Gitzo ghf2w counter balance (3 Viewers)

[wg132]

Hi, apologies if this has been covered in other threads or I am in the wrong section but I am reasonably new to this forum.

I have just purchased a Gitzo GHF2W and I am trying to set up the counter balance (CB) on a Swarovski ATX 65 which is back heavy. I am balancing the scope by sliding the plate with the CB off until the scope stays level with the two arrows on the dial meeting. If I then engage the CB, the knob either clicks into place when I adjust the tilt further or goes into place straight away. This seems unusual to me as I would have thought it was just off/on and not sometimes one way and other times the other. The scope then remains level but if I add tilt even as low as -1 or +1 the scope will slowly tilt as if the CB is not strong enough. I have also tried with an ATX 95 which is better balanced but I am still experiencing the same problem.

Watching youtube videos of how to CB heavy camera gear, it appears that the CB should hold the scope at the required tilt and the scope should not move on its own.

I am either doing something wrong (probably) or the CB is not working on this unit.

Many thanks in anticipation.

 

[Tringa45]

I have no personal experience but posted on its introduction here:- New Gitzo 2-way Head
Pretty much independent of the centre of gravity of the scope there will be a tilt angle in which the scope is in unstable equilibrium.
Rightly or wrongly I then had the impression that the point of zero counterbalance on the GHF2W could be set at any angle so that tail-heavy scopes could be balanced with little tilt friction.
@forent, perhaps you could chime in here!

John

 

[suschoi]

It seems you'll need to set the zero positon for the CB according to the manual. The CB zero position setting isn't exact, but it's not so difficult that you can't use it either.

 

[wg132]

Hello John and suschoi, thank you for your reply. I have since gone to a local supplier and tried two of their heads and both act as I expect when I add CB i.e. they will hold the ATX65 level and at any tilt angle with the tilt friction at zero. They struggled with the ATX95 and it tilts slightly, but the weight is 2.5kg which is the maximum counterbalance load of this head.

The unit I had would hold the ATX65 level by me adjusting the plate but the slightest tilt sent the scope fore or aft. It was obviously faulty and I sent it back.

My confusion with what the CB should achieve, is due to the fact that I had emailed Gitzo and their UK representative replied telling me to adjust the QRP to achieve the balance and then increase the CB on the CB knob. This head does not have CB adjustment via the knob (you tilt the unit and engage the CB) and I could not see where in the manual it showed sliding the QRP to balance the scope. They also said that the purpose of the CB was to bring the scope back to level regardless of the tilt angle and not hold it at tilt. This seems unusual as you would be fighting against the CB spring when you use the head.

Hopefully, my understanding of the purpose of the CB is correct but would welcome alternative views.

Concerningly, the original unit I had was obviously an open box customer return although the unit was immaculate, so I kept it. I have just received another head which was clearly also a return and the head was used, so I rejected it. Obviously, people are buying these heads and returning them.

I am now wondering if the Swarovski version would be better suited for the ATX95 as the payload is heavier and I assume but cannot find anything to confirm, that the CB load is also increased.

​

 

[forent]

(...) @forent, perhaps you could chime in here! John

(...) The unit I had would hold the ATX65 level by me adjusting the plate but the slightest tilt sent the scope fore or aft. It was obviously faulty and I sent it back. (...)
I am now wondering if the Swarovski version would be better suited for the ATX95 as the payload is heavier and I assume but cannot find anything to confirm, that the CB load is also increased.

The fact that the described unit of the GHF2W was defective should explain the problems sufficiently. In general, if you follow the instructions in the manual, which @suschoi thankfully posted, you should find a usable setting for the back-heavy ATX65, especially if you also tighten the lateral friction screw a little. In any case, I had no difficulty using both the ATX65 and the ATX95 on the Gitzo GHF2W. (In the meantime I have a quite well balanced Meopta S2 82A on a Flexshooter Mini head which has a non-adjustable return spring element. The combination works very well).

Switching to the re-labeled Swarovski CTH is not a solution, because the difference to the original Gitzo GHF2W is purely cosmetic while the technology is identical. However, the cleanest solution IMHO is a longer quick-release plate that extends far enough to the rear to balance the spotting scope even without an engaged counter balance. This is particularly recommended with an extremely rear-heavy spotting scope such as the Nikon Fieldscope/Monarch 60.

 

[wg132]

The fact that the described unit of the GHF2W was defective should explain the problems sufficiently. In general, if you follow the instructions in the manual, which @suschoi thankfully posted, you should find a usable setting for the back-heavy ATX65, especially if you also tighten the lateral friction screw a little. In any case, I had no difficulty using both the ATX65 and the ATX95 on the Gitzo GHF2W. (In the meantime I have a quite well balanced Meopta S2 82A on a Flexshooter Mini head which has a non-adjustable return spring element. The combination works very well).

Switching to the re-labeled Swarovski CTH is not a solution, because the difference to the original Gitzo GHF2W is purely cosmetic while the technology is identical. However, the cleanest solution IMHO is a longer quick-release plate that extends far enough to the rear to balance the spotting scope even without an engaged counter balance. This is particularly recommended with an extremely rear-heavy spotting scope such as the Nikon Fieldscope/Monarch 60.

Many thanks forent. So is my understanding of the purpose of CB correct and not that the head will return the scope to level?

 

[forent]

An ideal fluid head allows the scope to be moved easily and smoothly while keeping it stable and vibration-free in any position where you stop the movement and release the handle.
If the scope were to return to the horizontal position instead, it would be almost as impractical as if it were to tilt to one side.

For perfect interaction, the fluid damping and spring strength of the tripod head would have to be precisely matched to the spotting scope. This is hardly possible in reality, so you have to test whether a particular scope fits well enough with a specific head.

 

[wg132]

An ideal fluid head allows the scope to be moved easily and smoothly while keeping it stable and vibration-free in any position where you stop the movement and release the handle.
If the scope were to return to the horizontal position instead, it would be almost as impractical as if it were to tilt to one side.

For perfect interaction, the fluid damping and spring strength of the tripod head would have to be precisely matched to the spotting scope. This is hardly possible in reality, so you have to test whether a particular spotting scope fits well enough with a specific head.

Many thanks for your input. I have just collected another head and it is performing exactly as you describe. If the manufacturer's UK representative had given correct information, I would have realised that the original head was faulty.