I thinking of changing my neotec tripod, which I like, for the basalt GT2942L. I could do with something a bit longer for shooting on uneven ground and non permanent spiked feet. what I want to know is, is it worth spending 40%- 46% more for either the GT25242L or GT3541LS?
All of the above are lighter than my current set up, which will be nice but not an issue for me. the 3 series is rated for a 500mm lens the other two 300mm lenses, I'll mainly be shooting below 200mm with a d700 (mainly 20mm- 50mm), but I also have a d200 and an 80-400vr that I occasionally stick on the tripod. the wide stuff will see more use, of the tripod, at full length and when shooting long (d200 +80-400vr) the tripod would be 3/4 length.
i'll presume there'll be no difference between the basalt and the 3 series cf when shooting wide/ panos, but will there be a big difference when going long considering there will only be a balanced 3kg load (including head) on the tripod. and has anyone bought basalt and changed to cf?
ps. not interested in hearing about other brands, or should get this or that instead.
For your intended use the Basalt versions are more than adequate.
As far as resistance to vibration they rate above aluminum, and slightly lower than CF. Overall I consider them a very good compromise between price and performance.
Personally I have a 3 section CF tripod as well as a 4 section Basalt. I find myself carrying the basalt tripod much more frequently due to it's smaller broken-down size when traveling with minimal gear. Performance wise it's more than adequate for wide angle and low-end zoom range.
On the Basalt tripod I removed the center column and will usually hang a bag or other weight off the center hook. This combination makes for a very stable platform.
I shoot a Basalt 2 series, and find it to be an excellent compromise on price, weight, and performance. I've been nothing but pleased with its ability to hold my gear steady. I've used it with Canon 1-series and a 70-200 or 300 f/4, but also had great results with my Mamiya RB67 and 180mm lens. I'm sure that CF is theoretically better, but for my use I can't say enough good things about my basalt setup with a Markins BH.
I'm a fan of the basalt Gitzos -- they're a great value, and the performance differences between them and the equivalent CF models is minimal, of any.
I owned a 2940L (predecessor to the 2942L, with very minor differences), and replaced it with a 3541LS. Both are great tripods, but the 3541LS is undeniably better with anything longer than around 200mm. With a 300/4, especially with a teleconverter, any Gitzo 2-series is really marginal at difficult shutter speeds. I noticed a clear difference on anything between approximately 1/2 and 1/50th of a second, using identical equipment and technique on both. I suspect you'd see similar results with the 80-400.
If performance in that range is important to you, the 3541LS is a clear improvement, while I doubt you'd see any appreciable difference between the basalt and CF in the same size.
There is a significant amount of difference in rigidity between the same diameter basalt and gitzo CF legs. I have a 2940 basalt monopod and a 2540 CF monopod which are approximately for the same application. The CF leg is much, much more rigid whereas the Basalt one has significant side to side flexing in comparison. For that reason, while I'm a big Gitzo fan, I'm not such a big fan of basalt.
You'd have to satisfy yourself, but I might be inclined to go a bit downscale in CF (say Feisol) instead of going to the Gitzo Basalt. Of course, better yet would be to step up to the Gitzo CF with either a 254x or - best of all - a 3541LS. The 3541 is incredible.
The legs on my basalt Gitzo G1097 feel positively rubbery compared to the legs on my CF Gitzo G1257. But, in actual use, images I've shot from the G1097 are absolutely equal in quality to the G1257. Of course, that's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, because the G1097 is 2 increments (in Gitzo's terminology) smaller than the G1257, and I only shoot from it using short, wide, lighter-weight lenses. In a real comparison, let's say 2-series basalt versus 2-series CF, with a heavier load or in less than ideal conditions, I'm guessing the CF will yield noticeable advantages.
