Think I’m down to a choice of 2 - Gitzo Mountaineer Series 2 or 3 (1 Viewer)

[markstenton]

Thanks for all your ongoing help

I am pretty much decided on a Gitzo GHF2W

Consequently to match I think I would go for either Gitzo series 3 mountaineer GT3542L (2kg) or the Series 2 GT 2542 (1.7kg), but I cannot find a shop where I can compare the two together.

I am 1.83m (6ft) with an angled Swarovski ATS 80.

I frequently carry the scope in a mulepack from Cley Spy. My current velbon aluminium tripod/head combo is also 2kg but stability poor. I have vouchers as a leaving present from my business partners for £1200

Any of you using either of these tripods? Is the slightly chunkier series 3 mountaineer overkill for my needs?

Many, many thanks

Mark

 

[Tringa45]

Thanks for all your ongoing help

I am pretty much decided on a Gitzo GHF2W

Consequently to match I think I would go for either Gitzo series 3 mountaineer GT3542L (2kg) or the Series 2 GT 2542 (1.7kg), but I cannot find a shop where I can compare the two together.

I am 1.83m (6ft) with an angled Swarovski ATS 80.

I frequently carry the scope in a mulepack from Cley Spy. My current velbon aluminium tripod/head combo is also 2kg but stability poor. I have vouchers as a leaving present from my business partners for £1200

Any of you using either of these tripods? Is the slightly chunkier series 3 mountaineer overkill for my needs?

Many, many thanks

Mark

Mark,

In a blow little short of a concrete column is going to be overkill!
But why the "L" version and why the four sections? The GT3532 would be less expensive, lighter and more stable (thicker bottom leg sections) than the GT3542L and with a height of 133 cm without the centre column extended would be more than enough for an angled scope.
You can check that requirement with your present set-up. The head will add 10 cm and the eyepiece height of the scope another 15 cm.
I'm a little taller and find 132 cm an ideal height for horizontal viewing with an angled scope.

John

 

[CMB]

We looked at the Mountaineer series 3 very closely. We have a Gitzo series 2 Traveler (GT-2545TUS), and a Really Right Stuff series 3 tripod (Ultralight Tripod TFC-34 Mk2).

Why RRS instead of Gitzo for series 3...
In the U.S. the RRS TFC-34 Mk2 series 3 is essentially the same price as the Gitzo GT3542 Mountaineer series 3. The legs on the RRS series 3 have a slightly thicker wall and are a little larger diameter than the legs on the Gitzo series 3 Mountaineer (RRS series 3 is almost a Gitzo series 4 leg). RRS warranty work/parts (if needed) are much easier for us to get than Gitzo. We can call RRS stuff and speak directly to an engineer at the company if we have questions or concerns.

We really like having the thicker series 3 legs when using 80+mm scopes. The tripod weight (legs only) is about 3.5 lbs (1.58 kg). With an 80+mm scope we have never found ourselves wishing we had gone with a series 2 carbon fiber tripod. We use a Manfrotto MVH500AH fluid head with this setup.

The Gitzo series 2 Traveler (GT2545TUS) is used with a 65mm scope and a SmallRig CH-10 fluid head. The GT2524T is a really nice and well built tripod. We use it with the included short center column installed instead of the longer center column. This setup is also stable and lightweight. We think it is a good match for a 65mm scope, and would not want to use a larger scope with this tripod. We went with the Gitzo series 2 Traveler because RRS did not have anything similar.

3 vs 4 leg sections...
All our carbon fiber tripods have four leg sections. All our aluminum/ATM tripods have three leg sections, and we have a really beefy aluminum tripod in the collection. We find the RRS and Gitzo four leg section carbon fiber tripods to be at least as stable as our three leg section tripods. We don't have any experience with four leg carbon fiber tripods from Bento, Leofoto, Sirui, etc.

We chose the four leg section versions because they collapse down to a smaller size. For our use that smaller collapsed size is important. We were a bit hesitant to go with four leg sections because of all the comments about them not being as stable. That may have been the case in years past, but we find our current model four leg section tripods to be solid bases. We have never wished we went with three leg section versions

 

[Tringa45]

We find the RRS and Gitzo four leg section carbon fiber tripods to be at least as stable as our three leg section tripods.

The difference may not be noticeable, but it is there because of the reduced diameter of the bottom leg sections. You can't beat the laws of physics.
Apart from that, any fully extended joint is going to introduce instability so some overlap is desirable, and setting up a 4-section tripod with overlap in all 9 joints is a PITA.
Allegedly RRS joints are very good but you could try laying the tripod on a table with the next fully extended thinner section overhanging.
Gitzo, Sirui, Novoflex all wobble.

John

 

[CMB]

The difference may not be noticeable, but it is there because of the reduced diameter of the bottom leg sections. You can't beat the laws of physics.
Apart from that, any fully extended joint is going to introduce instability so some overlap is desirable, and setting up a 4-section tripod with overlap in all 9 joints is a PITA.
Allegedly RRS joints are very good but you could try laying the tripod on a table with the next fully extended thinner section overhanging.
Gitzo, Sirui, Novoflex all wobble.

John

I don't disagree with anything you shared. As you said, it is physics. But one has to look at the entire package objectively, not just the number of leg sections. You have to compare leg diameters between brands. Consider other features that are important and can offset just looking at the number of leg sections, such as comparing heights without center column, collapsed length and weight, etc. It comes back to the tripod being part of a whole system and not just leg sections.

(As a quick aside... extending four twist lock leg sections is easy. Grab all of them with one hand, turn 1/4 turn, drop, quick tighten. But that will be personal preference.)

Since the Really Right Stuff (RRS) tripods aren't talked about a lot on this forum, and Gitzo is, this presents a good opportunity to use both as an example of what I am meaning. I know this is long, but some of this is reasoning I wish I had read on the forums when we were first looking at gear.

When I was comparing tripods I made up a spreadsheet with the specs of each brand and model I was considering. Included was the diameter of each leg section, including the leg diameters for our three section ATM (aluminum, titanium, magnesium) tripods. Also included were working heights with center column collapsed, overall collapsed length, and weight.

The RRS four section TFC-34 Series 3 has leg diameters that measure 1.44", 1.30", 1.14", 0.97".
The Gitzo three section Mountaineer Series 3 has leg diameters that measure: 1.3", 1.13", 1".
The Gitzo four section Mountaineer Series 3 has leg diameters that measure: 1.3", 1.13", 1", 0.85"

As you can see on the RRS TFC-34 legs 1, 2, and 3, are larger diameter than the Series 3 Mountaineer, and the RRS's "small" 4th leg section is essentially the same 1" leg diameter as the three section Mountaineer. So one can't assume that a four section tripod will automatically have smaller legs than a three section tripod. Then we see that each leg section of the RRS TFC-34 is larger diameter than the four section Mountaineer. So even though both brands are "Series 3" carbon fiber, each manufacturer's "Series 3" is a little different.

But a tripod is more than just legs. Working height, apex, center column, leg spread all come into play.

The Mountaineer Series 3 has a maximum height of 52.36" with the center column collapsed and legs fully extended.
The RRS TFC-34 has a maximum height of 58.2" with legs fully extended, but... it has no center column. It uses a single piece fixed apex at the top.

Everyone says a center column makes a tripod less stable. Eliminate the center column and stability increases.

With 5.84" of extra height one can collapse the RRS TFC-34 legs to overlap about 1.94” at each joint (call it 2”) and increase stability, have the same working height as the Mountaineer, and still not have a center column as a weak point. Or one could retract only the botton leg section that 5.84”. Because of the height of the RRS TFC-34 we mostly use it with certain legs sections slightly collapsed increasing joint stability.

So which is better, the RRS or the Gitzo? It also depends on other needs.

The Gitzo is 25.2" long when fully collapsed, and it weighs 4.14 lbs (legs only).
The RRS TFC-34 is 20.9" long when fully collapsed, and it weighs 3.9 lbs (legs only).

If you want/need a tripod that collapses to a length shorter than 25" the Mountaineer, regardless of how stable, won't meet the need. And if you switch to a four section Mountaineer Series 3 you end up with four legs smaller in diameter than the RRS TFC-34.

This is why one has to look at the whole system.

In our experience the RRS TFC-34 with four leg sections meets our needs where a three section tripod wouldn't. It is a stable platform for us because of how the whole of the tripod is built.

 

[Hermann]

Everyone says a center column makes a tripod less stable. Eliminate the center column and stability increases.

That's the theory. However, center columns are often useful in the field provided you don't extend them too much. For instance, when you're sharing your scope with a partner who's taller/smaller than you. Use the center column to adjust the height of the scope without fumbling with the whole setup. Or you're on uneven ground and need a bit more height. Use the center column, easy peasy.

Sure, if you use a lot of extension the tripod becomes less stable, especially in windy conditions. But IME an extension of 10-20cm doesn't increase the vibrations by a noticeable amount. Therefore all my "regular" tripods have a middle column, they're just too convenient in the field. The one exception is the tripod shown in the photo below.

On the number of leg sections: The advantages of having 3 or 4 leg sections are obvious. However, fewer leg sections have also some advantanges, even without getting into the discussion of whether the number of leg sections influences the stability of a tripod: The tripod is faster so set up.

BTW, unless you use a very high quality tripod (like Gitzo, RRS) a tripod with fewer leg sections is IME clearly more stable. There's a reason why e.g. Sachtler (Tripods) limits the number of leg sections on their tripods.

BTW, the stability of the tripod shown below kills any regular Gitzo or RRS. But then it weighs ~5kg with the head.

Hermann