Manfrotto 536 thoughts? (vs. Gitzo GT-5561SGT and Gitzo GT3541XLS)

[dh003i]

I'm looking for a tripod upgrade from my Bogen 055XPROB. It has served me well as an "entry"-level tripod for my DSLR and 4x5 monorail, but I'm getting a Wehman 8x10 and am sick of some of the hassles of the 055XPROB (particularly the center-column, which is awful when you try to get the the ground...it has a goofy mechanism to tilt the column 90 degrees for on-the-ground macro, but it is really rickety).

I have narrowed it down to three choices, which really seem to illustrate the saying about picking two amongst three: light-weight, strong, "affordable". (although these are all very strong and lightweight for their support & height). I figure I'll stick with the Gitzo 1570M I have (3.6 inches tall) and the Wehman is 13 inches tall, so that adds another 6.5 inches to the center of the lens (so I add 10.1 inches to min heights).

The heaviest lens I'd be using is the APO Nikkor 610/9 (4.6 lbs in a Ilex #5). That's 24in for infinity focus; the camera has 30.5 in of bellows available, so that is ok.

Really tall, really strong, really expensive ($1,300):
Gitzo GT-5561SGT (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/548442-REG/Gitzo_GT5561SGT_GT_5561SGT_Giant_Systematic_6X.html) -- 8.5 ft tall, 7.5 lbs, 6.7 in min height (16.8 in to lens center). 6 sections.

Really strong, pretty affordable ($700): Manfrotto 536 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/556158-REG/Manfrotto_536_536_4_Section_Carbon_Fiber.html) -- 6.6 ft tall, 7.2 lbs, 10.24 in min height (20.34 in to lens center). 4 sections. I guess it weighs about the same as the giant systematic because it only has 4 sections.

Really light, really low ($900): Gitzo GT3541XLS (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/569167-REG/Gitzo_GT3541XLS_GT3541XLS_Systematic_6X_Carbon.html) -- 6.5 ft tall, 4.3 lbs, 3.9 in min height (14 in to lens center). 4 sections.

These are all rated very high on B&H Photo. I've only seen one mention of the Manfrotto 536 here on LF.info, and no reviews of it outside of B&H (none of which mention LF). Anyone have any thoughts on it? Although Manfrotto owns Gitzo, my impressions are that Manfrotto-branded products aren't up to the same quality as Gitzo-branded products.

PS: Although it doesn't get low or high enough for me, the Sachtler CF-100ENG HD 2CF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/78761-REG/Sachtler_5390_CF_100ENG_HD_2CF_Carbon.html), recommended by Bjørn Rørslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/equip.html), seems pretty great (I think he mis-state's its weights specs, though). Weighs 9.5 pounds and supporting 210 pounds. Massive support capability and a massive $1800 price.

[Peter De Smidt]

I prefer Gitzo's leg locking mechanism to the ones on Manfrottos, although the latter have gotten a lot better over the last 20 years. The Gitzos lock the legs more rigidly, and they're more resistant to dirt and grit.

I have two series 5 aluminum gitzo's, and I've played with a GT3541XLS. It is really nice. One of the photographers I work with has one. That said, if it were me, I'd lean towards the G53541XLS, as it's tall enough for 99.99% of what I do (I don't know about you), and less leg sections means greater rigidity and less weight. For out in the muck, I'd recommend the spiked feet.

All that said, if I'm out in the muck, I prefer my huge Zone VI wooden tripod. Reis ones are even nicer. With an 8x10 with 600mm of extension, they can act as a sail. (Using an umbrella helps.) In that case weight and surveyor spiked feet help. The issue with light tripods (I have have a smaller Gitzo carbon fiber that I use for traveling with medium format rangefinders) is not strength, it's tipsiness. The Gitzo spiked feet will help, although they aren't in the same league as surveyor style ones. Yes, you can use weights, but these aren't always handy, and if you have to carry them, then what's the point in a light tripod?

One the other hand, on hard surfaces I prefer my Gitzo's to my Zone VI.

You might check out: http://www.dutchhill.com/products/elt4000cf.html

They used to offer it in a photography version, but I don't see that listed. You might have to have an adapter made to mount a head.

Of course, none of the surveyor style tripods are near as compact as the Gitzos. If you have to fly a lot, you probably don't want one of the surveyor types.

I hope that helps.

[dh003i]

Thank you very much for your thoughts. I've hard of people using their camera-equipment bags as weight, so that you aren't carrying anything extra.

I'll look into the Dutch Hill ELT4000cf, although it might be a little heavy, and I also wonder if they have accessories to cover up or replace the spiked feet for shooting on hard surfaces.

[dh003i]

PS: Did you mean the GT5541LS (http://www.gitzo.com/product/72038.71837.72020.0.0/GT5541LS/_/Series_5_Systematic_4-section_Tripod_Long) tripod when suggesting an alternative Gitzo? Google didn't pull up anything on GT53541XLS. Regarding the GT5541LS, for me it isn't tall enough. I've shot with my 055XPROB well above my head when looking up (https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/12_2009-10-19_back-yard-tree-canopy_nikkor-sw-90mm-f4.5_f45_1of2s_0EV.jpeg?w=44d53f15) or down (I use a portable food cooler to stand on).

[Peter De Smidt]

Sure, you can use your camera bag. People regularly hang their camera bag from a center column hook so that it touches the ground just firmly enough to not shift around. Are you going to have a center column? If not, you're going to have to come up with a way to hang your bag. On the down side, I don't know about you, but I like to work out of my bag, and that's kind've a pain if it's hanging under the tripod. In addition, my camera bag isn't all that heavy.

Ideally you'd have something like a sand bag on bottom of each leg. We do that occasionally on commercial shoots, but then I'm the one carrying the sand bags (and not the photographer.) You can buy empty photo sandbags cheaply, which you could fill on site, assuming there's something you could use.

All of this may be beside the point, though, depending on the type of things and places you photograph. In my case, I use three tripods, a travel pod (carbon fiber, light, compact, expensive), a muck pod (big, heavy, wood), and a hard surface pod (moderately big, heavy, aluminum and relatively inexpensive used.) Of those, the best do-it-all one's are the Gitzos.

[msk2193]

PS: Although it doesn't get low or high enough for me, the Sachtler CF-100ENG HD 2CF (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/78761-REG/Sachtler_5390_CF_100ENG_HD_2CF_Carbon.html), recommended by Bjørn Rørslett (http://www.naturfotograf.com/equip.html), seems pretty great (I think he mis-state's its weights specs, though). Weighs 9.5 pounds and supporting 210 pounds. Massive support capability and a massive $1800 price.

If Bjørn recommends it, it is because he receives money from the company. I have traveled with him and all he had with him was a tiny, lightweight tripod!

[Peter De Smidt]

PS: Did you mean the GT5541LS (http://www.gitzo.com/product/72038.71837.72020.0.0/GT5541LS/_/Series_5_Systematic_4-section_Tripod_Long) tripod when suggesting an alternative Gitzo? Google didn't pull up anything on GT53541XLS. Regarding the GT5541LS, for me it isn't tall enough. I've shot with my 055XPROB well above my head when looking up (https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Public/12_2009-10-19_back-yard-tree-canopy_nikkor-sw-90mm-f4.5_f45_1of2s_0EV.jpeg?w=44d53f15) or down (I use a portable food cooler to stand on).

Sorry, I meant the GT5561SGT. My excuse is I haven't had coffee yet. :)

[dh003i]

Sorry, I meant the GT5561SGT. My excuse is I haven't had coffee yet. :)

Thank you Peter, now your post makes more sense to me. The height of the GT5561SGT seems really nice. I'd actually love to use it at its full height, or even that 11-foot surveyer pod at full height, for some interesting shots looking down; but I can't imagine a practical way to get up high enough in the field. I'm "only" 6 ft, 1 in. I do sometimes drag a wheeled cooler to stand on, but I worry about losing balance and falling off the thing.

I would like something that I can take with my on the airplane, and I think the GT5561SGT is already pushing it in that regard.

OTOH, I've read that with a long lens on 8x10, if you have a decent head, the tripod will be the limiting factor, even a Series 5 Gitzo. I wonder if the Surveyer pods would do better in that regard for vibration.

[Peter De Smidt]

Pretty much no matter what you do, if you have a big object mounted on a singe point, like a big camera on a tripod, you're going to have some flex/bounce in the system in a wind. A monopod under the front standard at long extension would help. A big golf unbrella also helps.

[dh003i]

Thanks Peter. There is also a Bogen Manfrotto 359 long-lens support thing that attaches to a leg of the tripod and then to the underside of the camera or lens, which I might look into.

Regarding tipsiness, maybe I'll look into the Novoflex Quad-pod that Bob Solomon has talked about. Although there's a good reason 3-legs is the standard (namely because 3 points make a plane). A quad-pod would require adjusting of the 4th leg to make sure all legs make planar contact with the ground.

[gary mulder]

I have a GT3541XLS with my Canham 8 x 10 and the Gitzo the systematic head.. Remember it's always a compromise. Low price, lightweight, strong. You can choose two.
remarks ;
The fourth section may have been a bitt stronger.
In sub zero temperature the head freezes up.

Otherwise I am happy with it and not looking for anything else. The weight off a series 5 frightens me.

[Two23]

I have the Gitzo 1325 carbon fiber, which is the predecessor to the Gitzo you mention. I've had it for something like 8 years now and give it hard use. It has done everything I've asked. Could well be the last tripod I ever buy. You find them used sometimes, but not often. Usually means the owner has died.


Kent in SD

[dh003i]

I should have mentioned, I am going to the Outer Banks, NC in August and usually go every year. It is a giant sand-bar, so there is a lot of -- you guessed it -- sand.

Do the tripods mentioned deal with sand well? What about long spike accessories to keep the tripod tubes well away from the sand?

[Greg Y]

Dh....when you mention sand.....I would definitely go with Ries or Zone VI wooden tripods . Put a Ries A250 head on top and you & your Wehman are happy :)

[dh003i]

Dh....when you mention sand.....I would definitely go with Ries or Zone VI wooden tripods . Put a Ries A250 head on top and you & your Wehman are happy :)

I looked at the Reis pods (http://riestripod.com/tripod.htm#A). The one that supports the most weight, the A 100-2, only gets to 62in high, and doesn't support extension legs. The tall Berlebachs all have center columns, so will lose some stability and won't get down to ground level. I've also looked at Wolf tripods (http://www.wooden-tripods.com/Produkte.html), but specs are thin and I haven't been able to get a hold of them when e-mailing.

Where would I look into Zone VI wooden pods?

[Peter De Smidt]

You can get disk feet for use on sand for Gitzos and other tripods.

I have had both of Zone VI pods. Currently, I have a standard. It's 16 lbs. without head.

[dh003i]

You can get disk feet for use on sand for Gitzos and other tripods.

I have had both of Zone VI pods. Currently, I have a standard. It's 16 lbs. without head.

Peter, why disk feet instead of the 4.7in long spikes Gitzo sells that can be screwed in? (and I wonder if anyone makes any compatible spikes that are longer).

[gary mulder]

Sand seems to be my GT3541xls natural habitat.
http://hamses.home.xs4all.nl/kust/
I rinse with fresh water after contact with saltwater.

[Peter De Smidt]

Because spikes in sand can still shift or sink a bit depending on conditions, especially long narrow ones like Gitzo offers. The flat disks spread the weight out so that the weight of the tripod is distributed over a much larger area. Since the force per area is much less than with spikes, the tripod is less likely to keeps sinking in sand.