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

sk66 said:
I really don't see the benefit of a gimbal on a monopod. IMHO, there's not a lot of benefit to a head at all. Panning is achieved by the monopod pivoting on it's foot and tilt/roll is achieved by leaning the monopod (just put your foot against the monopod's foot to stabilize it if needed).

I don't even like a 3way/or ballhead on a monopod... if it's set loose enough to allow it to reposition for fast work, it quickly gets all out of whack. And if it's locked down what is it really doing for you? I do have a Sirui L-10 tilt head that I use on the monopod; but IMO it is a pretty significant expense for little benefit in most situations.
Click to expand...

....I am very surprised by what you say (and Phil 'dinners' agreement). Without any head at all (I have tried my monopod both without any head and also with a small Manfrotto ballhead) achieving smooth panning while the foot is in any degree of undergrowth (common when photographing wildlife unless in a hide) isn't practical and my monopod even has a fluid cartridge foot to help panning!

Also, when out in the field and on rough ground etc, if you don't have any head fitted you are greatly restricted by where you can place your monopod's angle to the ground to achieve the maximum steadiness/stability. Example, again as happened to me on Monday, I was able to angle my monopod at a relatively shallow angle into a bank in front of me so I formed a 'tripod' with my two legs. And for another few shots that day I was able to lean my monopod with the top forwards and support it against a stone wall and shoot over the wall. Both those actions would have wasted valuable time trying to achieve the maximum stability if I had no head fitted.

The Sirui L-10 is almost the same design as the RSS MH-01 head and I would class both as very well built ballheads but ballheads are all they are and again, if shooting wildlife, you can't afford the time turning knobs to unmount the lens/camera rather than quick-release levers - At least, that's what I find.
 
RedRobin said:
The Sirui L-10 is almost the same design as the RSS MH-01 head and I would class both as very well built ballheads but ballheads are all they are
Click to expand...

You might want to try actually looking at the helpful advice some people are giving you, rather than dismissing it with barely a glance. And a glance is all that's required to see that the MH-01 (which I own) and the L-10 are not ball heads. Then again with a lightweight lens like the 100-400 you could probably get away with the Manfrotto 234-RC2 which is smilar to the two high-quality heads you dismiss, but only about £30.
 
hollis_f said:
You might want to try actually looking at the helpful advice some people are giving you, rather than dismissing it with barely a glance. And a glance is all that's required to see that the MH-01 (which I own) and the L-10 are not ball heads. Then again with a lightweight lens like the 100-400 you could probably get away with the Manfrotto 234-RC2 which is smilar to the two high-quality heads you dismiss, but only about £30.
Click to expand...

.... @hollis_f Whoa! Frank, I am not "dismissing' the advice generously offered in this thread at all. I have spent a lot of time investigating every single suggestion posted in this thread by reading reviews and watching videos - That's EVERY single piece of monopod and head mentioned in this thread.

Whether one calls the MH-01 and L-10 'ballheads' or not they are not suitable for my purposes as I have previously explained in detail. I am not led by the cost - It's more important to me to acquire equipment which suits my needs best. I am not unhappy with my Manfrotto 804-RC2 head on my monopod but think that a more fluid (not floppy) head might be an improvement, hence this thread. I have already tried out the 234-RC2 and bought my 804-RC2 instead.

The Canon 100-400 might feel lightweight to you, Frank, but it's similar in weight to my current 400mm prime with two 1.4x extenders mounted (I have done the maths) - That's not lightweight for me to hold for extended periods of time (I'm 67yo, not 27yo when I was a fit racing cyclist going to the gym regularly).
 
Last edited:
RedRobin said:
....I am very surprised by what you say (and Phil 'dinners' agreement). Without any head at all (I have tried my monopod both without any head and also with a small Manfrotto ballhead) achieving smooth panning while the foot is in any degree of undergrowth (common when photographing wildlife unless in a hide) isn't practical and my monopod even has a fluid cartridge foot to help panning!
Click to expand...
Any kind of panning sucks with a monopod. A monopod is dependent on your stability and when you try to pan either your body moves ruining the stability, or the monopod swings/rolls ruining the framing and changing the height. It's "better" if the monopod is mounted to the camera body and not the lens, but that is only suitable for smaller lenses that don't need a monopod. Using a different type of head isn't going to change any of that.

Example, again as happened to me on Monday, I was able to angle my monopod at a relatively shallow angle into a bank in front of me so I formed a 'tripod' with my two legs.
Click to expand...
I can agree with that. When I'm amongst boulders and similar I may not have a choice in where the monopod foot can be placed. It's why I have the tilt head at all. But in your second example "maximum stability" would probably have been achieved by just placing the camera on the wall directly.

It sounds to me like you really should be using a tripod/gimbal. But they also suck for longish panning...you have to dance around the tripod and not trip over the legs.

I hate all of them (but I still own 5 tripods and two monopods).
 
Robin the guy in the video that was linked to isn't using a gimbal head in the truest sense of the word as the one he has has no rotation on it. His is simply a fore and aft travel head which is no different in action to the RRS MH01 or similar.

I use a Manfrotto 234 which is cheap as chips on my 500 as it does the job. Really i should spend more on a better one and after this thread perhaps I will.
 
scottinfocus said:
Have a look at acratech. I love mine. It's the transformer of ball heads. Weighs a pound and can do gimbal with a decent size lens, pano and normal. I've had mine 5 years now and I swear by it.
Click to expand...
I have/use/love the Acratech GV2 as well. BUT, any "side mount gimbal" solution has the significant negative of (potentially) putting the center of mass too far off center. Particularly the GV2.
 
sk66 said:
I have/use/love the Acratech GV2 as well. BUT, any "side mount gimbal" solution has the significant negative of (potentially) putting the center of mass too far off center. Particularly the GV2.
Click to expand...
Is that one of the situations where the lens foot needs to be replaced with a shorter one to bring it back over the cog???
 
Last edited:
Box Brownie said:
Is that one of the situations where the lens foot needs to be replaced with a shorter one to bring it back over the cog???
Click to expand...

A shorter foot would help, but not much. Using the Acratech in that way puts the centre of gravity about 4in off to one side. Basically, if the weight is not positioned exactly above one of the legs (preferably close to full height) there's a good chance that with a heavy lens the tripod will topple over.
 
HoppyUK said:
A shorter foot would help, but not much. Using the Acratech in that way puts the centre of gravity about 4in off to one side. Basically, if the weight is not positioned exactly above one of the legs (preferably close to full height) there's a good chance that with a heavy lens the tripod will topple over.
Click to expand...
Yeah. With the GV2 (or any ball head set to 90* and used as a gimbal) there is no way of ever centering the mass. Some Nikon lenses are particularly bad for side mount as they come with a tall foot. In those cases a shorter foot could more closely center the weight if used with a "sidekick" or similar side mount solution.
 
HoppyUK said:
A shorter foot would help, but not much. Using the Acratech in that way puts the centre of gravity about 4in off to one side. Basically, if the weight is not positioned exactly above one of the legs (preferably close to full height) there's a good chance that with a heavy lens the tripod will topple over.
Click to expand...

sk66 said:
Yeah. With the GV2 (or any ball head set to 90* and used as a gimbal) there is no way of ever centering the mass. Some Nikon lenses are particularly bad for side mount as they come with a tall foot. In those cases a shorter foot could more closely center the weight if used with a "sidekick" or similar side mount solution.
Click to expand...

Ah! I had missed that the GV2 was ballhead.....my thought was more related to something I think I recall reading about using my Whimberley Sidemount (or similar types) with certain lenses that 'needed' a shorter foot fitted to centre it properly.

PS FWIW I do appreciate that my gimbal would be more usable on a tripod but for now i have found it quite useful on the monopod and this is with my 100-400mm locked at 400mm ;)
 
Last edited:
scottinfocus said:
Have a look at acratech. I love mine. It's the transformer of ball heads. Weighs a pound and can do gimbal with a decent size lens, pano and normal. I've had mine 5 years now and I swear by it.
Click to expand...

 
RedRobin said:
Click to expand...

Not mentioned in that video is the fact that the Acratech suffers positional movement on lock-down - it shifts left/right by a noticeable amount when critical positioning is needed. Disappointing in a head of that quality and price. None of the ball heads I listed in post #24 have any significant shift on lock-down. Oh, and add the Arca-Swiss Z1 to that list :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Not mentioned in that video is the fact that the Acratech suffers positional movement on lock-down - it shifts left/right by a noticeable amount when critical positioning is needed. Disappointing in a head of that quality and price. None of the ball heads I listed in post #24 have any significant shift on lock-down. Oh, and add the Arca-Swiss Z1 to that list :)
Click to expand...

....Thanks, Richard - That's very valuable information and such positional movement is a deal-breaker as far as I am concerned.

When in lock-down, a head with lens+camera mounted needs to remain locked down when carried on a shoulder with lens across your neck.

I'm afraid that I personally find ballheads of a design like the Arca-Swiss Z1 far too tricky to position when shooting, hence my interest in other heads types.
 
jm2 said:
Get a cheap knockoff Gimbal like the Bieke 45, and see how you get on, £50 - £60 on the bay, - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1105558
Click to expand...

....Thanks but I would rather keep that £50-£60 and put it towards something I can feel confident in. In due course when (not if) I get my Canon 100-400mm II, I can go to a shop about 30 miles away which stocks Sirui and try out that gimbal with my gear - I have already spoken with them and it just needs my phone call to arrange it.

My thinking at the moment is to firstly swop my aluminium Manfrotto video monopod for a carbon Gitzo GM5561T and still use my Manfrotto 804-RC2 stubby lever 3-way head on it. And then rethink whether I want to buy a gimbal or not later.

Btw, that linked product is not available. I'm not a fan of eBay anyway.
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
I really don't see the benefit of a gimbal on a monopod. IMHO, there's not a lot of benefit to a head at all. Panning is achieved by the monopod pivoting on it's foot and tilt/roll is achieved by leaning the monopod (just put your foot against the monopod's foot to stabilize it if needed).
I don't even like a 3way/or ballhead on a monopod... if it's set loose enough to allow it to reposition for fast work, it quickly gets all out of whack. And if it's locked down what is it really doing for you? I do have a Sirui L-10 tilt head that I use on the monopod; but IMO it is a pretty significant expense for little benefit in most situations.
Click to expand...

I thought the same, Steven, for quite a while then a pal of mine got the RRS head I mentioned above and swore by it.

I had an old (and Crappy) Manfrotto head which I tried on my monopod, and although it was fiddly, I then got the RRS one and I wouldn't be without it.

I agree it's a significant expense, but the leaning trick only works up to a point, I was shooting a toucan at it's nest (a hole in the tree) and sat waiting for 2 hrs for it to appear, and I found having the monopod much easier to use with a head tilted up rather than leaning for this length of time...I was using a 1Dx and a 300 2.8 prime so there was a bit of weight involved, but with the ability to tilt the head it was significantly easier (and more comfortable) to position for a long wait.

Again, it's a one off purchase if you buy a good one.

I wouldn't consider a gimbal on a monopod, however.

George.
 
Last edited:
jm2 said:
I have the Canon 100-400mm II, it would be a waste to use it on a Gimbal if you found the Canon 100-400mm II a bit heavy for a walkabout lens, use a Black Rapid strap.
Click to expand...

....Cheers :) - I already use a BlackRapid strap and like it a lot. I have used it since early last year so it has had a good trial.

My Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime plus 1.4x (when I add it) weighs 1,475 g. The Canon 100-400mm II weighs 1,640 g so not a huge difference. I don't have any problem on walkabout with that kind of weight but I do need a monopod's support if needing to hold one position in readiness for a shot - Such as waiting for a Little Owl to pop out of his cave entrance just as one example.
 
RedRobin said:
....Thanks, Richard - That's very valuable information and such positional movement is a deal-breaker as far as I am concerned.

When in lock-down, a head with lens+camera mounted needs to remain locked down when carried on a shoulder with lens across your neck.

I'm afraid that I personally find ballheads of a design like the Arca-Swiss Z1 far too tricky to position when shooting, hence my interest in other heads types.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is not very good for critical positioning but if you're using as a gimbal, then that shouldn't matter so much. It settles a bit on lockdown, but it shouldn't at all. I can live with that compromise for the versatility it provides, though.
 
George said:
I thought the same, Steven, for quite a while then a pal of mine got the RRS head I mentioned above and swore by it.

I had an old (and Crappy) Manfrotto head which I tried on my monopod, and although it was fiddly, I then got the RRS one and I wouldn't be without it.

I agree it's a significant expense, but the leaning trick only works up to a point, I was shooting a toucan at it's nest (a hole in the tree) and sat waiting for 2 hrs for it to appear, and I found having the monopod much easier to use with a head tilted up rather than leaning for this length of time...I was using a 1Dx and a 300 2.8 prime so there was a bit of weight involved, but with the ability to tilt the head it was significantly easier (and more comfortable) to position for a long wait.

Again, it's a one off purchase if you buy a good one.

I wouldn't consider a gimbal on a monopod, however.

George.
Click to expand...

....A local (30 miles away) shop stock the Sirui L-10 which is almost an identical design to the RRS MH-01 you have, George. They also stock the Gitzo GM5561T monopod, which I think is the one you have and that ticks a few boxes for me. They also have gimbals and have said that if I give them a couple of days notice just to check they have it all in stock I can try it all out. I won't bother to do so until I get my Canon 100-400mm II though.

I'm certainly not going to go immediately for a gimbal if indeed I do so at all, but I want to keep an open mind and check it out physically even if only indoors. The concensus of opinion here is not to mount a gimbal on a monopod and I am listening and taking note of the reasons but, me being me, I still have to check it out physically for myself - This doesn't mean I'm ignoring advice. I only shoot wildlife and have taken more than 20,000 shots in the last 12 months and so I know what I want to try to achieve if it's possible.

I couldn't agree more when you say "it's a one off purchase if you buy a good one" :) 'Buy cheap, buy twice' is another true adage. Also, if something doesn't work for you in practice, it's easier to sell if it's a good one.
 
Last edited:
Whats the benefit of the Gitzo GM5561T monopod over say a cheaper one like I have, the Benro A38T, which is aluminuim and supports 18kgs??

My Benro cost me £39.99 the Gitzo one costs £274.00 what do you get for £230.00 more with the Gitzo???? I know it supports upto 25kgs who would use that and even the 18kgs on my Benro? Also the Gitzo is CF.

Generally interested as I try to buy the best kit I can afford but I am finding the £230.00 difference hard to justify. I take notice of the pro togs who sit near me at the football (premier league) and they are using 400mm lenses and are using Benro, Manfrotto etc......type monopods which aren't even CF to my eyes.

Benro > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-benro-a38t-aluminium-new-generation-monopod/p1559470

Gitzo > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...3ecae217589cd9b3ac40b4a6af9a163&utm_source=aw

As said, I am generally interested in this thread (for head) as I am in the market for a new tripod and head as I am starting to get into bird photography and want to update my current kit. I bought secondhand to see if I would use it for garden bird photography and will be the only use due to disabilities. I have just bought a Nikon 3000mm f4 and the foot is a little too long for the current QR plate so need to chage.
 
Last edited:
Swanseajack said:
Whats the benefit of the Gitzo GM5561T monopod over say a cheaper one like I have, the Benro A38T, which is aluminuim and supports 18kgs??

My Benro cost me £39.99 the Gitzo one costs £274.00 what do you get for £230.00 more with the Gitzo???? I know it supports upto 25kgs who would use that and even the 18kgs on my Benro? Also the Gitzo is CF.

Generally interested as I try to buy the best kit I can afford but I am finding the £230.00 difference hard to justify. I take notice of the pro togs who sit near me at the football (premier league) and they are using 400mm lenses and are using Benro, Manfrotto etc......type monopods which aren't even CF to my eyes.

Benro > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-benro-a38t-aluminium-new-generation-monopod/p1559470

Gitzo > http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-...3ecae217589cd9b3ac40b4a6af9a163&utm_source=aw
Click to expand...

....Hi Simon. To answer your questions about justifying the huge cost difference, I can only answer as far as I personally am concerned. My answers are not in order of importance:

- Although the carbon Gitzo is 100 g heavier than the aluminium Benro, it is more compact and carbon is much much nicer and more tactile to touch in all weathers especially the cold.

- Carbonfibre in the 6-layer weave which Gitzo use, has less inclination to flex than aluminium and as a material is more stable in temperature variations.

- The Gitzo uses a very reliable and easy to use G-lock mechanisms which I would expect to be more reliable than Benro's. With wildlife I often need to adjust the height of my monopod and my small carbon tripod is easier and noisier than my aluminium monopod.

- Also, you can more quickly adjust the Gitzo monopod height because you can grip all the leg rings at once - You can't do that with the Benro as far as I know.

- Think of the maximum weight load as being an indicator of the build strength of the monopod rather than just what your own camera+lens does or doesn't weigh.

- I personally do not have as much faith in the durability and design of Benro products as a brand when compared with Gitzo products.

@George - Why did you choose the Gitzo GM5561T, please?

I'm not concerned what pro togs at footie matches use or what others may decide to spend or not - I only photograph wildlife and do so purely for my enjoyment. How often do journalists tramp through thick undergrowth, water, bogmire, etc, I wonder (unless they are nasty paparazzi!).

But, it's horses-for-courses and what works best for one photographer doesn't necessarily work best for another. You and me for example. I don't seek to persuade you that my choice is 'better' for you than yours - It isn't :)
 
Last edited:
Did you check out my suggestion Robin?
Again not trying to convince you one way or another but you may be surprised...:)
 
Trentbirder said:
Did you check out my suggestion Robin?
Again not trying to convince you one way or another but you may be surprised...:)
Click to expand...

....This suggestion, Paul?:

Trentbirder said:
I personally use the Kirk BH-1 with wimberley sidekick,i find this suits me fine, getting used to the sidemount comes easy..
Also more flexible and easy to remove the sidemount,leaving the ballhead..
Click to expand...

Trentbirder said:
I use a Feisol monopod CM-1471(i think) and a Kirk 2" quick release clamp works perfectly and very light set up
Click to expand...

The Kirk BH-1 ballhead:

And its combination with a Wimberley Sidekick:

Yes, thanks I did check this out and whereas it results in a very flexible use of kit, I only own and use telephoto lenses (my Canon Macro lens is a 100mm) and so I would not need the ballhead component in that rig. I would be better off with just a lightweight gimbal.

I also checked out (online) the Feisol monopod CM-1471 but the Gitzo GM5561T allows you to undo all the leg rings at once and so is much faster to adjust, as Frank @hollis_f will confirm having used both.

So, am I right in thinking that you in effect are using a gimbal on a monopod and are happy with that setup?
 
Answering the other part of your question,no i wouldnt use a Gimbal or a ball head on a monopod,to me using a monopod is a
compromise, yes it takes the weight off your arms reducing fatigue,but it cant replace a tripod for steadiness,again when i can i use
the monopod in a sittng position in my case a walkstool,but thats just me...
I think youve been given some excellent advice from the other posters and at the end of the day its what works best for you..

Hope this is of some help to you....
 
If you want a fast/easy monopod check out MoGoPod or Manfrotto 685B.
I own a first gen MoGoPod and the "belt drive" mechanism can rattle a little, no experience w/ the Manfrotto. I also own my old Gitzo Reporter (aluminum) and a recently aquired (used) Gitzo 3551.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of the MoGoPod as it doesn't compact very short, and the occasional rattle when banged around. I haven't actually used the 3551 yet.

IMHO, CF has very little benefit over aluminum. To get the same stiffness you need heavier wall or larger diameter tubing... The net result is similar weight for similar stiffness. CF is also more prone to damage due to mishandling and exposure to UV (it is resin/plastic based after all).
But CF will have a higher failure point (max load), doesn't transmit cold as much, and is less prone to corrosion (but the metal parts still are). In general, you pay ~ 3x as much for that... (or more with Gitzo).

FWIW, I own two Gitzo CF tripods (5541/3541), a Benro CF tripod, and have used/tested Giottos and Iduro. IMHO, there isn't much to set them apart. The main difference I've found is Gitzo uses plastic guides and a composite fiber bushing (which can swell w/ water) and the others use all plastic guides/bushings (something like delrin/nylon). I would say the delrin is *better* but the ones on my benro are a little undersized IMO.

You may find more of a difference if you compare a really cheap model which isn't an option w/ Gitzo. And I would sure hope Gitzo has better QC. But both my Benro and Gitzos have worked reliably for years with similar levels of maintenance required.

I think Gitzo is kind of like Leica... you pay an awful lot for the name and perhaps *a little* better quality/QC. I bought my Gitzos used... I can afford to buy them new, but I won't.
 
RedRobin said:
- Think of the maximum weight load as being an indicator of the build strength of the monopod rather than just what your own camera+lens does or doesn't weigh.
Click to expand...

However, bear in mind that it's a number that means different things to different manufacturers. So a 25kg weight limit on one may be the weight required to crumple the tripod into a pile of shrapnel. Or it may be the heaviest weight before the slightest wobble may happen.

Use the figures to compare gear from the same manufacturer, but it's meaningless if you use it to compare between them.
 
RedRobin said:
I also checked out (online) the Feisol monopod CM-1471 but the Gitzo GM5561T allows you to undo all the leg rings at once and so is much faster to adjust, as Frank @hollis_f will confirm having used both.
Click to expand...

I originally bought a Feisol, but I immediatley swapped it for the Gitzo - because the latter had ALR. I believe Feisol put it into all their new gear just a few weeks later.
 
RedRobin said:
.... @hollis_f
The Canon 100-400 might feel lightweight to you, Frank, but it's similar in weight to my current 400mm prime with two 1.4x extenders mounted (I have done the maths) - That's not lightweight for me to hold for extended periods of time (I'm 67yo, not 27yo when I was a fit racing cyclist going to the gym regularly).
Click to expand...

SPeaking of weight - A decent gimbal is a big and bulky bit of gear, especially compared to a monopod head. The Kirk monopod head is 400g. The Induro gimbal head is 1500g. That extra kilo, balanced on top of a pole, makes it much more difficult to hold it steady. And it's a lot of extra weight to carry about

Really, I strongly recommend that you borrow a Gimbal for a while, and a decent monopod head if possible. But if that's not easy I'd wait until you've been using the 100-400 for a while.
 
Thanks, @Trentbirder Paul, @sk66 Steven, @hollis_f Frank - This is all very helpful indeed - Not just to me but also helpful to others reading this thread. :)

ThumbsUp_ani.gif
 
hollis_f said:
Really, I strongly recommend that you borrow a Gimbal for a while, and a decent monopod head if possible. But if that's not easy I'd wait until you've been using the 100-400 for a while.
Click to expand...

....Good advice - Cheers :) - I'm certainly planning not to actually buy a new head until I have used the 100-400 for a month or two. I'll have the 100-400 + 7D2 on my BlackRapid and occasionally take my current Manfrotto MVM500A monopod with me strapped across my back as I do now and with my Manfrotto 804-RC2 head still on it as now. It's a very sturdy monopod with a fluid cartridge foot and 3 short feet and is designed for video (which I never shoot) but it is awkward to carry.

Manfrotto 804-RC2: http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-manfrotto-804rc2-tripod-head/p1012868
 
hollis_f said:
I originally bought a Feisol, but I immediatley swapped it for the Gitzo - because the latter had ALR. I believe Feisol put it into all their new gear just a few weeks later.
Click to expand...

They did introduce it Frank which works fine,they also still produce the non-rapid legs..
 
Can you grab all the leg rings at once on the Feisol monopod? - It doesn't look that way on their website's product page, unless it's not a fully collapsed photo.
 
RedRobin said:
Can you grab all the leg rings at once on the Feisol monopod? - It doesn't look that way on their website's product page, unless it's not a fully collapsed photo.
Click to expand...

I've got a CT3472 Robin, (great piece of kit and super-stable) and yes you can grab all the leg rings at once ... though I don't :)
 
sk66 said:
If you want a fast/easy monopod check out MoGoPod or Manfrotto 685B.
I own a first gen MoGoPod and the "belt drive" mechanism can rattle a little, no experience w/ the Manfrotto. I also own my old Gitzo Reporter (aluminum) and a recently aquired (used) Gitzo 3551.

I'm not a particularly huge fan of the MoGoPod as it doesn't compact very short, and the occasional rattle when banged around. I haven't actually used the 3551 yet.

IMHO, CF has very little benefit over aluminum. To get the same stiffness you need heavier wall or larger diameter tubing... The net result is similar weight for similar stiffness. CF is also more prone to damage due to mishandling and exposure to UV (it is resin/plastic based after all).
But CF will have a higher failure point (max load), doesn't transmit cold as much, and is less prone to corrosion (but the metal parts still are). In general, you pay ~ 3x as much for that... (or more with Gitzo).

FWIW, I own two Gitzo CF tripods (5541/3541), a Benro CF tripod, and have used/tested Giottos and Iduro. IMHO, there isn't much to set them apart. The main difference I've found is Gitzo uses plastic guides and a composite fiber bushing (which can swell w/ water) and the others use all plastic guides/bushings (something like delrin/nylon). I would say the delrin is *better* but the ones on my benro are a little undersized IMO.

You may find more of a difference if you compare a really cheap model which isn't an option w/ Gitzo. And I would sure hope Gitzo has better QC. But both my Benro and Gitzos have worked reliably for years with similar levels of maintenance required.

I think Gitzo is kind of like Leica... you pay an awful lot for the name and perhaps *a little* better quality/QC. I bought my Gitzos used... I can afford to buy them new, but I won't.
Click to expand...


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.

Ive never used any carbon tripod other than a Gitzo and after using a Gitzo I wouldnt want to.
 
RedRobin said:
Can you grab all the leg rings at once on the Feisol monopod? - It doesn't look that way on their website's product page, unless it's not a fully collapsed photo.
Click to expand...

You certainly can but as gramps says i dont,simply because i dont see the need to....
 
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.

Ive never used any carbon tripod other than a Gitzo and after using a Gitzo I wouldnt want to.
Click to expand...

....Exactly. And additionally, there are different grades and weaves of carbonfibre, each having slightly differing properties. The retail prices of products such as tripods, monopods, and bicycles etc are determined largely by the costs of a product's various components which add up to create the whole. So if Gitzo use higher performance materials then their products will be more expensive. That is their established market (Wimberley are doubtless similar in their ethos) and they consequently invest more resources into design and development. Porsche is another example of this.

Yes you do pay for the name, but it's what that name and brand represents that you pay for - High performance and quality. We, as consumers, are free to choose to buy what suits us individually.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top