Advice needed on which head, please?....

Trentbirder said:
You certainly can but as gramps says i dont,simply because i dont see the need to....
Click to expand...

....I totally accept that you individually along with many others, may not feel the need to grab all the leg rings at once but on a monopod I do quite often feel the need be able to extend its leg as quickly as possible so I don't miss the shot. The scenario being that I have at least partially collapsed/shortened my monopod to be able to carry it more easily on walkabout and then suddenly a wildlife subject appears and I need to act as fast as possible. As my Canon 400mm F/5.6 L does not have any image stabilisation it really does help to use a monopod for longer distance shots. I expect that the new 100-400mm will be easier in that respect.
 
Gaz J said:
Carbon Fibre is 3 times stiffer than steel or aluminium for a given weight. So whilst two tripods may be a similar weight it allows the CF one to be designed and built much stiffer than the aluminium one. Different layers and direction of wrapping the carbon fibre allows stiffness in different directions. Also carbon fibre composities maintain their mechanical properties under load and dont deteriorate over time. They also dont expand or contract in hot or cold conditions.
Click to expand...
CF is stiffer against linear flexion (or rather, in one direction), but it is less torsionally rigid. This is improved by adding multiple layers with multiple weave directions. By the time you add enough layers to make it equally rigid torsionally it weighs about the same. But it will have a higher max load rating (for flex/failure).
In a tripod "flex" isn't the main issue. Once the weight is applied and the tubes have flexed under load that consideration is primarily eliminated. The main concern here is unloading of the flexion so it's not uncommon to add additional weight to prevent this.
Torsional rigidity is the main concern. My GT5541 (replaced by the current 5542) weighs over six lbs and is rated to hold 88lbs, but it still quivers like a frightened little girl with ~15lbs and a torsional load/shock on the head.

And although CF itself doesn't deteriorate, the resins holding it together do. Primarily due to UV exposure (like all plastics do). Unfortunately, this type of deterioration is very hard to detect visually. It is also more prone to failure/degradation due to structural damage (i.e. scratches/gouges/excessive flexion).

I don't have a problem w/ CF, I just don't believe it's as great as it's made out to be.
 
CF is much stronger torsionally than steel or aluminium. In tests Lotus have seen torsional rigidity in CF 3 times greater than a steel equivalent structure and aluminium would be even less. UV resistant epoxies are available to minimize the degradation.

It down to design and manufacture. Good design will give you a product that aluminium hasnt a hope competing with.
 
Gaz J said:
It down to design and manufacture. Good design will give you a product that aluminium hasnt a hope competing with.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this; to an extent. CF can be engineered to be more rigid for a given weight, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is. At one time Gitzo made a big deal about their tubes being made by pultrusion instead of roll wrapped... but pultrusion is largely unidirectional and best for singular directional loads (i.e. stiffness; worse for other loads). I don't know if the current "6x" stuff is roll wrapped or not (I would think it is). And I'm not sure Gitzo makes it themselves...

But, even though the final product can potentially outperform an aluminum model, the question is does it "significantly outperform" for the task being performed? We're talking about photography tripods here, not formula 1 frames or helicopter rotor systems. And you can't compare the design/construction considerations of those applications directly. (i.e. a frame needs to have flexation in order to not be too "stiff," but if you can gain torsional rigidity at the same time that is a plus).

The primary/sole benefit in the tripod application is weight, and not that much weight in reality... if that's worth 3x to you, ok.
 
Its not weight its rigidity. My 5532 is just so much more stable than any of my friends tripods. There is no comparison. At full height it is absolutely solid and thats why its worth the money. It took me a long time to decide to buy it. I looked at as many CF tripods as I could before making a decision. Ive still not seen one that I would take over the Gitzo.

So yes it is worth the 3x and more to me.
 
Gaz J said:
Its not weight its rigidity. My 5532 is just so much more stable than any of my friends tripods. There is no comparison. At full height it is absolutely solid and thats why its worth the money. It took me a long time to decide to buy it. I looked at as many CF tripods as I could before making a decision. Ive still not seen one that I would take over the Gitzo.

So yes it is worth the 3x and more to me.
Click to expand...
Then you should look at the RRS tripods....
 
sk66 said:
Then you should look at the RRS tripods....
Click to expand...
I find it kind of funny that "rigidity" is such a factor for a tripod that is going to be used primarily with an unlocked gimbal head... I've started using my 3541 instead of my 5541 because I don't need the extra rigidity/weight.
 
But it doesnt just get used with a gimbal head. I use mine with a ball head just as much. Also the gimbal is just something to hang the lens/camera from in perfect balance, in an ideal scenario.

I dont think that gimbal head are the best solution always. I find that a ball head, accepting that you cannot leave the lens in balance, is just as good or better in some circumstances.
 
Never seen my Feisol C/F 'quiver like a frightened little girl' and I've used it with D4S + 400 f2.8 & 300-800 - good tube section size and choosing a tripod without a centre column has produced excellent stability ... the most important reason for using a tripod in the first place.
 
Oh, I've just thought of another reason why the 100-400 is a poor partner for a gimbal. One of the essentials when using a gimbal is that it needs to be set up so that the axis of rotation passes through the centre of gravity. Otherwise moving the lens will create a torque which will prevent the lens from staying in place.

But zooming the 100-400 is going to change the centre of gravity, meaning re-balancing will be needed.
 
hollis_f said:
Oh, I've just thought of another reason why the 100-400 is a poor partner for a gimbal. One of the essentials when using a gimbal is that it needs to be set up so that the axis of rotation passes through the centre of gravity. Otherwise moving the lens will create a torque which will prevent the lens from staying in place.

But zooming the 100-400 is going to change the centre of gravity, meaning re-balancing will be needed.
Click to expand...

....Yep, I already identified that as an important question and thanks for confirming the answer.

This video demonstrates the differences very well between using a ballhead, adding a sidekick, and a full gimbal - All on a tripod:


As already advised by most of you guys in this thread, the gimbal isn't the best way for me to go. You'll have to forgive me for taking so long to come to the same conclusion! :D

Btw, I realise that the Canon 100-400mm can be handheld but, as I posted earlier, there are quite a few times when I really do need to maintain one position for a considerable time and my arms won't manage that, so that's where the monopod is so valuable.
 
Last edited:
gramps said:
Never seen my Feisol C/F 'quiver like a frightened little girl' and I've used it with D4S + 400 f2.8 & 300-800 - good tube section size and choosing a tripod without a centre column has produced excellent stability ... the most important reason for using a tripod in the first place.
Click to expand...
Gitzo doesn't make a bigger tripod that the 55xx (I don't think) and they don't have center columns... I think it needs to be put into context though. It is not entirely stable when trying to do shots of the moon/stars at ~2200mm effective w/ too slow of a SS. And it's not stable enough for high level macro without special care (i.e. MLU). It is way more than stable enough for a 400/2.8+2x or a 300-800/5.6 with a 1/2 reasonable SS. Actually, so is my 3541...
 
Last edited:
hollis_f said:
Oh, I've just thought of another reason why the 100-400 is a poor partner for a gimbal. One of the essentials when using a gimbal is that it needs to be set up so that the axis of rotation passes through the centre of gravity. Otherwise moving the lens will create a torque which will prevent the lens from staying in place.

But zooming the 100-400 is going to change the centre of gravity, meaning re-balancing will be needed.
Click to expand...


And that is why I said in my post my use so far is with the 100-400 locked off at the 400mm end :)
 
Largely based on advice received here, I have decided that maybe the best (most practical in the field) solution for the kind of photography I do is the Gitzo GH2750QR Off-Centre Ball Head mounted on a Gitzo GM5541 carbon monopod.

The head, as you can see from the photos, offers an extensive degree of movement and it has quick release. It's only 10cm overall height and weighs 550g. I spoke to someone today at length who sometimes uses a Canon 100-400mm Mk1 on this head but on a tripod. She also has exactly the same Manfrotto video monopod which I have been using and also the same joystick-grip, so she knows exactly what I have been experiencing and understands what I am wanting to achieve.

Gitzo_2750QR.png


Gitzp%202750QR.jpg


A review about this Gitzo head: http://jpgmag.com/stories/9365

The Gitzo GM5541 monopod is carbon and very compact and weighs 860g.

Gitzo%20GM5541.jpg


Gitzo%20on%20belt.jpg


So, by mid-March I will be in the field with one 100-400mm lens instead of a 300mm and a 400mm and also a lightweight but very strong monopod with very flexible high quality ball head. My camera and 100-400mm will be on my BlackRapid strap and the monopod easily accessible when needed.
 
Last edited:
It's unusual to see a Gitzo head on a Gitzo tripod, and there is a reason for that.

Gitzo heads are good, but nothing special and quite pricey. Unfortunately though, their quick-release mech, well, let's say I don't care for it. And I can't be the only one as there are various conversions to Arca-Swiss available (from Hejnar, and others) which is what every long lens shooter should be using, if only to be able to slide the lens foot fore and aft for balance. Gitzo has responded with their own Arca-Swiss compatible quick-release, but it's the most cumbersome, big, heavy, complex and costly contraption imaginable.

Gitzo's ball-locking mechanisms also tend to be low geared, so they can better combine friction control and locking functions in one knob, but it means you usually need three or four handfuls for it to lock firmly. The best heads are solid in one quarter turn.
 
HoppyUK said:
It's unusual to see a Gitzo head on a Gitzo tripod, and there is a reason for that.

Gitzo heads are good, but nothing special and quite pricey. Unfortunately though, their quick-release mech, well, let's say I don't care for it. And I can't be the only one as there are various conversions to Arca-Swiss available (from Hejnar, and others) which is what every long lens shooter should be using, if only to be able to slide the lens foot fore and aft for balance. Gitzo has responded with their own Arca-Swiss compatible quick-release, but it's the most cumbersome, big, heavy, complex and costly contraption imaginable.
Click to expand...

....Hmm, but I would be using a Gitzo head on a Gitzo MONOPOD, [emphasised not shouted] not a tripod. On a monopod with any adjustable head fitted you don't need to be able to slide the balance via the plate - You can quickly find your balance by where you place the foot of the monopod combined with where you plant your feet. And I'm not mounting any lens bigger/heavier than a Canon 100-400mm mk2, which being a zoom the balance will change anyway but I am told in a phone chat with a friend who uses a 100-400mm mk1 on a monopod sometimes (she shoots weddings and portraits) that the balance change on this combo is insignificant.

On user's videos, Gitzo's 'QR' quick release on this head looks very good indeed and easier than my Manfrotto RC2 heads for example.

HoppyUK said:
Gitzo's ball-locking mechanisms also tend to be low geared, so they can better combine friction control and locking functions in one knob, but it means you usually need three or four handfuls for it to lock firmly. The best heads are solid in one quarter turn.
Click to expand...

....Gearing is a very good point. But which series of Gitzo ball heads are you referring to please?

I very much appreciate your input and will investigate what you are saying more closely before actually buying.
 
HoppyUK said:
...Then there's my favourite and the one I use, Arca-Swiss P0, that's amazingly good for small size/weight, has excellent friction control, works particularly well on a monopod (you really need to try it) but a bit pricey...
Click to expand...

....Somehow I missed checking out in more detail this suggestion you made much earlier, Richard.


The video seems to show that it takes a few turns to lock down - What's your experience on this, please @HoppyUK ? Cheers :)
 
Last edited:
I think Richard was refering to the Gitzo heads being not as good as others, in general, rather being specific to tripod or monopod.
 
Arca-Swiss P0 goes from fully loose to fully locked in a smidge under 1/4 turn. You can do it with one finger. You can even position and lock the head with one hand, though I don't recommend it. I took to the P0 immediately, and I'm told those that try it do too, if you can find one. Robert White on the south coast, or WEX in Norwich are two good dealers.

Another very good head is the Sunwayfoto DB-44. Beautifully made, super smooth, solid and accurate, light and good value. I didn't mention it before as it's discontinued - apparently too expensive to manufacture, though the replacements are not quite as good. CameraGearUK bought the last production run and still have a few left it seems, here http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Camera-Gea...1003417017&_sid=4097057&_trksid=p4634.c0.m322
 
Cheers, Richard - I'm very grateful to you :)

Robert White are only 45 miles away from me and they also stock Gitzo monopods.

Although a lot more expensive, the Arca-Swiss P0 and this version with the quick release lever looks the most suitable for me, especially as you can easily operate it with either left or right hand. Plus it's only 74cm high and weighs only 405g. If it does what it promises to do I will probably additionally use it on my travel tripod which I use for close-ups with my 100mm Macro and sell my Manfrotto joystick-grip which is currently on it. I never go out with both my monopod and tripod.
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
Cheers, Richard - I'm very grateful to you :)

Robert White are only 45 miles away from me and they also stock Gitzo monopods.

Although a lot more expensive, the Arca-Swiss P0 and this version with the quick release lever looks the most suitable for me, especially as you can easily operate it with either left or right hand. Plus it's only 74cm high and weighs only 405g. If it does what it promises to do I will probably additionally use it on my travel tripod which I use for close-ups with my 100mm Macro and sell my Manfrotto joystick-grip which is currently on it. I never go out with both my monopod and tripod.
Click to expand...

Cool (y) Just be aware of the issues surrounding lever-lock clamps.
 
Robin, Arca Swiss heads are superb ... but forget the lever lock clamp, just go with the screw clamp version.

I had the quick release lever clamp on one of my tripod heads and switched it for a screw clamp one, I never felt 100% sure that the lens was not going to slip out. Plus using different plates it can be a pain to adjust the lever lock clamp for the slight difference in size from one plate to another.
 
Martyn... said:
Robin, Arca Swiss heads are superb ... but forget the lever lock clamp, just go with the screw clamp version.

I had the quick release lever clamp on one of my tripod heads and switched it for a screw clamp one, I never felt 100% sure that the lens was not going to slip out. Plus using different plates it can be a pain to adjust the lever lock clamp for the slight difference in size from one plate to another.
Click to expand...

I think the "issue" with lever locks is where you have say a Kirk lever clamp and in the mix of AS plates other makes such Wimberley as well as the Kirk. The reason as I understood it the time I researched it was that AS is not a "Standard" I.e. there is set pitch, angle, etc for the clamps or plates! How ever if you have everything same brand you should be OK with a lever clamp.
 
HoppyUK said:
Cool (y) Just be aware of the issues surrounding lever-lock clamps.
Click to expand...

Martyn... said:
Robin, Arca Swiss heads are superb ... but forget the lever lock clamp, just go with the screw clamp version.

I had the quick release lever clamp on one of my tripod heads and switched it for a screw clamp one, I never felt 100% sure that the lens was not going to slip out. Plus using different plates it can be a pain to adjust the lever lock clamp for the slight difference in size from one plate to another.
Click to expand...

....Okay, re which clamp version, I'll be using 2 lenses, each with lens-collar tripod mounts on which I will attach exactly the same plate type and design. So are you saying, Martyn, that even with the same plate version (just different units) there is still likely to be a clamp issue.

Subject to the above, what appeals to me about a lever lock is that it's always going to be quicker to use and with wildlife photography that aspect is very important and can easily make the difference between getting the shot or not.
 
I have several different "Arca Swiss" plates for cameras and lenses all of which are Kirk ones, whilst they all fit in an Arca Swiss QR Lever Clamp there was enough difference in tolerance for the need to adjust the fit of the lever lock clamp with different plates to get a secure fit.

It is not any quicker than using the standard screw clamp ... I know I have actually used them both.
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
I think the "issue" with lever locks is where you have say a Kirk lever clamp and in the mix of AS plates other makes such Wimberley as well as the Kirk. The reason as I understood it the time I researched it was that AS is not a "Standard" I.e. there is set pitch, angle, etc for the clamps or plates! How ever if you have everything same brand you should be OK with a lever clamp.
Click to expand...

Plates from the same manufacture vary slightly, enough to cause a need for adjustment on a quick release lever set up, I know I have used one, I would never buy a head with a quick release lever again, the standard screw fitting plates are much better.
 
Last edited:
I don't like lever-locks full stop, much prefer plain screw-lock. The sensitivity to different plates with LL, even those of the same brand, is an extra PITA. The best clamps IMHO are Acratech's, with the double-speed locking thread and rubberised triangular knobs (easy with gloves).
 
Lever vs Knob....

 
Thanks for the added insight that even from the same brand there is enough tolerance variation that a lever clamp will need tweaking for a firm grip. With modern CNC milling I am a tad surprised that it is the case.

When I researched before buying Whimberley I saw the screw lock heads being either knurled or 'fluted' / shaped and the Whimberly is easy to grip and turn with gloves. The knurled ones IMO would be a mare (edited made to mare as the auto correct on my Smartphone is odd sometimes) :(
 
Last edited:
I have screw-type clamps on my three tripod heads (one gimbal, one tilting, one ballhead) and a lever release on my monopod head. The extra 1.5 seconds it takes to tighten the screw is pretty irrelevant, compared to the 3 to 6 seconds it takes to locate the plate into the clamp and ensure it fits properly.

Most of the plates I use are made by Kirk and they all fit in the lever clamp. I have some cheaper ebay plates that are too small.
 
TBH, I'm not sure a lever is quicker than the best quick-threaded screw clamps (eg Acratech, Markins) but as Frank says, that's hardly an issue either way. And it's not something you want to rush, either. If you're going to have an expensive accident, it will probably be when being over hasty mounting a heavy lens.

The reason I don't like levers is a) they attempt to solve a non-existent problem, b) in doing so, they introduce a whole new set of issues, and c) while every design of lever-lock is different, they all need some lateral pressure to be applied and this can nudge the tripod in some situations if you don't support it in some way.
 
Last edited:
My main worry about lever clamps is that it's quite easy to imagine a scenario, and one that isn't too unlikely, where something (say, a camera strap) can unlock it. This is virtually impossible with a screw clamp.
 
I also like the control of screw locks when balancing up a lens...
At the end of the day lever clamps were introduced mainly to save time,but as has already been mentioned
mounting a supertele lens shouldnt be a rush job anyway...
 
Many Thanks, guys :)

I'm getting the strong message that it's better (safer) to get a screw clamp rather than lever. So my next question is whether you advise me just buying the basic Arca-Swiss P0....

ArcaSwiss_801211.jpg


^ And then add a third-party screw clamp to this? ^

OR.... Do I buy this Arca-Swiss with a screw clamp already fitted?....

ArcaSwiss_801214.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top