in point is my POS Amvona...the bottom diameter looks like a #2 pencil).

[Jannie]

I think it makes a huge difference how big/long/heavy a lens you are going to use when on the tripod, if I was just carrying my 24-105 I would be willing to go much lighter, but with my 70-200 f2.8 with 2x extender on the lens bracket there is wind resistance and leverage brought about by the weight being up there.

My Manfrotto 055M4F with the AcraTech ball head is awsome until outdoors with that lens setup and then it gets touchy, where I first noticed it was in tests at really slow shutter speeds and the mirror brought about too much shake, just enough to cause a little blurriness and that's when I started making sure I have it locked up at anything below 1/25 second with the heavier/longer lens set up.

That might not be because of the legs or the head or the basic camera/lens system but it's there and it shows when you do the 100% crop test back and forth when at 400mm. It just seems to make sense when the shots are important to eliminate as many errors as possible, if you're doing it for the money then it's a huge deal.

[argyle]

I think it makes a huge difference how big/long/heavy a lens you are going to use when on the tripod, if I was just carrying my 24-105 I would be willing to go much lighter, but with my 70-200 f2.8 with 2x extender on the lens bracket there is wind resistance and leverage brought about by the weight being up there.

My Manfrotto 055M4F with the AcraTech ball head is awsome until outdoors with that lens setup and then it gets touchy, where I first noticed it was in tests at really slow shutter speeds and the mirror brought about too much shake, just enough to cause a little blurriness and that's when I started making sure I have it locked up at anything below 1/25 second with the heavier/longer lens set up.

That might not be because of the legs or the head or the basic camera/lens system but it's there and it shows when you do the 100% crop test back and forth when at 400mm. It just seems to make sense when the shots are important to eliminate as many errors as possible, if you're doing it for the money then it's a huge deal.

I agree. Discounting the recommended load capacities, Gitzo rates their tripods with much consideration given to the focal length of the lens. With the GT2540, I can use my 70-200/2.8IS without any problems, and with good long lens technique, I can also get by with the 100-400L. Anything longer than that, or going to the 400L/5.6 prime, I'd have to move up to the 3-series. But proper long lens technique, as well as using MLU, plays a very important role.

[Wilt]

When I was researching which head to buy (I actually haven't bought it yet since I'm waiting for the 2531 and 2541 to hit the market!), I contacted Markins and RRS to ask for their recommendations based on my gear, etc. Both of them indicated that they "prefer" the three section to the four.
The "practicalities," though, of size could offset some of the perceived stability issues, I'm guessing.
I am at a total loss....I have no experience or expertise with any of this gear! So, I am relying on feedback from this forum and other web resources in addition to the recommendations of retailers.
I keep going back and forth between the two styles in my head. For that matter, I keep going back and forth between the M10 and BH-40 in my head, too! I can't wait for this to be resolved--I wish these legs would get to the stores already! I want to go back to taking my tripod for granted as I did for the past 30 years....

I wonder if anyone has gone from a 3 to a four or vice versa because they felt that what they had wasn't working out for them??

Faced with M10 or BH40 choice, I would turn to M10 in a heartbeat when used with a light weight tripod. I like to carry my tripod on a shoulder strap when walking about, and too heavy of a head mades the tripod carry with the head more downward than I find comfortable. If you would be using aluminum tripod, the head savings in weight is less of a factor in the carrying attitude of a tripod on shoulder.

Decades ago, I chose Manfrotto over Gitzo, simply because I hated the slowness of the twist locks vs. levers. It was not until Gitzo introduced the G lock, and a Gitzo owner and I staged a 'shoot out' comparing set up and take down time, that I finally sold my Manfrotto and purchased a Gitzo, because it was considerably lighter and just as fast to set up and take down (not slower).

[sml]

Faced with M10 or BH40 choice, I would turn to M10 in a heartbeat when used with a light weight tripod. I like to carry my tripod on a shoulder strap when walking about, and too heavy of a head mades the tripod carry with the head more downward than I find comfortable.

Yes...I want a "light" ballhead. But I'm confused about what you're saying--according to the respective company's information, the BH40 is 494 grams to 498 for the M10 (including their clamps). Essentially the same.
And, I think the BH40 may be "shorter," too, by over three quarters of an inch. There's not much for me to base my decision on with these--they both seem to be top quality. It'll probably come down to a decision on the day I get the legs.

Went to try out the 2530 today at a local store. Still don't have the 2531. And no 2540's in stock. So, not much of a worthwhile visit!

[Magic_Puzzle]

The four section legs do cost you something in stability because one of those extensions is of smaller tubing that the ones on the three section leg, but it does fold into a more compact tripod when you close it because with the four sections you can have shorter extensions. The Gitzos are such high quality though that they are very stable anyway.

[Wilt]

Yes...I want a "light" ballhead. But I'm confused about what you're saying--according to the respective company's information, the BH40 is 494 grams to 498 for the M10 (including their clamps). Essentially the same.
And, I think the BH40 may be "shorter," too, by over three quarters of an inch. There's not much for me to base my decision on with these--they both seem to be top quality. It'll probably come down to a decision on the day I get the legs.

Went to try out the 2530 today at a local store. Still don't have the 2531. And no 2540's in stock. So, not much of a worthwhile visit!

Compare the weight capacity of the ballheads, and you will find that you could use the Markins Q3 and its capacity far exceeds the BH40, at far less weight! (The M10 competes against the BH55 -- I had gotten my RRS models mixed up.)

[jhom]

Yes...I want a "light" ballhead. But I'm confused about what you're saying--according to the respective company's information, the BH40 is 494 grams to 498 for the M10 (including their clamps). Essentially the same.
And, I think the BH40 may be "shorter," too, by over three quarters of an inch. There's not much for me to base my decision on with these--they both seem to be top quality. It'll probably come down to a decision on the day I get the legs.

Went to try out the 2530 today at a local store. Still don't have the 2531. And no 2540's in stock. So, not much of a worthwhile visit!

You might want to ask users of the RRS BH40 if they have problems using it with a 2 series Gitzo when they have the camera in the drop slot for portrait shots. For some cameras, there is too little clearance. However, if you will be using an L bracket this is may not be a problem. This is not a problem with the Markins because it is taller.

FYI, naturescapes.net has the 2531 in stock with free shipping. It appears the new 25x1 series weighs about 3 ozs. lighter, is stronger, and has an extra angle stop. With the current Gitzo rebate this makes the cost the same as the older 2530, at least for now.

Correction: For some reason I thought the new 25x1 versions were lighter than the 25x0 version. I'm wrong. They are apparently the same weight. Maybe it was wishful thinking. Every bit helps when you want to keep down the weight.

[sml]

Compare the weight capacity of the ballheads, and you will find that you could use the Markins Q3 and its capacity far exceeds the BH40, at far less weight! (The M10 competes against the BH55 -- I had gotten my RRS models mixed up.)

I had thought that the M20 competes against the BH55....

[sml]

FYI, naturescapes.net has the 2531 in stock with free shipping. It appears the new 25x1 series weighs about 3 ozs. lighter, is stronger, and has an extra angle stop. With the current Gitzo rebate this makes the cost the same as the older 2530, at least for now.

Thanks for the tip! I had never heard of that site before. I will check it out later today....

[René Damkot]

has an extra angle stop.

That would be nice, and finally take away one of the biggest drawbacks compared to the Systematic series.

[jhom]

Thanks for the tip! I had never heard of that site before. I will check it out later today....

This is a popular site for nature shooters.

The naturescapes.net store is a good place to do business. I bought my 2530 from them. Their Gitzo prices for the new verisons are less than B&H.

[sml]

You might want to ask users of the RRS BH40 if they have problems using it with a 2 series Gitzo when they have the camera in the drop slot for portrait shots. For some cameras, there is too little clearance.

I called Casey at RRS and he told me that the issue only presents itself with the LRII clamp which he doesn't normally recommend. His recommendation is for the regular LR clamp.

Here's from the RRS website:

A note about choosing the BH-40 LR II ballhead: The clamp that comes installed on this ballhead is our full-size B2 AS II clamp. This clamp is larger than the clamp that comes installed on the BH-40 LR ballhead. If the diameter of your tripod platform is larger than the base diameter of the ballhead (2.1"/53mm) you may experience clearance issues when using the drop notch. The larger B2 AS II clamp cannot freely clear wider platforms because the head itself has such a low profile. This is not an issue if you only use L-plates, but we strongly urge you to choose the BH-40 LR ballhead instead of the BH-40 LR II ballhead if you use conventional body plates.


It seems to me that there is sometimes confusion about the information regarding RRS on this forum for some reason...
I feel foolish--everytime I read about something "wrong" with RRS compared to Markins, I call RRS and they have a plausible explanation.
I keep saying...they're both probably great products and both will probably work well with my gear.
At this point, I'm going with the RRS BH-40 on the 2531...and all the matching plates, etc. Just seems easier than switching the clamps, etc.

[jhom]

I called Casey at RRS and he told me that the issue only presents itself with the LRII clamp which he doesn't normally recommend. His recommendation is for the regular LR clamp.

Here's from the RRS website:

A note about choosing the BH-40 LR II ballhead: The clamp that comes installed on this ballhead is our full-size B2 AS II clamp. This clamp is larger than the clamp that comes installed on the BH-40 LR ballhead. If the diameter of your tripod platform is larger than the base diameter of the ballhead (2.1"/53mm) you may experience clearance issues when using the drop notch. The larger B2 AS II clamp cannot freely clear wider platforms because the head itself has such a low profile. This is not an issue if you only use L-plates, but we strongly urge you to choose the BH-40 LR ballhead instead of the BH-40 LR II ballhead if you use conventional body plates.


It seems to me that there is sometimes confusion about the information regarding RRS on this forum for some reason...
I feel foolish--everytime I read about something "wrong" with RRS compared to Markins, I call RRS and they have a plausible explanation.
I keep saying...they're both probably great products and both will probably work well with my gear.
At this point, I'm going with the RRS BH-40 on the 2531...and all the matching plates, etc. Just seems easier than switching the clamps, etc.

No confusion really...just a point of fact. When ordering the BH40, you need to know which version you need for the tripod you are using.

Markins or RRS ballheads are both great products. There are subtleties in features and function in each that make each one a preferred ballhead. Good luck on your choices.

[JohnJ80]

I had thought that the M20 competes against the BH55....

It does.

If you talk to Markins they will tell you that the head are matched to the gitzo tripods. The Q3 is for the 15xx or the 25xx, the M10 for the 25xx and the M20 for the 35xx tripods.

The Q3 would be lost on a 3540LS for example.

Other comments -

4 vs 3 sections on new Gitzos - I cannot tell if there is a difference which tells me that it is probably a big don't care. The results are superb even in very tough conditions so it would be hard for me to see how the difference would matter in my images.

As for setting up the 4 sections, I can set up either my 1258 (like a 2540) or my 3540LS in about 15 seconds. I presume I could do a 3 section faster but would it matter? I'd rather not have the extra length for when I travel or for putting on a backpack.

J.

[Wilt]

I had thought that the M20 competes against the BH55...


It does.

If you talk to Markins they will tell you that the head are matched to the gitzo tripods. The Q3 is for the 15xx or the 25xx, the M10 for the 25xx and the M20 for the 35xx tripods.J.

While it is certainly valid to associate a certain model head with a specific series of Gitzo, when one compares ballhead to different brand ballhead, it is the capacity and weight of the ballhead that is being compared. (After all, what is the point of mounting a heavy ballhead on a tripod simply because that is what is necessary to carry the needed load? Whereas a different brand of ballhead carries the same (or more) load with much less weight of the head, making the tripod better balanced and lighter. That is why I was comparing the Q3 to the BGH40...similarity of capacity (vs. its weight)

RRS ballheads are superb products, designed for the days of (heavier) aluminum tripods. Markins are superb products, designed for the days of (lighter) carbon fiber tripods. (I use Linhof Profi II, only one oz. heavier than a Markins M10, and which I purchased long before Markins was a company with a product.)

[JohnJ80]

While it is certainly valid to associate a certain model head with a specific series of Gitzo, when one compares ballhead to different brand ballhead, it is the capacity and weight of the ballhead that is being compared. (After all, what is the point of mounting a heavy ballhead on a tripod simply because that is what is necessary to carry the needed load? Whereas a different brand of ballhead carries the same (or more) load with much less weight of the head, making the tripod better balanced and lighter. That is why I was comparing the Q3 to the BGH40...similarity of capacity (vs. its weight)

RRS ballheads are superb products, designed for the days of (heavier) aluminum tripods. Markins are superb products, designed for the days of (lighter) carbon fiber tripods. (I use Linhof Profi II, only one oz. heavier than a Markins M10, and which I purchased long before Markins was a company with a product.)

The problem comes is that if they are too small then there can be interference issues in the range of movement and accessibility and usability of controls. Conversely, if the ballhead is too heavy and on too small a tripod, then the thing is top heavy. I don't recall the metric but RRS had some ratio that sort of talked to that.

Certainly you can use a very small one on a larger tripod if you are willing to accept the limitations and appearance.

All of the Markins ballheads typically have load ratings (which are pretty much meaningless) that far exceed what one would ever use. That said, load ratings are completely meaningless simply because there is no consistent or industry wide testing standards that are used. For some, it is the point at which gear fails (cheap knock offs) for others it is the point at which the mfg believes it cannot stabilize the camera and lens adequately for a sharp image (Gitzo) and the rest are somewhere else in between. That renders "load" ratings as nothing more than - at best - figures of merit among models in a given mfgs product line. They are meaningless across product lines.

Actually, the Q3 is more comparable to the BH25 simply because the M10 is pretty much spec for spec closer to the BH40. The Q3, of course, is much more capable than the BH25 (has an independent panning base) at the cost of 4 ozs.

I do have the BH40 (which is for sale) and I intend to replace it with the Q3 on my Gitzo 1258 (my traveling tripod) where I'm seeking minimum weight. I also have been quite happy with my M20 on my 3540LS and I'd like to also have consistent controls over my ballheads.


J.

[Wilt]

The problem comes is that if they are too small then there can be interference issues in the range of movement and accessibility and usability of controls. Conversely, if the ballhead is too heavy and on too small a tripod, then the thing is top heavy. I don't recall the metric but RRS had some ratio that sort of talked to that.

Certainly you can use a very small one on a larger tripod if you are willing to accept the limitations and appearance.

All of the Markins ballheads typically have load ratings (which are pretty much meaningless) that far exceed what one would ever use. That said, load ratings are completely meaningless simply because there is no consistent or industry wide testing standards that are used. For some, it is the point at which gear fails (cheap knock offs) for others it is the point at which the mfg believes it cannot stabilize the camera and lens adequately for a sharp image (Gitzo) and the rest are somewhere else in between. That renders "load" ratings as nothing more than - at best - figures of merit among models in a given mfgs product line. They are meaningless across product lines.

Actually, the Q3 is more comparable to the BH25 simply because the M10 is pretty much spec for spec closer to the BH40. The Q3, of course, is much more capable than the BH25 (has an independent panning base) at the cost of 4 ozs.

I do have the BH40 (which is for sale) and I intend to replace it with the Q3 on my Gitzo 1258 (my traveling tripod) where I'm seeking minimum weight. I also have been quite happy with my M20 on my 3540LS and I'd like to also have consistent controls over my ballheads.


J.

I don't disagree with the points raised!