Comparing GT2545T and LO-324C (1 Viewer)

[manual_exposure]

Hello all!

I'm new to this forum, this is my first post. I mainly signed up to search for a suitable tripod for our Swarovski ATX 85. Until now my partner and I have been using our scope with just a Peak Design travel tripod, set up with a Sirui VA-5, that predates our purchase of the scope and was originally meant for landscape photography while hiking. This was "fine" if a bit undersized but on a recent trip to High Island, Texas, during spring migration I felt it was holding the scope back quite a bit in the medium to strong winds we had there.

I started looking for a better option on this forum and found recommendations for the Gitzo GT2545T Traveller, as well as the LS-324C from Leofoto. Checking the Leofoto website I saw they have a more recent version of this tripod that might be interesting, which they call "Mr. O" or LO-324C. The gimmick on the LO-324C is that it has a center column suspended on a halfball with 15º of movement, so you can put it down on uneven ground and level it off by adjusting the angle on the center column, rather than fiddling around with the three legs individually. I thought both options looked potentially good but couldn't decide which to pick, so thanks to the generous return policy of B&H I ordered both. Since I hadn't seen anything about the LO tripods on this forum I thought I'd report back my findings.

Of course the most important aspect of a tripod is the stability. No matter how much easier a gimmick can make your life, it doesn't help if it ends up making the tripod much less stable. I know about thecentercolumn.com, which objectively reviews the stiffness & damping of many tripods, but unfortunately neither of these exact tripod models is on the website. I tried them side by side but then figured it'd be better to take a video through my camera. To simulate winds I set up my fan that I use for working out at home and pointed it at the tripods. According to its data sheet it generates wind speeds "up to 30mph" which should make for a good test. I also set up both the Peak Design tripod and my full-sized photo tripod (ProMediaGear TR344L) as a reference next to the other two. All tripods were using the Gitzo GHF2W fluid head for this test, except for the Peak Design which was using the built-in ballhead. All in all I took about a minute of video each, and then cut out just a 5s clip from the middle to remove any influence of button presses on the camera. You can judge for yourself here:

Gitzo:
View attachment gitzo_small.mp4



Leofoto:
View attachment leofoto_small.mp4

Peak Design:
View attachment pd_small.mp4

PMG:
View attachment pmg_small.mp4

Rather than just eyeballing it I figured I could do one better. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I wrote up a program that calculates the total amount of camera shake in each video. This should give a more objective measure and hopefully remove any internal biases I might have towards either option. The output is simply the sum of the distance of all frame-to-frame movements in each video, giving a "score" to each tripod where a lower score means a more stable tripod. Here's that output:

PMG: 400
Gitzo: 631
Leofoto: 652
PD: 1068

It's great that my reference tripods match up where they are supposed to go, since that probably means I got the calculations right. Success! The difference between the Gitzo and Leofoto is only about 3%, which is probably within the margin of error for this relatively unscientific experiment.

Ultimately I'll leave which one to keep up to my partner, since she is the one carrying our scope and tripod. The Gitzo has thinner legs and folds up a bit shorter than the Leofoto if reverse folded - but with a larger diameter. If folded in the conventional way it folds up to about the same length but with a smaller diameter. Certainly adds some flexibility when packing the tripod to go on a trip. It also weighs about 300g less than the Leofoto. Not much of a difference on paper, but can make a difference over long periods of time. So really size and weight is probably what it is going to come down to.

 

[CMB]

Hello all!

I'm new to this forum, this is my first post. I mainly signed up to search for a suitable tripod for our Swarovski ATX 85. Until now my partner and I have been using our scope with just a Peak Design travel tripod, set up with a Sirui VA-5, that predates our purchase of the scope and was originally meant for landscape photography while hiking. This was "fine" if a bit undersized but on a recent trip to High Island, Texas, during spring migration I felt it was holding the scope back quite a bit in the medium to strong winds we had there.

I started looking for a better option on this forum and found recommendations for the Gitzo GT2545T Traveller, as well as the LS-324C from Leofoto. Checking the Leofoto website I saw they have a more recent version of this tripod that might be interesting, which they call "Mr. O" or LO-324C. The gimmick on the LO-324C is that it has a center column suspended on a halfball with 15º of movement, so you can put it down on uneven ground and level it off by adjusting the angle on the center column, rather than fiddling around with the three legs individually. I thought both options looked potentially good but couldn't decide which to pick, so thanks to the generous return policy of B&H I ordered both. Since I hadn't seen anything about the LO tripods on this forum I thought I'd report back my findings.

[SNIP]

Rather than just eyeballing it I figured I could do one better. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I wrote up a program that calculates the total amount of camera shake in each video. This should give a more objective measure and hopefully remove any internal biases I might have towards either option. The output is simply the sum of the distance of all frame-to-frame movements in each video, giving a "score" to each tripod where a lower score means a more stable tripod. [Bold added] Here's that output:

PMG: 400
Gitzo: 631
Leofoto: 652
PD: 1068

It's great that my reference tripods match up where they are supposed to go, since that probably means I got the calculations right. Success! The difference between the Gitzo and Leofoto is only about 3%, which is probably within the margin of error for this relatively unscientific experiment.

A very interesting approach. Thank you for posting.

What I found interesting is that between the LeoFoto LS-324C and the Gitzo GT2545T, the LeoFoto LS-324C has slightly larger diameter legs in all leg sections, but is slightly less stable (as you mentioned).

LS-324c: 1.2", 1.1", 0.98", 0.866"
GT2545T: 1.14", 1", 0.85", 0.72"

So while the difference between the two is only 3%, whatever combination of carbon fiber and/or leg locks that Gitzo is using appears to allow for slightly thinner legs, but results in a slightly stiffer tripod.

I also have the GT2545T and use it with a 65mm scope.

 

[Hermann]

I'm new to this forum, this is my first post. I mainly signed up to search for a suitable tripod for our Swarovski ATX 85. Until now my partner and I have been using our scope with just a Peak Design travel tripod, set up with a Sirui VA-5, that predates our purchase of the scope and was originally meant for landscape photography while hiking. This was "fine" if a bit undersized but on a recent trip to High Island, Texas, during spring migration I felt it was holding the scope back quite a bit in the medium to strong winds we had there.

The Peak Design is a nice design but not really a tripod I'd use with any scope on a regular basis. And certainly not in medium to strong winds.

I started looking for a better option on this forum and found recommendations for the Gitzo GT2545T Traveller, as well as the LS-324C from Leofoto. Checking the Leofoto website I saw they have a more recent version of this tripod that might be interesting, which they call "Mr. O" or LO-324C. The gimmick on the LO-324C is that it has a center column suspended on a halfball with 15º of movement, so you can put it down on uneven ground and level it off by adjusting the angle on the center column, rather than fiddling around with the three legs individually. I thought both options looked potentially good but couldn't decide which to pick, so thanks to the generous return policy of B&H I ordered both. Since I hadn't seen anything about the LO tripods on this forum I thought I'd report back my findings.

"A center column suspended with a halfball" - that's potentially a weak point of the Leofoto design, unless it's very well made. I personally try to avoid such features on my birding tripods. Keep it simple, that's the golden rule, I think. Another thought: I personally believe the Gitzo Mountaineers are even less prone to vibrations than the Travellers. I use my Taveller (GT1545T) only if I want to keep the weight (and size) down as much as possible.

Of course the most important aspect of a tripod is the stability. No matter how much easier a gimmick can make your life, it doesn't help if it ends up making the tripod much less stable. I know about thecentercolumn.com, which objectively reviews the stiffness & damping of many tripods, but unfortunately neither of these exact tripod models is on the website. I tried them side by side but then figured it'd be better to take a video through my camera. To simulate winds I set up my fan that I use for working out at home and pointed it at the tripods. According to its data sheet it generates wind speeds "up to 30mph" which should make for a good test. I also set up both the Peak Design tripod and my full-sized photo tripod (ProMediaGear TR344L) as a reference next to the other two. All tripods were using the Gitzo GHF2W fluid head for this test, except for the Peak Design which was using the built-in ballhead. All in all I took about a minute of video each, and then cut out just a 5s clip from the middle to remove any influence of button presses on the camera. You can judge for yourself here:

That's a great approach, thank a lot for posting it. Unfortunately the videos are missing. I also think the Peak Design might have got a slightly better result with the Gitzo head you used on the other tripods. The Peak Design ballhead may be an additional source of vibrations.

Rather than just eyeballing it I figured I could do one better. I'm a software engineer by trade, so I wrote up a program that calculates the total amount of camera shake in each video. This should give a more objective measure and hopefully remove any internal biases I might have towards either option. The output is simply the sum of the distance of all frame-to-frame movements in each video, giving a "score" to each tripod where a lower score means a more stable tripod. Here's that output:

PMG: 400
Gitzo: 631
Leofoto: 652
PD: 1068

Great stuff. Thank you. I'm suprised by the good results of the Leofoto BTW. The ones I've seen in the field were pretty nice and pretty well-made tripods.

Ultimately I'll leave which one to keep up to my partner, since she is the one carrying our scope and tripod. The Gitzo has thinner legs and folds up a bit shorter than the Leofoto if reverse folded - but with a larger diameter. If folded in the conventional way it folds up to about the same length but with a smaller diameter. Certainly adds some flexibility when packing the tripod to go on a trip. It also weighs about 300g less than the Leofoto. Not much of a difference on paper, but can make a difference over long periods of time. So really size and weight is probably what it is going to come down to.

One interesting result of this test is that the Gitzo is as good as the Leofoto even though it's quite a bit lighter than the Leofoto. Seems like the Gitzo people really know how to make tripods. BTW, my guess would be that the difference lies in the leg locks.

Hermann

 

[manual_exposure]

The reason the Leofoto has the same apparent stability as the Gitzo despite having thicker diameter tubing is probably a combination of the leg locks, the apex design and the halfball. Certainly if you compare them side-by-side you notice that the leg locks on the Leofoto feel more flimsy, like they are made out of thin plastic, same with the apex. If you compare the weights of the two tripods the Leofoto is about 300g heavier, which is about the same as the Gitzo if you added a leveling base to it. Perhaps adding a leveling base to the Gitzo would also lower its stability a bit, which might be an overall fairer comparison. I also wonder if the Leofoto is perhaps using thinner sidewalls on their tubes to get the weight down

The Peak Design is a nice design but not really a tripod I'd use with any scope on a regular basis. And certainly not in medium to strong winds.

It is a nice design, though I don't know if it makes the most sense anyway for most people. I'll look about selling ours shortly. It optimizes for volume at the expense of stability and weight, when in my experience volume is almost never the limiting factor. With regards to volume-optimized designs, something like the Really Right Stuff Ascend-14 is probably the much better option since it retains the circular tubes and then just scallops the center column to get down to a smaller folded diameter.

For using with our scope the Peak Design was always meant to be temporary, though it took a bit of convincing of my partner that the replacement would not be any heavier. The diminutive size of the Peak Design makes it seem like it will be much lighter than it actually is

That's a great approach, thank a lot for posting it. Unfortunately the videos are missing. I also think the Peak Design might have got a slightly better result with the Gitzo head you used on the other tripods. The Peak Design ballhead may be an additional source of vibrations.

Not sure about the videos - I can see them on the post on my laptop, but not on my phone. I agree about the Gitzo head on the Peak Design, but I was too lazy to find the correct allen key to swap the ballhead to their universal head adapter

 

[Peregrine Took]

The reason the Leofoto has the same apparent stability as the Gitzo despite having thicker diameter tubing is probably a combination of the leg locks, the apex design and the halfball.

I agree. I don't think leg diameters matter much in terms of tripod rigidity, especially with carbon. I have the Gitzo GT2545T and there is no way I can bend the 18.2mm lower legs, but there is a little flexibility at the joints.

I'm guessing that most tripods gain stability under load, where the forces are downward. So (within reason) a heavier scope on a light tripod will make for a more rigid arrangement than with a lighter scope, especially in strong winds.

Tripod stability seems to be a complex equation - one that has more to do with having a 'balanced' set-up, rather than testing the tripod in isolation.
.

 

[Hermann]

I agree. I don't think leg diameters matter much in terms of tripod rigidity, especially with carbon. I have the Gitzo GT2545T and there is no way I can bend the 18.2mm lower legs, but there is a little flexibility at the joints.

It does matter. A lot. Take some tripods from the same manufacturer with different leg diameters, ideally from one of the top manufacturers. And then check them for vibration resistance and so on. You'll find significant differences, with the tripods with the larger diameters winning consistently.

Whether you are prepared to cary a really big tripod, is another matter.

Hermann

 

[Peregrine Took]

It does matter. A lot. Take some tripods from the same manufacturer with different leg diameters, ideally from one of the top manufacturers. And then check them for vibration resistance and so on. You'll find significant differences, with the tripods with the larger diameters winning consistently.

Whether you are prepared to cary a really big tripod, is another matter.

Hermann

I took delivery of a Manfrotto 055 carbon tripod today because I was convinced by the specifications - larger diameter lower leg section, fewer leg sections - that it must be more stable than my Gitzo GT2545T.

My Gitzo was less rigid - it took considerable effort to induce any flex in the legs of the Manfrotto - but had much better vibration damping. It therefore proved better, against all the theories, in reducing shake (quite noticeably at 50x magnification) than a theoretically more 'stable' tripod.

This reminds me of when I used to build steel racing bikes, then carbon. The carbon bikes were lighter, more rigid and faster, but the steel-framed bikes more comfortable - even though in theory carbon absorbs vibration better than metals. This is illustrated by the fact that most good touring bikes are still steel-framed, whereas the Tour de France boys use carbon.

I guess stability (of the scope) is about more than just rigidity of the support. Maybe the first post covers this, for which I apologise for boring anyone, but I like to try things out for myself.
.

 

[Bill Atwood]

My Gitzo was less rigid - it took considerable effort to induce any flex in the legs of the Manfrotto - but had much better vibration damping. It therefore proved better, against all the theories, in reducing shake (quite noticeably at 50x magnification) than a theoretically more 'stable' tripod.

I just had an identical experience today with a new GT2545T and an Induro 103CLT. The Induro had much less flex under force, but the Gitzo was much better at controlling vibration.

 

[Saxatilis]

I put together a Gitzo combo (G1327 + G2380) used and I think it's the best I've had so far in terms of rigidity and vibration damping.
I have been operating mostly in windy areas for raptor migration counts in my region for over 30 years.
I think this is, at least for me who have an 82mm spotting scope (Nikon Fieldscope ED), the tripod for life, although I have other optics.
In fact, for this reason over the years I have had and still have two good carbon tripods, one with a 28mm diameter of the upper section (Velbon GEO N630 + Manfrotto 701HDV), the other with 36mm (Innorel NT364C no column + Sirui VH-10) and also an ash wood tripod (Berlebach Report 3022 + Velbon FHD-71Q).
I use this fine equipment depending on the situations and optics, but certainly an excellent tripod with a 32mm upper leg section like mine is perfect for an 80mm spotting scope.
At the moment the Gitzo offers me the best and its build quality is also outstanding.