3 Section versus 4 section Gitzos

Wilt wrote in post #5679541
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!

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.

sml wrote in post #5681329
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.)

sml wrote in post #5681329
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.

Wilt wrote in post #5695331
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....

jhom wrote in post #5695640
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....

jhom wrote in post #5695640
has an extra angle stop.

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

sml wrote in post #5696550
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.

jhom wrote in post #5695640
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.

sml wrote in post #5697580
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.

sml wrote in post #5696540
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.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #5697868
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.)

Wilt wrote in post #5699798
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.

JohnJ80 wrote in post #5701490
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!