ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

I think I am going nuts. I am sure that I have seen a chart or description of Gitzo tripods with the recommended lens weight and even lens diameters for each tripod series. However, I chatted with Gitzo US today and they stated that they had no such document. Huh?

If anyone can point me in the direction of this chart or this information, I would appreciate it.

maryo Loc: Santa fe

here is an example from B&H
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Tripod-Legs/ci/7006
It tells you what the load capacity is.

Fotoartist Loc: Detroit, Michigan

They are all stuck on 22lbs.

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

Thanks, but I was looking for a single document that says that, for example, a 3-series could hold the weight of a 600mm lens but that you should really use a 5-series (for X, Y and Z reasons).

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

GITZO - Series 1
For use with shorter focal lengths (up to 200mm).
Tripod
Model Maximum Height / Max. Including Column Minimum
Height Closed Length Leg Sections Maximum Load Capacity Tripod Weight
GT1542T 6X 45.87″ / 58.66″ 8.66″ 16.73″ 4 15.43 lbs 2.2 lbs
GK1580TQR5 51.20″ / 58.66″ 13.78″ 5 12.13 lbs 2.56 lbs
GITZO - Series 2
Solid tripods without sacrificing setup weight with up to 300mm focal length.
Tripod
Model Maximum Height / Max. Including Column Minimum
Height Closed Length Leg Sections Maximum Load Capacity Tripod Weight
GT2532S 53.54″ 3.94″ 24.96″ 3 3.77 lbs
GT2542S 51.18″ 3.62″ 21.93″ 4 3.77 lbs
GT2542LS 59.06″ 3.74″ 23.66″ 4 3.92 lbs
GT2543L 59.4″ / 70.5″ 6.3″ 24″ 4 39.7 lbs 3.8 lbs
GITZO - Series 3
For pro medium format and DSLR lenses up to 500mm or 600mm.
Tripod
Model Maximum Height / Max. Including Column Minimum
Height Closed Length Leg Sections Maximum Load Capacity Tripod Weight
GT3532LS 6X 58.86″ 4.06″ 26.89″ 3 4.37 lbs
GT3542XLS 6X 78.94″ 4.17″ 28.39″ 4 4.5 lbs
GT3532S 6X 50.98″ 3.86″ 24.45″ 3 4.14 lbs
GT3541LS 57.5″ 3.94″ 21.65″ 4 39.68 lbs 3.79 lbs
GT3543XLS 79.53″ 3.94″ 27.95″ 4 55 lbs 5.05 lbs
GT3543LS 57.48″ 3.54″ 22.44″ 4 55 lbs 4.48 lbs
GT3533LS 59.84″ 4.33″ 26.38″ 3 55 lbs 4.5 lbs
GITZO - Series 4
For use with heavier cameras and lenses up to 500mm.
Tripod
Model Maximum Height / Max. Including Column Minimum
Height Closed Length Leg Sections Maximum Load Capacity Tripod Weight
GT4533LS 61.42″ 4.33″ 27.17″ 3 55 lbs 5.09 lbs
GT4552GTS 94.49″ 4.21″ 28.78″ 5 55.1 lbs 6 lbs
GITZO - Series 5
Recommended for medium–large format or DSLRs with super telephoto lenses.
Tripod
Model Maximum Height / Max. Including Column Minimum
Height Closed Length Leg Sections Maximum Load Capacity Tripod Weight
GT5532LS 59.06″ 10.8″ 27.09″ 3 6.5 lbs
GT5562LTS 58.27″ 3.43″ 19.61″ 6 6.48 lbs
GT5532S 6X 52.17″ 4.06″ 24.72″ 3 6.17 lbs
GT5542LS 60.43″ 3.94″ 24.02″ 4 6.17 lbs
GT5543XLS 77.95″ 3.94″ 28.35″ 4 88 lbs 6.88 lbs
GT5543LS 61.42″ 3.94″ 23.62″ 4 88 lbs 6.22 lbs
GT5533LS 57.09″ 3.94″ 26.77″ 3 88 lbs 6 lbs

Theses are the specs you are look for.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Tripod stability has NOTHING to do with camera/lens loads or lens diameters. Their catalogs correlate the diameter of the top leg section to effective focal length - a Series 1 is stable for up to a 100mm lens, Series 2 for up to a 200mm lens, a Series 3 up to a 300mm lens, and so on.

I've attached the 2015 catalog in the link. Look at pages 14 and 15. Again, nearly every tripod in production will "hold" a current 600mm lens and camera, which is about 10.5 lbs But only their Series 5 will provide the torsional rigidity to hold it steady.

You can search for any of my posts where I discuss this - it is a common question, and the responses are often based on the common misconception that load capacity is a reliable criterion for judging tripod stability. It isn't.

Attached file:
(Download)

ClarkJohnson Loc: Fort Myers, FL and Cohasset, MA

Yes! Thank you, gentlemen. I believe that it was the catalog and commentary fron a previous discussion that I was recalling. Indeed, the weight capacity is not the only pec that counts, which is ehy I was seeking this information from Gitzo. Hopefully, this will be useful for others. Thanks again.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

yes indded,,,,they're one of the best!

cbtsam Loc: Monkton, MD

The document you attached says, for the Mountaineer carbon fiber tripods,

"With its newly designed top casting and Carbon eXact tubes, Series 2 is a solid tripod, recommended for DSLRs with 200mm lenses (up to 300mm maximum)."

A question I have concerns lens mounts. So, if I'm using my 70-200mm f/4 Nikkor without a lens mount, mounting the camera directly to the tripod head, is that any different from buying a rigid, 3rd party lens mount and using that, thus making the rig more balanced on my 2542? Or does it only have to do with tripod rigidity and field of view?

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I don't have an answer for that. However, the cantilevered weight of a lens hanging off the cameras tripod screw socket does seem less stable than if it were attached to the tripod directly. As far as a third party mount, they are not all created equal, and I am sure that some are far better than others.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

The published specifications are good starting points and guidelines. Gene follows science and geometry which is the best approach.

There is also the matter of mechanical inclination- sometimes you just have to set up your rig of choice on a tripod and observe the balance and if there is any excess additional strain or leverage which may cause instability or even breakage of the mounting scrwe or another part of the tripod or head that depends on friction.

As for third-party collars, mounting hardware, heads and quick release mechanisms and brackets- again you need to examin the product, consider the materials, workmanship, design and even the maker's reputation.

Maintaining stability for picture quality is important, however, for me, safety is just as important an issue. I use my gear oftentimes on industrial and construction sites where I am working from stepladders, cherrypickers, and all kinds of elevating devices. Something coming loose, stripping, or sheering off and falling down will destroy the equipment or worse, seriously injure someone so I tend to err on the side of overkill.

I am fortunate enough to have two major camera stores in my city, so I don't have to order online or by telephone. I can visit the store and try out the equipment- I find that especially advantageous where support gear is concerned.

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

My camera with a 2x teleconverter and 500mm prime lens was something like 13.8 pounds. Gitzo tripods do have a max weight rating and the one I chose was rated at about triple my heaviest setup. I chose that particular tripod for its weight, size, stability, and most of all it's height. It just so happened to be rated at 3 times my heaviest setup. I'm very happy with it and I'm sure it will last the rest of my life. I've already had it for about 8 years. Also, I have a gimbal head for it and I bought the center column for it as well.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

It's not about load capacity. By going with a tripod that has a load capacity of 40-45 lbs, you at least got closer to a stable tripod for your purposes. But load capacity does not directly or accurately predict stability. Vibration, and dampening that vibration, is the hallmark of a stable tripod. The ones with thicker legs and larger apexes (where the legs meet) are most resistant to vibration. I bet you'd be surprised that a tripod with a 55 lb load rating would not be so great with a 105mm macro used with an extension tube, even though the camera and lens is only about 4 lbs with a pro body, but at magnifications of 2:1 it would not likely be stable.

http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-1/
http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-2/
http://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-3/

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

All the above is good and Gene is correct....

"Weight rating" of a tripod is over-simplification. But it's one of the few things that allows us to compare tripods across brands.

Gitzo's lens/tripod recommendations appear to be conservative... After all, they would prefer to sell you a bigger, more expensive tripod!

Top leg diameter only tells part of the story. The bottom leg tube of a tripod with 3-section legs is a lot beefier than the bottom leg tube of tripod with 4-section or 5- or more section legs.

Another major factor is whether or not the tripod has a center column.... And, if it does, whether or not it needs to be raised to bring gear up to a comfortable working height.

I use three Gitzo Series 3 Systematic tripods. They're all older carbon fiber models and, by definition, Systematics are modular. The user can configure them various ways to meet their own needs. Two of mine are G1325 Mk II with no center column. They're sufficiently tall for me (I'm 5' 9") and are rated to support 33 lb. (newer Series 3 have higher modulus carbon fiber that has more weight capacity). As Series 3, they have 1-1/4" or approx. 32mm diameter top leg tube. With 3-section legs they're not the smallest tripods when folded (approx. 27" or 28" with ballhead), bu they use a fairly large bottom leg tube.

My third Gitzo is a G1348 Mk II, another 20 year old, carbon fiber Series 3 Systematic model. It's an extra tall tripod with 4-section legs that I've got it set up with a center column. Most of the time I use it without extending either the center column or the lowest (smallest) leg section. Set up that way, it's about the same height as the G1325s. But if I really need additional height, I've got it up to around 80". More often, though, I reverse the center column to hang the camera below the tripod for low level shooting, such as macro.

These Gitzo aren't particularly lightweight. While the tripod leg set itself is under 5 lb., by the time a heavy duty ballhead and gimbal adapter or a full size gimbal head is added, along with various other accessories such as a leveling platform or center column, carry strap or carrying bag, leg pads, etc.... they end up pretty close to 9 lb. That's certainly not what you'd call a "travel tripod".... but theses are a heck of a lot more stable than most of those. And I've traveled with them. And they are about half the weight of a Bogen/Manfrotto that I used for many years with everything from 4x5 view cameras to hefty medium format and 35mm film cameras with longer lenses.

I regularly use these tripods with 8 lb. and 10 lb. lenses, 2 lb. cameras, and other accessories such as flash brackets, flashes, etc. Although Gitzo says I need a Series 5 for use with my 500mm and longer lenses, I have somehow managed just fine with Series 3. But, again, these are Systematics without center columns and with 3-section legs. While they would work well too, personally I have no need for Series 4 or Series 5, which are heavier and more expensive. I've used Gitzo Series 2 tripods, too... and they are too lightweight for heavy gear like I'm using on the Series 3, The Series 2 might be fine for travel and lighter weight cameras with shorter focal lengths.

Other Gitzo series.... Mountaineer, Traveler, Explorer... all have permanently installed center columns and might be more compact, making it necessary to raise the center column for the camera to be at a comfortable working height.

I don't know for certain the modern equivalent of my old Gitzo Systematics. I think the GT3533LS is most similar to my old G1325s and the GT3543XLS might be the most equivalent to my G1348.

The carbon fiber rapid center column on my G1348 is a Gitzo G1318.... modern equivalent is GS3513S.

The leveling platforms I use on my G1325 tripods are Gitzo G1321.... similar to modern Gitzo GSLVLS with 75mm Bowl Head, except the older levelers I use are all-in-one, not two separate accessories as they are now. Today I would probably shop other brands... or just look for an older Gitzo leveler since they'll fit modern Gitzo Systematic, too.

In fact, that's one of the great thing about Systematics is that a number of manufacturers make various parts and accessories for them, interchangeable to some extent. Besides Gitzo, Systematic-style parts are made by RRS, Robus, ProMedia and others. Plus there is a lot of backward compatibility among Systematics. Older accessories will fit the newer tripods and vice versa. There also are repair parts widely available for them, if ever needed.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

A couple of things. Gitzo's ratings are right on the money for the largest number of "keepers" at least as far as camera vibration softness is concerned. If one's technique is good, you can stretch that by a factor of 50%.

Most of the vibration that negatively impacts image sharpness comes from the camera/head/lens/lens-to-tripod area. Wind, shutter shock, a swinging weight hung from the hook, mirror slap, the stabilization system in older lenses, etc - are not going to be significantly affected by the thinner legs. Gitzo makes no distinction in their ratings for tripods with 3, 4 or 5 sections - they all meet the minimum rating based on their series. But common sense dictates that if you have fewer leg locks deployed, you are likely to have a stiffer leg and a more rigid support system.

On the other hand RRS makes the point that getting a taller tripod than you need and not extending the lower leg section "can help a little bit" but they go on to provide the following guidance on choosing between a 3 section and a 4 section leng:

"This brings us to another very common question: “Should I avoid a 4-section leg in favor of 3?”. In the broad sense, the answer is yes, especially for a smaller tripod. The thinner leg section that can exist at the bottom of that leg can reduce the overall vibration damping capability, and the extra leg joint creates another point of potential flex. Thanks to the “big and thin” tubes of Really Right Stuff tripods, we find these differences are very small and often negligible in terms of their effect on image quality.

Because our carbon-fiber is so much stiffer than the average leg, even our TQC-14, with a relatively thin 4th section, manages to be as stable as other 3-section tripods of the same series. We haven’t been able to see a discernible difference in image quality from that comparison within the Really Right Stuff tripod line. The advantages of a four section leg in terms of collapsing smaller vastly outweigh any difference there."

https://blog.reallyrightstuff.com/choosing-a-tripod-part-2/

So my guess is that on lower cost tripods, the skinny bottom leg on a 4 section tripod may be a problem, but not so much on better engineered and more costly tripods.

I use 4 section legs on both of my tripods just because I don't see a difference in rigidity and I like that I can stuff my bigger tripod into an airline overhead compartment bag as long as I take the head off.