Gitzo Tripod and Head combo...??

Why does everyone here seem to be swapping for the RRS Quick Clamp? Is it so good or is something wrong with the Markins QR?
Same thing....if I skip the L-Bracket, why not get the Markins Camera Plate, too. Is there something about the RRS plate that makes it more secure or something...or is something wrong with the Markins' version?

Nothing wrong with the Markins clamp: I use it.
RRS lever release is a bit quicker to use, since it's a lever instead of turning a knob. Only drawback of it, is that it will not fit plates from some manufacturers (Novoflex for instance)
No experience with the Markins plates, but if it's not an L plate, I'd not bother

On this page is a video, showing the advantage of both L plate and lever release clamp.

The L-bracket is a godsend...get one, and you won't regret it.

Agreed on L brackets. Mine is from Kirk, and it has been well worth it.

sml wrote in post #5565585
Why does everyone here seem to be swapping for the RRS Quick Clamp? Is it so good or is something wrong with the Markins QR?
Same thing....if I skip the L-Bracket, why not get the Markins Camera Plate, too. Is there something about the RRS plate that makes it more secure or something...or is something wrong with the Markins' version?

There is nothing wrong with the Markins plates or clamps. It is all about convenience. The RRS design maximizes speed and security with their lever clamp. Sticking with the same brand plates/brackets/clamps helps maximize compatibility.

The RRS plates are nice and quick, I've considered getting one for that reason. But my plates are all Kirk aside from one generic Markins one I have. I don't want to risk compatibility as the RRS QR clamp mechanisms supposedly don't fit well with some other brands of plates. The Markins will hold anything securely and safely, but it is slower to operate. Kirks are faster and just as secure though, they use a coarser thread that requires fewer turns of the knob.

emorphien wrote in post #5568046
The RRS plates are nice and quick, I've considered getting one for that reason. But my plates are all Kirk aside from one generic Markins one I have. I don't want to risk compatibility as the RRS QR clamp mechanisms supposedly don't fit well with some other brands of plates. The Markins will hold anything securely and safely, but it is slower to operate. Kirks are faster and just as secure though, they use a coarser thread that requires fewer turns of the knob.

TBH, I've been using Kirk L-brackets with my RRS lever clamp for several years and have never had a compatibility issue at all. Right now, I have an RRS L-bracket on my 5D, and Kirks on the 30D and 10D. No problems whatsoever...shouldn't be an issue IMO.

argyle wrote in post #5566665
The L-bracket is a godsend...get one, and you won't regret it.

So what's the big advantage of the RRS L-plate vs. say a Markins PG34 5D camera plate? From what I can see, you rotate the camera 90 degrees for portrait orientation leaving the ballhead position alone with the L-plate. With the PG34 plate, the ballhead must be rotated 90 degrees. Does this create a stability issue? I wish I had all these tripod components in front of me to try out.

Ball4 wrote in post #5572566
So what's the big advantage of the RRS L-plate vs. say a Markins PG34 5D camera plate? From what I can see, you rotate the camera 90 degrees for portrait orientation leaving the ballhead position alone with the L-plate. With the PG34 plate, the ballhead must be rotated 90 degrees. Does this create a stability issue? I wish I had all these tripod components in front of me to try out.

An L-bracketr affords you the ability to keep the camera positioned over the center of the tripod, no matter which position (landscape or portrait) you happen to be shooting in. This provides maximum stability since the load is evenly distributed. A camera plate, as opposed to an L-bracket, has two distinct disadvantages: (1) To switch from landscape to portrait orientation, you need to utilize the drop slot in the tripod head...this means that you'd need to re-compose your shot, possibly re-position the tripod, etc. and (2) when using the drop slot, the weight of the camera and lens will now be cantilivered, or offset, from the center of the tripod, which can lead to instability and other problems such as OOF shots, etc.

sml wrote in post #5556036
Sooo....I've been reading and writing in posts for a week or two as I try to decide what to do with my tripod purchase.

Here's where I'm "at" now...and I'm surprised!!

Back a few weeks ago, Laurie Excell at NAPP had suggested to look into the Gitzo 3540 LS and the RRS BH-55. I felt that was overkill (for my gear)...and I was a bit concerned about not having a center post.
I trimmed back to a 2530 with the BH-40 or Markins M-10 head and was pretty close to pulling the trigger.
I don't know what happened...but I'm back to Laurie's suggestion! And tack on the L-bracket, too!
I've read here and elsewhere that a center post is not needed....some actually recommend against it! I also like the smaller collapsed size and weight of the 3540 LS. And, if I do get a 400mm f5.6 lens (which is next "in line"), then the larger setup might be more suitable (or is it?).
Am I nuts??? Is this a good setup or is it, as I had thought, overkill for my gear and my occasional use of a tripod? If it is, then I'll go back to the 2540 (smaller when folded than the 2530) and the M-10 or BH-40. And I'll likely remove the center post.
This is, after all, a LOT to spend on a tripod. But, I feel that it will be worth it if it improves my overall sharpness....and if a really good tripod will induce me to use it more often!
Thanks!

Center posts are the devils work, so don't miss that, but I agree that a BH55 and the large legs are overkill for your intended use. The 400mm f/5.6 prime is a feather weight as well, there's no reason at all with your line up to consider such beefy set up IMHO.

I would not get four section legs though, (ie: stick with 2530 ) four section legs are also the devils work..
And your BH40 or M10 seem spot on to me.

That said, the 35xx is very lightweight and certainly stable but man I just can't recommend enough to go with three legs sections over four. I'd consider the 2530 to be more solid than the larger four section in some ways.
In fact I am confused that it's been recommended to go up to a 3540 as being more stable for long lenses, yet no mention of the lower stability of the added fourth leg section, and the same with the addition of the center column, both center column and the extra leg sections are coountrary to the idea of more stability.
On top of stability, four section also means three more knobs to twist every time you set it up..

All to save a few inches when it's folded? ie: when it's not even being used...
Not worth it.

Thanks CyberDyneSystems!
You've NAILED exactly some of my questions and concerns! And some of the things I have been considering.
Actually, since I don't know anything at all about these things (my tripod is from the 70's...and I never used it THAT much) I am totally in the dark. No hands on experience. So I am relying on this forum for much of my decision making.
Tomorrow or soon after, I am going to check out a couple of the legs--I found them in stock at a local store. The things you mention are my concerns--four sections, larger model, center column, size, height, etc.
(With the 2530, I think I'd have to buy the model with the center column and take it out, if I'm not mistaken.)
Thanks MUCH!

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5573450
Center posts are the devils work, so don't miss that, but I agree that a BH55 and the large legs are overkill for your intended use. The 400mm f/5.6 prime is a feather weight as well, there's no reason at all with your line up to consider such beefy set up IMHO.

I would not get four section legs though, (ie: stick with 2530 ) four section legs are also the devils work..
And your BH40 or M10 seem spot on to me.

That said, the 35xx is very lightweight and certainly stable but man I just can't recommend enough to go with three legs sections over four. I'd consider the 2530 to be more solid than the larger four section in some ways.
In fact I am confused that it's been recommended to go up to a 3540 as being more stable for long lenses, yet no mention of the lower stability of the added fourth leg section, and the same with the addition of the center column, both center column and the extra leg sections are coountrary to the idea of more stability.
On top of stability, four section also means three more knobs to twist every time you set it up..

All to save a few inches when it's folded? ie: when it's not even being used...
Not worth it.

Here is a post that has a spreadsheet with a bunch of tripods that I did last year when searching for a tripod. If you good with Excel and sorting it could be very useful and narrow things down quickly.

I would go without a center column (devils work, good one cyber). Systematic series can add this on later if you really want it.

Larger tripod only if you think you might get a bigger lens.

Stand up with a tape measure in front of your eyeballs, I am 5' 11" and 58" was the bare min. for tripod height for me. Don't forget to add on Ball head height and camera. I used a Manfrotto before I bought my Benro a while back and I spent two days hunched over, boy did that suck.

How many legs sections is something I read about also. After getting my gt5540ls I can probably say that section 4 is wider in diameter and stronger then most tripods have in section 1.

Go with the Markins ballhead, either one I think will be a winner. There is actually a nice Markins ball head on Ebay right now (item #300226577094)...

I can feel you pain and eyeball strain from researching, I have been through that twice in the last year. I vowed to myself on the second time around I wouldn't do it again which is another reason I got the top of the line...Jeff

I have 5540LS and it is really light weight, but i recommend you to go with 3540LS, i am sure it is very great tripod, i don't want to use tripods less than 3 or 4 series for any of my gear, why i looked into 3 or 5 series Gitzo? because simply i have 300 f2.8L and i will upgrade anytime in the future, so you will never upgrade your gear to something heavy? if NO then keep 2-series, if yes then go for 3-5 series no doubt and never look back.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5573450
Center posts are the devils work, so don't miss that, but I agree that a BH55 and the large legs are overkill for your intended use. The 400mm f/5.6 prime is a feather weight as well, there's no reason at all with your line up to consider such beefy set up IMHO.

I would not get four section legs though, (ie: stick with 2530 ) four section legs are also the devils work..
And your BH40 or M10 seem spot on to me.

That said, the 35xx is very lightweight and certainly stable but man I just can't recommend enough to go with three legs sections over four. I'd consider the 2530 to be more solid than the larger four section in some ways.
In fact I am confused that it's been recommended to go up to a 3540 as being more stable for long lenses, yet no mention of the lower stability of the added fourth leg section, and the same with the addition of the center column, both center column and the extra leg sections are coountrary to the idea of more stability.
On top of stability, four section also means three more knobs to twist every time you set it up..

All to save a few inches when it's folded? ie: when it's not even being used...
Not worth it.

You'd have to prove to me that the new g-locs and CF don't make the distinction between 3 and 4 legs sections immaterial. I don't think you could demonstrate a measurable difference between them. In point of fact, Gitzo gives them exactly the same spec including focal length. I'm all but at the point that the assertion in this particular case is the stuff of urban legend.

The testing I did seems to say that the difference in vibration damping between the Series 2 and Series 3 is about 2X. That would seem to be borne out by Gitzo's specs since the max focal length on the Series 2 is about half the max focal length on the Series 3 implying that the Series 3 can handle twice the magnification (which magnifies the vibration 2X as well).

Again, this is where the tripod mfgs need to come to some standard testing and specs so that we can make informed judgments on the relative merit from model to model. The phenomena that we are trying to control is too small to sense until we see it wreck our image quality. That leaves most people picking tripods bases on the paint job and stickers instead of on actual performance.

J.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #5573450
I would not get four section legs though, (ie: stick with 2530 ) four section legs are also the devils work..
And your BH40 or M10 seem spot on to me.

For lower quality tripods, this may be true. But in my experience, there is no loss of stability between the GT2530 or the GT2540. Maybe for a lesser brand of tripod there may be a concern, especially if the fourth section is pencil-thin. I have the GT2540 with a Markins M10 and have spent the majority of last week shooting in fast-moving water at Havasu Canyon. The GT2540 performed as expected...very stable and rock solid. With either one, the OP won't go wrong.