Gitzo Traveler vs. Manfrotto 055 - Keeping Both.

I bought the Manfrotto 055XproB tripod legs with a 488RC2 ballhead a few years ago. Functionally, I like this tripod a lot. I can get the camera anywhere from touching the ground to head height fast and easy. The tripod is stable, quick to deploy and safely holds my 6kg rig in all kinds of positions and locations.

The problem I've been wrestling with is, this tripod is too heavy and too big to lug very far. The weight is really bad, and while the CF version would cut that some, it would still be a heavy rig. The length is nearly as big a deal as the weight, and the CF legs won't help with that. The Manfrotto 055XproB is about 30" long with ballhead which is just totally awkward to lug around. I seem to never have it with me when I most want it, because I left it in the car.

So I recently bought a Gitzo Series 1 Traveler 6X CF set of legs. 2.2 pounds and a folded length of under 17". My plan was that if I liked these legs, I'd sell the Manfrotto. I like these legs......but I'm keeping the Manfrotto too.

Around the house or near the car, I prefer the 055XproB. The legs are quicker to set up owing to having less segments and also owing to having flip locks. The 055 legs also have the quick use center post which lets me get a camera right down on the deck in seconds. Finally, the 055 legs are more adjustable for angle and I can deal with uneven terrain fast and easy when using them.

By contrast, there is no problem with the Gitzo legs for most stuff, but they are just a little slower to deploy. I took out the center post, because it isn't a quick type and when installed it prevents you from getting the camera right on the ground unless you pull it out and flip it over. The three twist locks per leg are certainly slower to use than two flip type, and the legs only allow two angle settings.

I hate carrying the 055 legs, so I know I'll love the Gitzo legs on vacation. The Gitzo legs are very light and so much shorter that the difference is amazing. So at least for me I think two different sets of legs are best. There would be no one set of legs that could be as portable as the Gitzo Traveler and as functional as the 055.

Nothing wrong with that. I have actually been thinking of buying another set of 055XPROB legs again. Though Itll be to use them as a video slider stand. They are pretty darn tough for the price. Thats why they are the most popular.

I have been borrowing a set of Manfrotto legs for some time now and will probably end up with the 055XPROB, but I do agree with what was said above with regard to the length. I travel semi-frequently for work, and like to carry my gear with me in case I have time to go and shoot. Unfortunately, the 3-section legs don't fit in my 2-3 day luggage and I have been forced to carry them through the airport before - not fun. Just started looking (this week) at alternatives that are 4-section that would fit in the smaller luggage... hard to find something to beat the value of the 055X's though.

Any suggestions to my above post?

I didnt specifically mention it above, but I really dont care as much about weight as I do the folded minimum height. Heck - actually I mention it indirectly, but maybe worth repeating - I carried a set of 3-section aluminum Manfrotto legs through multiple airports (round-trip, non-direct flights)... So if I can fit it into my checked luggage, and dont have to carry it at all I'm all for it.

Understandably, a 4-section is probably going to be more than a 3-section, but if I save some money staying with aluminum, I'm OK with it being heavier than a CF alternative... unless ofcoase the price difference is 'relatively' negligable.

How small are you trying to get the kit down to? What length does it need to be when closed to fit it in your luggage?

ben_r_ wrote in post #13681579
How small are you trying to get the kit down to? What length does it need to be when closed to fit it in your luggage?

Roughly 18".

For reference, the 3-section Manfrotto's that I have been using are discontinued (3221WN), but are 25.3" closed, and weigh 6.2lbs. according to B&H (http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …WN_Tripod_Legs_​Black.html)

If you want that small and still stable you need a CF traveler pod and now youre talking $700+ with head and clamp.

Check out my review here: LINKthatll give you some idea of what youre looking for even though those legs are no longer available.

ben_r_ wrote in post #13682889
If you want that small and still stable you need a CF traveler pod and now youre talking $700+ with head and clamp.

Check out my review here: LINKthatll give you some idea of what youre looking for even though those legs are no longer available.

I am certainly not ready to take a $700 leap on a pair of legs. I don't use my tripod enough to spend that kind of money. The large majority of my shots are hand-held. The majority of the times I end up using a tripod are when I am doing a pano (which I have only done 3 of in 2 yrs)... or taking family snapshots (self-included) using a wireless trigger, simply because I can't be in 2 places at once.

That said, I may take a chance on this set of 4-section Manfrotto legs: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2CY_M_Y_Carbon_​Fiber.html

or splurge on having an additional 10lbs of load capacity (really need to weigh gear and determine if I even need 17lb capacity - for 2x the price):
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …Section_Carbon_​Fiber.html

Even at $355, that's still 1/2 the cost you recommended... Honestly, still interested in cheaper alternatives (assuming same or better quality than either of the links I provided above), as I believe Manfrotto legs carry a slightly inflated price due to brand recognition.

I would much rather spend money on additional light and/or modifiers - I simply use them more and find them more valuable.

JeffreyG wrote in post #13664688
By contrast, there is no problem with the Gitzo legs for most stuff, but they are just a little slower to deploy. I took out the center post, because it isn't a quick type and when installed it prevents you from getting the camera right on the ground unless you pull it out and flip it over. The three twist locks per leg are certainly slower to use than two flip type, and the legs only allow two angle settings.

I'm not familiar with the Gitzo Traveler model, but I've been using a four section 2-series for quite a while...I find setting up just the opposite of your experience so far. Very easy to wrap my fist around all three leg locks at once, give a quick 1/4-turn, then extend the legs. When I'm rushing, I can have the tripod setup and ready to go in about 10-seconds (literally). I had an older Velbon CF with leg locks, and these had to be unlocked/locked individually. As far as uneven terrain goes, I use a RRS panning clamp...I can level the rig in a matter of a few seconds...no need to fumble with individual leg adjustments. I'm waiting to see how the RRS Series 1 looks as a traveler type...

argyle wrote in post #13684455
I'm not familiar with the Gitzo Traveler model, but I've been using a four section 2-series for quite a while...I find setting up just the opposite of your experience so far. Very easy to wrap my fist around all three leg locks at once, give a quick 1/4-turn, then extend the legs. When I'm rushing, I can have the tripod setup and ready to go in about 10-seconds (literally). I had an older Velbon CF with leg locks, and these had to be unlocked/locked individually. As far as uneven terrain goes, I use a RRS panning clamp...I can level the rig in a matter of a few seconds...no need to fumble with individual leg adjustments. I'm waiting to see how the RRS Series 1 looks as a traveler type...

Same here. Once you learn to give a quick twist to all the leg locks while the leg is collapsed then pull them all out, its extremely fast. Id even go as far as to say theres nothing else quicker.

drvnbysound wrote in post #13681937
Roughly 18".

For reference, the 3-section Manfrotto's that I have been using are discontinued (3221WN), but are 25.3" closed, and weigh 6.2lbs. according to B&H (http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …WN_Tripod_Legs_​Black.html)

drvnbysound wrote in post #13683295
I am certainly not ready to take a $700 leap on a pair of legs. I don't use my tripod enough to spend that kind of money. The large majority of my shots are hand-held. The majority of the times I end up using a tripod are when I am doing a pano (which I have only done 3 of in 2 yrs)... or taking family snapshots (self-included) using a wireless trigger, simply because I can't be in 2 places at once.

That said, I may take a chance on this set of 4-section Manfrotto legs: http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …2CY_M_Y_Carbon_​Fiber.html

or splurge on having an additional 10lbs of load capacity (really need to weigh gear and determine if I even need 17lb capacity - for 2x the price):
http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …Section_Carbon_​Fiber.html

Even at $355, that's still 1/2 the cost you recommended... Honestly, still interested in cheaper alternatives (assuming same or better quality than either of the links I provided above), as I believe Manfrotto legs carry a slightly inflated price due to brand recognition.

I would much rather spend money on additional light and/or modifiers - I simply use them more and find them more valuable.

Yes but that setup nor will any cheaper that will still be stable and a sound support foundation, isnt anywhere near the 18" mark you said you were looking for.

ben_r_ wrote in post #13686488
Yes but that setup nor will any cheaper that will still be stable and a sound support foundation, isnt anywhere near the 18" mark you said you were looking for.

I am confused by your response... I understand that it wont be as stable as a Gitzo Traveler setup or similar. I am perfectly OK with that for what I shoot and what my needs are when traveling - it is an acceptable compromise to me.

That being said, the first tripod I linked (732CY) is listed at 16.73" folded.

I too thought the 055CXPRO4 was listed about the same, but just pulled that up again, and found it to be 21.5". So yes, it is taller than I expected. I mistakenly looked across at the load capacity number and saw a 17 and wrongly assumed that to be the folded height... my mistake.

I wanted to provide an update.... I just had to order a tripod for work to do some video recording and it just worked out that I ended up ordering the 732CY - both because it was fairly inexpensive while fitting fit our requirements, and because I was interested in getting it in hand to see for myself

That said, upon receipt I was very happy with the folded size and weight. However, I was slightly disappointed when I extended all the legs and found how short the max height was (both with and w/o the column extended). I am roughly 6-ft (72-inches) tall, and it is max height w/o the column extended is 46.25". I definitely won't be getting one of these for regular use, but am still intrigued with it's portability and may likely end up with one just for travel use.

drvnbysound wrote in post #13852936
I wanted to provide an update.... I just had to order a tripod for work to do some video recording and it just worked out that I ended up ordering the 732CY - both because it was fairly inexpensive while fitting fit our requirements, and because I was interested in getting it in hand to see for myself

That said, upon receipt I was very happy with the folded size and weight. However, I was slightly disappointed when I extended all the legs and found how short the max height was (both with and w/o the column extended). I am roughly 6-ft (72-inches) tall, and it is max height w/o the column extended is 46.25". I definitely won't be getting one of these for regular use, but am still intrigued with it's portability and may likely end up with one just for travel use.

That's the compromise you have to make if folded size is important to you. Until someone comes out with a 6- or 7-section travel tripod, we'll all have to make a compromise. Of course, making a 7-section tripod stable is no easy feat.

Agreed. I certainly didn't realize that - heck I didn't even bother to look really. I certainly assumed any 3-section model with a shorter folded length would result in a reduced max height... I (dumbly) assumed that the height would have been made up with the 4th section - not so much