I'm somewhat confused about exactly what Gitzo means when they say a tripod (specifically the 2341LVL) is recommended for focal lengths up to 300mm. I get the science behind it (as focal length increases, the effect of any vibration also increases). But how, if at all, does weight factor into this rating? If I were using lighter-than-average gear, could I get sharp shots at longer focal lengths, or is the focal length the primary limiting factor in a tripod?
(I'm thinking specifically in terms of the Olympus E-620 and the Olympus 50-200 f/2.8-3.5...the "effective" focal length is 400mm, but it's about 20% lighter than an equivalent full-frame setup like a Canon 5D with a 100-400, so would I still need a 3-series legset to get sharp shots at marginal shutter speeds?).
The recomendation is based on vibration at a certain magnification and mainly applies to worst-case scenarios, e.g. 1/15. You can often do fine with lighter tripods espcecially if the system has VR/IS. A 2 series is fine for the setup you are describing.
I'd agree that you'll probably be fine at higher shutter speeds, but I found that at 300mm on a 1.5x DX Nikon, anything below 1/125s was compromised on a Gitzo series 2.
Weight is a weird thing. For some lens/body/tripod combinations and situations, extra weight seems to add more damping, while with others it makes things much more squirrelly.
It's hard to make a strong recommendation either way.
It's the best way to spec tripods - load ratings are a complete waste of time.
However, I'd really like it if Gitzo would share the test conditions and try and force the industry into some sort of common means of specifying tripod performance. Right now, it's pretty impossible to compare tripods and we get into a ton of threads where someone buys a cheap dimestore tripod, sets it up in the absence of vibration and claims it is as good at the best in the business. All of that would stop and it would be easy to determine what works, what doesn't, and how well it does, in fact, work.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
I'd agree that you'll probably be fine at higher shutter speeds, but I found that at 300mm on a 1.5x DX Nikon, anything below 1/125s was compromised on a Gitzo series 2.
That's weird. I've gone lower than that at 300+1.4x with no problems if it is not very windy. At 1/30 it becomes questionable and the 3 series is better.
Putting my observations another way, they're probably not far off from yours:
1/60 will sometimes work, and sometimes not -- that, to me, is where problems started to show up. 1/30th will usually not work. Of course, for some images, you can still get something usable -- but the chances of it being critically sharp are pretty slim.
I found that a TC made things more demanding, but not a dramatic difference in most situations.
The problem with Gitzo's ratings is that they say nothing about the type of gear that was used. They can say 300mm, but there's a world of difference size- and weight-wise between a 5D with a 75-300 f/4-5.6 and a 1Ds Mk II with a 300 f/2.8, even though they offer the same field of view.
How do you define "very windy"? Because I frequently shoot skylines from the shore, where the wind blows steadily at about 15 mph...my current Feisol setup can handle long exposures up to about 200mm but anything longer than that is dicey.
Ugh...I may as well just try it and see what happens when I have the money...at worst, it'll be the same as my current setup and much easier to use
Adam, I hadn't noticed that you've got a Feisol. That tripod has the same size tubes as a Gitzo series 2, but a bit lighter construction. Most testing I've seen (especially Neil Rothschild's, over on Nikonians), suggests that there's a bit of a performance increase with a Gitzo series 2 (particularly in a breeze), but it's not dramatic. I believe Neil was testing the 3442, which has a bit sturdier spider/platform arrangement, so maybe the jump to a Gitzo would be more noticeable. Overall, though, I suspect the improvement would be more incremental than dramatic.
Adam, I hadn't noticed that you've got a Feisol. That tripod has the same size tubes as a Gitzo series 2, but a bit lighter construction. Most testing I've seen (especially Neil Rothschild's, over on Nikonians), suggests that there's a bit of a performance increase with a Gitzo series 2 (particularly in a breeze), but it's not dramatic. I believe Neil was testing the 3442, which has a bit sturdier spider/platform arrangement, so maybe the jump to a Gitzo would be more noticeable. Overall, though, I suspect the improvement would be more incremental than dramatic.
I have a Feisol 3441...not as stable as the 3442, but a good bit smaller. Incremental improvement would be fine. I'm mostly interested in the Gitzo for usability reasons..ALR and the leveling base will make me a happier photographer. The real thrust of my question was whether it would be worth the extra money (and size) for a Series 3...at this point, I'm thinking not.
