Gitzo Moutaineer 3 or 4 section legs??

Hi Roy (Roy was the "friend" I was referring to in the quote below).

I've played with both the 1127 and 1128.  They are amazingly light and
rigid.  Unfortunately, I have not played with them side by side.  From
the specs, the 4 section 1127 is lighter (1150g vs. 1265g) but it is
also shorter (1.36m vs. 1.48m) - these weights and heights of course
include the center column - fully extended.  With the center column
down, the 1127 has a height of 1.28m.  For comparison, my modified 1227
weighs 1320g and has a height (not counting head) of 1.32m.  If a
similar modification was performed on the 1127 I'd estimate the weight
to be about 1100g with a max. height of ~ 1.23 - 1.24m.  So, it would be
almost 1/2 lb. ligter than my modified 1227, but also 3 - 3.5" shorter.
The 1128 is even lighter (4 oz.), but also 3.5" shorter than the 1127.
So many options.

Kerry



--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

Gee, thanks Roy!    My husband read that post and now wants to
downsize his tripod to lighten his load.  Of course, he expects ME to
to backpack his Lay-Z-boy recliner for him.  Then he'll sit around
shooting on the mountaintop while I return to dusting & vacuuming the
forest ("Oh Winnie dear, the Douglas Fir over there could really use a
little waxing...")

Hi Roy,

It's all relative.  Since I'm 6" taller than you, I probably did as much
bending and stooping as you.  My modified 1227 with Slik head is
probably only 5" or so taller than your Slik/Velbon combo, but it's also
over a pound heavier (my Toho also sits up higher than your Nagaoka due
to the design of the cameras).  So, while you were envious of my taller
tripod, I was equally envious of your lighter one.  Perhaps, the best
combo for me, given my height, would be my modified 1227 with one of the
Velbon magnesium heads like you have.  That alone would save me nearly
1/2 lb. over my Slik with Kirk QR clamp - and I would still have the
taller legs.

Agreed.  Everybody else probably thinks we're nuts - but we're happy and
harmless.  Still, I think it might be possible to assemble a sub-10 lb.
4x5 outfit using a tripod like yours and my little Gowland Pocket view
(the sub-2 lb. version).  And by sub-10 lb. I'm talking total weight of
everything - Camera, tripod, three lenses, meter, dark cloth, filters,
loupe, Quickload holder, 20 sheets of film, and the pack to carry it in
(many "photo" backpacks used by LF shooters weigh over 10 lbs. empty).
Sounds like a good set-up for the John Muir Trail...

Kerry
--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

Kerry L. Thalmann, largefor @thalmann.com writes:

    If you are prepared to live with these sorts of maximum
heights you can save a large amount of weight by simply removing
the lower leg sections of a larger Gitzo to make a 2-section pod.
A rubber walking stick foot or a piece of PVC pipe can be used to
protect the exposed threads on the lower leg section, or your
friendly local machine shop can make a metal cup which screws
onto the thread for the locking collar.

    A 1349 with this mod and a skeleton top plate is very light
and very, very stiff.  It is bulky because of the diameter of the
crown (which is my excuse for still lusting after a 112x for
casual carry-round use) but for backpacking it's great.

Struan

Hi Kerry,

Given your height, I bet you've spent a lot more of your life bending
down than I have!  But anyway the limiting factor I find with the
short tripod is the vantage point of the camera.  How high or low
the camera is can make a big difference in the outcome of the picture.
I did some pictures basically right down to ground level and as high
as my tripod would take me.  Some of those cliff dwellings really
required creative tripod placement.  I even did one picture during
my long drive from the top of the truck -- all for vantage point.

I've gotten as low as about 12 lbs total but I think we're really to the
point of diminishing returns.  For my John Muir trip I've decided to
take my Fuji 645 with about half a dozen rolls and an absolutely
micro tripod (UltraPod II) so I'll be around 3 lbs -- and I view that
as extravagant.  Doing up to 15 miles a day, up and down a lot,
day in and day out for nearly three weeks,  I'm going
super ultra-light and viewing it mainly as a hiking trip with just
short stops for photos.

Roy

--
Roy Harrington
r @harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Hi Paul - Again, I guess I just don't photograph in the kinds of wind that
you and Kerry do. In the situations I've been in, where the bellows is
flapping, it flaps around regardless of whether I'm using my Gitzo or my
Bogen.  Although my Gitzo seldom comes out of the closet these days, I do
use it for buildings and other architectural stuff because I have a
pan/tilt head on it that I like for architecture. But for landscape and
anything other than architecture, I leave it at home and use the Bogen with
Arca Swiss head  and Linhof Technika, which is a combination that works
great for me. The Bogen is just so much easier to work with.

Hi Paul,

I still think a few pictures to go along with the words would be
helpful.

Sounds about right.

What would be even better would be if Gitzo, or somebody like Really
Right Stuff or Kirk would make a solid one-piece replacement crown for
the 1200 series Gitzo carbon fiber tripods.  I looked at getting one
custom machined, but it's more expensive than it's worth for a single
piece.  The cost is in the set-up time.  On the other hand, once it's
set-up, you can crank them out in quantity very inexpensively.  I talked
to Bryan Geyer at RRS about this over three years ago when I bought the
1227.  Even though he has aknowledged the weakness of the 1227/1228
center column design, he was not interested in making a replacement
crown at that time.  Perhaps Mike Kirk might be interested.  Kirk now
sells a "flat-top" for the Bogen 3021, so he must appreciate the
advantages a flat-top over a center column.  Perhaps he'd be interested
in making and selling such a top for the smaller series Gitzos.

For EVEN LESS weight when backpacking, I'm looking at doing the same
thing to one of the new 1127 Gitzos.  The only thing that keeps me from
doing so is the lower maximum height of these tripods.  I have a friend
who did a similar (but non-destructive) modification to a Slik carbon
fiber tripod.  He has an ultralight Velbon magnesium ballhead bolted to
the top.  He brought it on a recent backpacking trip in SE Utah and it
actually made my 1227/Slik combo seem heavy by comparison.  Of course,
mine was also taller and perhaps more rigid, but his was over a pound
lighter.

Kerry
--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 22:25:28 -0700, "Kerry L. Thalmann"
<great explanation snipped>

Don't be so humble - it's very clear, actually, if you have a Gitzo
center column handy to see how it's put together.

I assume that, in addition to losing 7.5 oz., you also lost about 1.5
inches in height?

Absolutely brilliant, I think.  I've been pondering having the
1349/flat plate and a 1227 as a backup, but that damn center
column has kept me away.  Maybe I just need to get out the
old hacksaw.

Thanks!

-Paul
--
    http://www.butzi.net

I've seen Kerry's mods on the tripod and he did do a very nice job.
I haven't yet had the guts to decapitate my gitzo but it is
tempting.  However, I have done non-destructive elimination of the
center column on many of my tripods.  I just remove all the center
column hardware and replace it with a 1/4-20 bolt of the appropriate
length.  The main issue is to cover the large center hole with a
big enough fender washer and possibly a thin rubber washer to
eliminate sideways slippage.  A lock washer is also nice to protect
against loosening due to vibration.

Most of the tripods have the tightening collar on the bottom so that
the top of the yoke if flat and the tripod head will fit flat
against it.  Unfortunately, the mountaineer has the tightening collar
on the top -- the reason Kerry's solution is appealing.  I'd
leave the collar on to protect the threads or better yet make a
small block of wood, like a giant washer, that fits over the whole
thread section and gives a base for your tripod head.

BTW, with regards to the 3 versus 4 section tripods discussion,
I've got all 4 section tripods.  I basically agree with all of
Kerry's arguments for the 3 section ones, but the factor that
usually pushes me into getting the 4 section is the folded size.
I hike, backpack, travel on planes so the packability makes a
big difference to me.  Gitzo recently came out with a baby
mountaineer -- 1127 & 1128 --  and I think if I were to get one of
these I'd be leaning toward the 3 section.  It's already pretty
short and that smallest section is very thin. Since you guys
mentioned height I'm 5' 10" so I'm between you two.  Bottom line
is figuring out what factors are most important to you.

I'm the one with this, so I'll fill in the details.  I got the slik 804
because it was the first CF tripod that dropped significantly lower than
3 pounds (I think its 2lbs 6ozs of the shelf).  Too bad I didn't wait
a little longer for the Gitzo 1127 to come out.  I removed the center and
bolted a velbon vh-253 mag head on top.  Total weight: 2lbs 11.5ozs
One extra benefit is that the velbon has a very convenient capture
screw on it so I don't even bother with a quick release.  Note that this
is not at all a general use tripod -- its only for absolute ultralight
backpacking usage.  Its pretty short only about 4.5 feet so I envied
Kerry's taller tripod several times.  But my previous backpacker tripod
was even more restrictive -- a gitzo 026 with gitzo 175 ballhead --
about the same weight but only 3.5 feet high.  That was a sit down and
take a picture 'pod.

I'd say this last paragraph is pretty much the outer fringe of 4x5
photography and not for most.

Roy

--
Roy Harrington
r @harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Hi Paul,

Sure... Disclaimer - This is not for the faint of heart and if you screw
up your $500 carbon fiber tripod don't come crying to me.  If you feel
at all uncomfortable taking a grinder to your expensive tripod (or your
nickname is "thumbs" or "ham hands") - DON'T DO IT!

My 1227 was also the MKI model with the grooveless center column (spun
like a top at the slightest hint of rotational torque - definitely the
weak link in the design - guess that's why they re-designed the center
columns in the MKII models).

OK, this is easy enough and can be accomplished with bench top and hand
power tools.  First remove the center column and all the hardware.  Then
remove the three legs (it's easier to handle just the "crown" and you
don't risk damaging the legs in the process)  Now you have a big hole
where the center column used to be and a threaded nipple protruding
where you want to eventually mount your tripod head.  Grind this nipple
down flush (you might want to trim it down close to flush with a hacksaw
first to save time and then flatten and smooth it on a bench top belt
sander).  I did the same thing on the bottom of the "crown" to basically
make the hollow cylinder the center column used to occupy as short as
possible (I really need to post jpegs of this somewhere).  Now,
re-install the legs and you have a flat top tripod with a big hole in
the middle.  Originally, I planned to mount a flat circular piece of
1/4" thick aluminum to the top using screws and epoxy (I still may do it
some day, but my "temporary" fix has worked so well for over three
years, I haven't felt the need).  

OK, here's the "temporary" fix.  All you really need is a fender washer
and bolt of the proper sizes.  In this case the fender washer is 1 1/2"
in diameter with a hole size to match your mounting bolt.  Depending on
your head, the bolt will either be 1/4-20 or 3/8-16 and if you've ground
your tripod down as much as I did a 1" length will be plenty long.  Then
just mount the head to the legs using the mounting bolt and with the
fender washer on the bottom.  Tighten it down good with a socket wrench
(helps if you use an extension)  At first, I was concerned that having a
small (3/8" or 1/4") bolt running up the middle of a larger diameter
cylinder (>1") would allow the head to move around and become
uncentered.  Quite the opposite.  The fender washer deforms in a concave
fashion when you tighten it down and becomes self-centering.  I carried
mine down many miles of trail and never had a problem.  Still one time
when I had it apart, I made a couple improvements.

First, I made s little spacer disk out of medium density particle
board.  I used a hole saw with the proper size bit to match the mounting
bolt and the hole saw diameter that would make a tight fit inside the
cylinder.  I don't remember the hole saw size, but it might have been 1

Hi Brian,

I'm not sure I follow your line of reasoning.  I'm not talking about the
tripod being physically moved to another location by the wind - I'm
talking about wind induced vibration.  And all I'm saying is that when
the wind is blowing the more rigid the tripod/head/camera system the
better the chance of me getting an exposure that is not unsharp due to
vibration.  Although any one of the three can be the weakest link
(Good-Bye!), I do believe the effect is cumulative.  If you have a
non-rigid camera atop a flimsy head mounted to a shaky tripod you have
almost no chance of getting a sharp picture in the wind for long
exposures.  Make each one of these reasonably rigid and you have a
chance.  I've shot in some very windy conditions and try all the tricks
(shelter the camera with my body or dark cloth - like a cape, set-up the
tripod behind a rock or tree to block the wind, etc.), but even then, a
sturdy tripod/head/camera can make the difference between a keeper and
one that goes in the waste can.

BTW, this is just what works for me.  I'm sure those who photograph in
different conditions know what works best for them.

Kerry
--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:11:33 GMT, "Brian Ellis"

My experience is that the big problems occur with a relatively long
lens or else a close focus point, so that you have a fair amount of
bellows extension.

The bellows acts like a sail, but it's not even distributed around the
tripod head attachment point, so when the wind picks up, the camera
torques one way around a vertical axis, and when the wind eases, it
swings back.  The camera can be rotated back and forth by a
surprisingly small wind if the tripod is not very resistant to that
rotational force.  For short exposures (e.g. 1/30 second) you
probably just trip the shutter during a time of constant wind.
For 15 second exposure, the wind will be an exposure spoiler.

I've stood on the beach and watched a fairly steady (not rapid gusts)
wind torque my camera back and forth on the Bogen 3221.  A lot of
the play seems to come from the joints between the legs and the top
plate, plus the fact that the legs are just not all the rigid when
confronted with lateral forces.  The 3221 has a center column, which
probably doesn't help.

This is why I like the Gitzo CF pods so much - they're very resistant
to this torque.

I'd like to hear more about Kerry's modification to the 1227 to get
rid of the center column.

(By the way, Kerry, my 1349 came with both the center column and
the flat plate; I have the flat plate installed.  The center column is
the old style without a groove to prevent rotation, and it's just
terrible).

-Paul
--
    http://www.butzi.net

That's exactly what I do (well, not the matchbook part).  I have two
tripods, the 1325 that I use for my "general purpose" landscape
photography.  With an Arca Swiss B1 head, the combination weighs 6 lb. 2
oz.  For backpacking, I have a modified Gitzo 1227 (center column
removed) with a Slik Standard Ballhead II with Kirk Arca style QR clamp
- total weight of legs and head - 3 lb. 12 oz.

I often cover 10 - 12 miles in a day when "dayhiking".  Not everyday,
but quite often.  On these hikes I still find the 1325/B1 light enough
to carry for such distances.  When backpacking, and carry enough food
clothing and shelter for multiple days, I take the lighter 1227/Slik
combo (I have on occasion taken the 1325/B1 if it's a short trip of just
one or two nights).

Exactly - on this we agree 100%.  Obviously, my needs are MY needs.  I
don't pretend to assume what's perfect for me is perfect for anybody
else BUT me.  I'm just sharing what works for me for the consideration
of others who may have similar needs.  To each his own.  In addition to
the multitude of Gitzo models, there are many other brands of carbon
fiber, metal and wooden tripods to consider.  It should be possible for
just about everyone to find THEIR perfect tripod.

I used to have a 12 1/2 lb. Bogen that was my general purpose 'pod and a
9 lb. Bogen for backpacking.  By switching to the carbon fiber Gitzos
and lightweight ball heads, I've more than cut my weight in half (and my
wallet's much lighter, too).  And, my replacements are taller AND
sturdier than the Bogens they replaced.

It's a combination of both.  A metal Gitzo is more rigid than a Bogen of
equivalent weight due to the superior (in terms of rigidity) leg locks
on the Gitzos.  The Gitzo carbon fiber legs are also more rigid than
aluminum legs of the same diameter.  So, you get a material that is both
lighter and more rigid and a more rigid leg joint.  BTW, I'm not
knocking the Bogen tripods - I used them for years and they are
tremendous values.  The Gitzos (both metal and carbon fiber) are
superior IMHO, but they also cost significantly more (although, as you
noted in another post they are more affordable from Robert White and
elsewhere).

There are ways to aleviate this - one, don't leave your dark cloth
draped over your camera in the wind - unless you have one hand firmly on
the tripod at all times - it can and will blow over (believe me I know -
even my 12 1/2 lb. Bogen blew over once).  Also, hang something heavy
from the bottom of the center column (if you have one) or apex of the
tripod legs - your camera bag, a mesh bag full of rocks, etc.  You'll
have plenty of other weight with you anyway - or plenty nearby, might as
well use it.  If that sounds like to much of a hassle - a piece of cord
and your foot can serve the same purpose.  Tie the cord to the bottom of
the center column (or apex),

I have an aluminum (I guess that's what it is - it isn't carbon in any
event) Gitzo and nowadays it stays home  most of the time. Hate those
collars. Mostly I use the Bogen 3221 except for 8x10, where I use another
much heavier Bogen model the number of which escapes me. I'd suggest that if
anyone is photographing in a wind so strong that the tripod (any half way
decent tripod) moves around with the weight of the camera and lens on it,
it very well may not  make much difference what tripod is being used  - the
wind flapping at the bellows is going to be a problem regardless of how
sturdy the tripod may be.

I've used both the Gitzo and the Bogen 3221 with a Pentax 67, Linhof
Technikardan, Tachihara, and Linhof Technika. I've never noticed the
slightest difference in the technical quality of the photographs made with
either brand.  Of course I also don't photograph in strong winds.

My personal belief, with which others undoubtedly can and will differ since
we're talking about personal preferences,  is that a tripod isn't called
upon to do much more than hold the camera in place without collapsing.  The
vibration from a leaf shutter is insignificant. The only other extraneous
source of movement or vibrations (after the holder is inserted) is wind,
which I find it difficult to deal with for reasons other than tripod
rigidity (bellows flapping, dark cloth blowing all around, foliage moving,
etc.) or vibrations from moving vehicles , people walking nearby, and other
similar situations.  Since I rarely  photograph in those other kinds of
situations, and when I do can usually wait until things calm down
sufficiently to make the photograph, I'm not too interested in how the
tripod feels when I try to bend the legs with all my strength or what the
results of a physics  lab stress test might be.  I go for the lightest
tripod that will support the camera and lens and is reasonably convenient to
operate (which is where the Gitzo fails me). The wooden tripods I've seen
have all failed the weight test - much heavier than I care to carry any
distance at all, though maybe there's some lighter ones that I've never
seen.

Hi Kerry - I guess what I don't fully get is the idea  that in a situation
where there's a strong wind but no subject movement (e.g. no foliage), it's
the "sturdiness"  of the tripod that determines whether you can get the
picture. What happens if the tripod isn't sturdy enough - does it move with
the wind? If that's the case then I'd certainly agree that the sturdier the
tripod the better. But I don't think I've ever photographed in a situation
where the wind was so strong that it would actually move the tripod and
camera around - bellows flapping, yes; dark cloth blowing all around so that
it's hard to compose, yes; but the tripod and camera actually moving in the
wind,  that isn't the kind of situation I encounter so maybe I can get by
with a "flimsier" tripod.
"Kerry L. Thalmann" <largefor @thalmann.com> wrote in message

Hi Brian,

Wind is truly the bane of large format nature photographers.  I feel
like I am CONSTANTLY battling the wind to get the shot I want.  LF
nature photography is often a waiting game - waiting for the light to
peak and waiting for the wind to die down.  In the end, I'm sure I spend
much more time waiting for the wind to die down than waiting for the
best light.  The reality is I'm often photographing in some very windy
conditions and I really do believe a rigid tripod helps me get the
photos I want.  Even when I wait for a lull in the wind, many, many
times (more times than not) it never completely dies down - the more
rigid the tripod (and the camera) the more wind I can tolerate and still
get an acceptable image.  This is a case where I'd definitely prefer to
have a tripod that's too rigid than one that's not rigid enough.  As far
as subject movement, yeah it's a problem when you have foliage in the
frame, but I also shoot a lot of image without foliage in them (rock
formations, sunset over the Pacific, etc.).  In these cases, when the
wind is blowing, it is the rigidity of the camera and camera support
that determine if I can actually get the picture.  Since I spend so much
time photographing outside under a variety of conditions, I've had to
learn to deal with the elements.  It's not always pleasant, but I do my
best and dream of perfect light and dead calm (it does happen
occasionally - but it's the exception).

Kerry
--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

For me this analogy doesn't hold for the simple reason I don't carry my
car around on my back.  Over the years, I've carried my tripods for
literally thousands of miles.  For my use, I'd rather not carry the
extra weight everywhere I go on the off chance that I might need it.
So, I have to bend a little at the waist on the rare occasion when my
1325 is not on reasonably level ground - it's not a compromise with
fatal consequences (like a car of inadaquate acceleration could be).  In
both cases - YMMV.

Kerry
--
            Kerry's Large Format Homepage
           http://largeformat.terrashare. com

  Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
   large format equipment reviews and recommendations

I don't disagree. If I did a lot of backpacking, perhaps I would have
two or more tripods and use the lightest for the long treks on which I
might also cut off match book covers or anything it took to save weight.
But I never do more than day hikes and I usually within a mile or two of
my car. Gitzo makes so many tripods for so many niches and one person
may find himself in different niches at different times.

The Gitzo is amazingly steady and I would use it even it weighed more. I
used to lug around a 14 lb Bogan which even though it was braced, shook
like a reed in the wind compared to the Gitzo carbon fiber. Maybe an
aluminum Gitzo is even better but I have never used one. Or perhaps
carbon fiber is just a better material for the purpose and the lightness
is a bonus.

One caveat for RMG though. When one puts a seven pound camera on a four
pound tripod, one has to be careful not to over balance it or over it
goes. And a dark cloth flapping in the wind might be enough to topple
it.

I use a 1349. And I am 6'. And I have never used the tripod at its fully
extended height. But I would buy it again if necessary. Why?
Subjectively at least the 1349 seems more rigid partially extended than
does the 1329 fully extended, which, given my height, is how I would
need to use it. Typically, I leave the top two sections nested about six
inches, and the bottom section nested all but six inches. And I leave
the bottom section alone, i.e. extended six inches, even while carrying
the tripod; so for me it like a 3-section tripod but with a fourth
section in reserve. I do frequently need to more fully extend one or two
leg sections if I am facing down hill. With a 1329, I would be squatting
in that situation.

To me an apt analogy is a car. If you routinely drive at 65 mph, would
you buy a car whose top speed was 65 mph.?

I forgot to add a point that RMG did not raise:  where to buy a Gitzo.
On ebay new in the box Gitzos of every model often sell very reasonably.
A few months ago, someone was selling 10 1349's at a pop and got no
takers. So it seems to be a buyers' market there. Robert White in the UK
is best retail price I know.

I own a 1349, the 4 section leg 1300 series pod.  The advantages of
the 4 section legs are:
1.  The pod can get *very* tall.  As in 'over my head' tall.  This can
be useful if you want a high point of view, and it can help a lot
if you're working up on a rock, or on a rock surrounded by water, or
simply working on a steep slope and need one really long leg.

2.  It collapses to a smaller package, very slightly.

3.  I'm 5'7", and I find that with the *smallest* section fully
retracted but all the others fully extended, the height of the tripod
is perfect for me.  As a result, I get a very rigid pod, usually only
need to deal with 3 sections, and have the ability to use all 4
sections if I want.

The downsides are:
1.  weight is slightly heavier.
2.  Extra joints probably reduce rigidity in theory (but I haven't
        noticed it in practice).
3.  Cost?

-Paul

--
    http://www.butzi.net

Paul makes some very valid points.  However, I think this is definitely
a case where "reasonable minds" may disagree.  One very simple reason -
different needs.  To start with, I'm 6'4" and Paul's 5'7".  That's a
difference in height of 9" - something that's pretty significant when
considering a tripod.  We don't know how tall the original poster is, so
the best we can do is describe what works best for us - and, by
including specifics about ourselves and our requirements the original
poster can filter the data presented based on his own needs.

With that in mind, I have the 3-section 1325 model and FOR ME it's the
best tripod ever made.  I also looked at the 4-section model 1349 that
Paul has, as well as the 4-section model 1348 without a center column.
Based on my needs, I selected the 3-section model without a center
column (1325) and couldn't be happier with my choice.  Here's why the
1325 is THE best tripod FOR ME:

1) No center column - this is a personal peeve of mine, so feel free to
agree or disagree as you see fit.  I personally, DESPISE center
columns.  I have yet to see one that does not, in some way compromise
the rigidity of the tripod.  Although it's a bit of an over
simplification, I've heard others ask: "why place a wobbly monopod on
top of a perfectly good tripod?".  The degree of compromise depends on
the design and build quality of the tripod, and the height the center
column is raised - however, I have yet to see a tripod that was STURDIER
with the center column raised.  So, on the tripods I've owned that have
center columns, I rarely, if ever, raised them.  I also prefer a
lightweight, but sturdy tripod.  To me, that's the whole point of
spending the big bucks on a carbon fiber tripod - to get something as
light as possible that still is rigid enough to adaquately support my
camera under field conditions.  In my case, all a center column does is
add weight, add cost and compromise rigidity.  Fortunately, Gitzo has
the common sense to offer their customers a choice.

2) Fewer leg sections = fewer joints.  To me, this has three
advantages.  When I check a tripod for rigidity, I always notice how
much flex there is at the leg joints.  These are the obvious weak points
in ANY tripod leg.  No matter how good the joint is, it's still less
rigid than a solid one piece leg.  So, fewer joints = greater rigidity.
Second, fewer joints = fewer collars to loosen/tighten.  Many people
(usually those who have never actually used a Gitzo) complain about how
tedious the leg lock collars are to operate.  To me, these leg lock
collars are THE reason the Gitzos offer a superior rigitiy to weight
ratio over all other brands (either in metal or carbon fiber models).
The design of the Gitzo leg locks provides a more rigid joint than any
other design I've ever seen.  For many years, I used a Bogen 3021 (a
GREAT value for

On a larger tripod, 4 sections legs can significantly reduce the folded size
of a tripod. On a tripod the size of the G1329 though, you'll only save a
couple of inches on total folded height. 4 section legs also add to the
total height of a tripod but, unless you regularly shoot subjects from a
step ladder, you probably won't need the extra height.

The flip side of 4 leg sections is a little extra weight, a few extra
dollars, and maybe a little less rigidity (due to the smaller diameter
tubing of the bottom leg section).

I went with the 3 section tripod and have no regrets. I carry my equipment
in a backpack and would have probably gone with 4 leg sections if the folded
height had been at least 3 or 4 inches smaller.

---
Tim