# Which Gitzo: GT3532LS or GT3542LS?



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

I seem to have broken my current tripod. It was a nice, sturdy, and fairly light weight aluminum 'pod, and has served me well for nearly four years. I went to set it up today, and apparently one of the legs no longer lock...it just swings freely. I am not sure when or how I damaged the locking mechanism, but it is well and truly dead (no attempts to fix it have worked).

I already own a Gitzo Traveler Series 0 for long hikes. I love it, the CF design is excellent, it is extremely light weight, very compact, and extremely versatile. I've decided to stick with Gitzo for a replacement to the tripod that broke, and I'm looking at the Systematic Series 3 line. I'm having a hard time deciding between the three-leg and four-leg version of the GT35XXLS. The four leg seems to collapse slightly shorter and is slightly lighter. It also seems to be about an inch shorter.

I need a good, sturdy tripod to handler lenses up to the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II, with a TC, along with either a 7D or 5D III, with battery packs. I currently use a Jobu Pro 2 gimbal head, which might add about 10-12 inches of height on top of the tripod. I need something that will put the camera at eye-level when I am standing (I'm 6' tall). I think the GT35XXLS will do that, the pods seem to be around 58" tall. I need something nice and sturdy, too...which is really where my question comes from. Does the extra (fourth) leg section of the GT3542LS affect stability much?

I'm curious if anyone has used these two tripods with larger lenses, preferably with a gimbal, and a larger camera body. Thanks!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

Really Right Stuff TVC-34L. 

Personally, I have a TVC-33 that I use with my 1D X + 600 II, and I've got ~6" of extra height for the VF relative to eye level for me (I'm 5'7"). So I'd suggest going taller than a 58" platform height for you, so you can extend a leg longer if on an incline, etc. The RRS TVC-34L goes to 68.5"

With today's tripod construction, the impact of a 4th leg section is minimal to nonexistent - you're much better off getting the height you'll need.

For use with a gimbal head, I'd also strongly consider getting a leveling base.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Really Right Stuff TVC-34L.
> 
> Personally, I have a TVC-33 that I use with my 1D X + 600 II, and I've got ~6" of extra height for the VF relative to eye level for me (I'm 5'7"). So I'd suggest going taller than a 58" platform height for you, so you can extend a leg longer if on an incline, etc. The RRS TVC-34L goes to 68.5"
> 
> ...



The TVC-34L looks pretty nice, for sure! It is fairly expensive, though. And it is backordered. At the moment, I can pick up either of the Gitzo 'pods off Amazon for over $300 less, and get it by Friday.  The extra 10" of height are intriguing, though...


----------



## docholliday (Feb 6, 2013)

Ignore what you read about the 3 section being more sturdy than the 4...that may have been true in the old day, but not now. I use the GT3541L (non systematic) and I much prefer it over the 3 section 3531. Nice and sturdy. Be sure it's the newest version, as you'll get the ground level set with the non-Systematics and the new style locking basket with the Systematics. I use the GLS permanently on the pod (despite having both the short and long centers) unless I absolutely need the height. 

And, don't fall for the whole Markins stabilizer stuff - doesn't make a difference, especially with the GLS installed. I use my 3541 with a Arca-Swiss Z2 converted to Hasselblad quick release plates (my 1Ds and 1D have custom mount plates that go to the slim Hasselblad shoe) and it's beautiful. I prefer the non-systematics, as they are noted to be more stable than the systematic. The Systematics are nice because you can change for a plate, center bar, or video bowl. If you don't need that capability, the non-S versions work better...if you're using a gimbal, go with the Systematic and add a leveling base!

Get the 4-section, it's much more worth it! BTW, it does make it easier to open with the new locks - spin all the locks a quarter turn, and pull the smallest out, all in one swift motion. It'll pull the next, etc. Then, lock off each section as you go quickly with 1/4 turn again. The 3 section legs are longer, so it's harder to pull the short one all the way out with one motion...


----------



## florian (Feb 6, 2013)

I got the same issue. I had two Feisol and were not happy with them when I had the 5D III and 600 II on it.
For all the other lenses they were OK, small and just a little over 1,1 Kg nice for traveling.
I sold them and got the GT3542LS. I don´t regret it. It´s a very good build quality with some nice features.
And it`s a solid build. I got my self additional the 75 mm half bowl. So I have never to level my legs again.
Both of them are very good, and I took the "4" because it´s get´s smaller in my travel bag with no lost stability. And with the quick locking mechanism the setup does cost you only a few seconds more.
Sadly they are not very cheap, but it´s the same with lenses, you buy them only once every 10 years.
Only downside is if you need spare parts or send it in for repair it could take a while with Gitzo.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 6, 2013)

If I had bought the Gitzo 3541XLS first off, I would have saved myself the price of all the cheap tripods I had bought before plus the other three Gitzo models where I too thought three was better. It is true that I use a three most of the time for testing because on level ground I put out all three sections all the way. But with the XLS model I know I can handle unlevel ground and still I put out just three of the four sections most often so I have the best of both worlds. I too suggest a RRS leveler for speed of setup. I chose Wimberly for my gimbal of choice, although I use the RRS largest model of ballhead most of the time. Good luck with your decision.


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Thanks docholliday and florian. I do have a current gen Series 0 Gitzo tripod, with the new type of locking legs. That is one of the things I love about them...the ability to twist, pull, lock. Makes setting up the tripod a very quick process.

I am curious about the leveling head. That is one of the reasons I was considering the Systematic, for its versatility and the option of adding a leveling head. I've wondered whether the leveling head might affect stability at all, though. Any thoughts on that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

Yeah, the RRS tripods are almost always backordered. Be aware that they're also conservative on their delivery estimates - they usually say 2-3 weeks, often takes 1 week or less to ship. The bigger 'problem' is that while you can try Gitzo in a local shop, RRS only sells direct so unless you live near San Luis Obispo, it's buy-then-try. 

If I were 6' tall, I'd definitely want taller than a 58" platform...even with the added height of the gimbal, your VF would still be a few inches below eye level at full extension - not as comfortable during use. For that reason, I'd consider the 3542*X*LS instead of the 3452LS (although that's really a tall set of legs!). XLS too tall, LS too short, TVC-34L would be just right. 

I have the RRS leveling base, I don't find that it hampers stability at all (in fact, I have the clamping version of the base, with dovetails on the bottoms of my gimbal head and ballhead so I can swap them easily). For a ballhead, the leveling base is not really useful (except for shooting panos with the ballhead), but for the gimbal it makes setup a lot faster and easier - most noticeable when I've set up in a spot, then need to move a few feet away, no need to muck about with the legs, just unlock the leveling base (with the lens mounted), re-level, and lock it back down.


----------



## tphillips63 (Feb 6, 2013)

I'm 6'5" and after a few back and forth emails with RRS, I bought the TVC-34L.
For varying terrain it has all the height options covered.

You can email or call the guys at RSS, they will usually reply the same day to emails, for more information or even comparisons between a TVC and a Gitzo.


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 6, 2013)

Hi, I am 5'11'' and have a Canon 800mm and 600mm II. I chose the GT4542LS (4 series). It weighs slightly more than a 3 series and a whole pound or more less than a 5 series. I use is with a Wimberley W200 II full gimbal head on top of a RRS universal leveling base. Note that the RRS universal base is rated for 35lbs while the base made to go into their RRS TVC-34 / 33 is only rated for 25lbs. Big difference. The best thing is the GT4542LS does not cost that much more than the GT3542LS; the GT4542LS is also taller. 

The main benefit to getting the 4 Series is the reduction in vibration. Vibrations attenuate quicker with the beefier legs. Very important for those longer focal lengths. 

Kind regards,
Jason


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> Note that the RRS universal base is rated for 35lbs while the base made to go into their RRS TVC-34 / 33 is only rated for 25lbs. Big difference.



But...keep in mind that RRS' support ratings can be just a little bit conservative. For example, their TQC-14 travel tripod is rated to hold 25 lbs, just like the leveling base on my TVC-33. Here's RRS' owner showing us what 'just a little bit conservative' means:







I've done this with my own TQC-14, by the way.  Anyone want to try that with Gitzo 254x legs?


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 6, 2013)

That's impressive, but Joe is svelte and, well, it was in a controlled environment. Here is a Gitzo in the wild:






Another capture of a Gitzo in rare form:


----------



## jrista (Feb 6, 2013)

Now you guys are just toying with me....and making this decision even more difficult! : 

Pretty amazing though, that those tripods can handle that much weight...I mean, we have to be talking greater than 100 pounds there, in both cases for both brands.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 6, 2013)

jrista said:


> Pretty amazing though, that those tripods can handle that much weight...I mean, we have to be talking greater than 100 pounds there, in both cases for both brands.



Well, yeah - but either the guy hanging from the Gitzo is extremely short, or judging by it's height that Gitzo is at least a 3-series and rated to hold at least double what the RRS travel legs are rated for... 

Seriously, you can't go wrong with either brand.


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

Thanks for all the help so far, everyone! Much appreciated. 

I have to say, the RRS pods look pretty awesome. The lighter weight/stronger design is definitely a big draw, and I figure at some point I'll probably pick one up. My big purchase for this year will be the EF 600mm f/4 L IS II lens, which is why I am looking for a good tripod in the first place. I would love to get the TVS-34L, but it is quite a bit more expensive than what I was looking to spend. 

I have a rather large chunk of Amazon Prime points saved up, which will give me a pretty hefty discount. The Gitzo tripods there are all between $720 and $800, so I'll end up spending no more than $650 (and possibly around $550, which is just what I was hoping to spend) buying a tripod there. If Amazon sold RRS tripods, I'd probably pick one up, but seeing as they do not, I think I am going to go with one of the Gitzo tripods. 

I've looked into the GT3542XLS, and that actually seems like a pretty nice tripod. It reaches a maximum height of over 78", which is more than good enough for my 73" height. Actually, I think my eye level is more like 68", but someone mentioned the nice ability of being able to level the tripod on uneven ground. I think I could definitely use that capability for my landscape photography. The other Gitzo 'pods, the GT3535LS and GT3542LS, are around 58" high, 20" shorter than the XLS. They would probably work fine for my eye level, without the extra leveling versatility that the XSL offers. 

I'd also read some reviews of the XLS, and it sounds like a solid tripod. When it comes to stability, many reviews recommend not fully extending the last leg section for improved stability. Seeing as I would either not extend the fourth section all the way, or maybe only partially extend it, I think stability should be fine. It seems the majority of professional photographers I follow, most of whom use the 600mm and 800mm lenses most of the time, use the GT3532LS, which is only rated for 400mm lenses. I think from a weight handling standpoint the XLS will still be fine.

I guess the only drawback I see with the XLS vs. the LS is its collapsed height. It is over 28" long collapsed, where as the LS is a little over 22" long. If I wanted to travel with the tripod, a 22" one would fit in a carry-on, where as a 28" one would not. At the moment that is the last thing I guess I need to decide on.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> I guess the only drawback I see with the XLS vs. the LS is its collapsed height. It is over 28" long collapsed, where as the LS is a little over 22" long. If I wanted to travel with the tripod, a 22" one would fit in a carry-on, where as a 28" one would not. At the moment that is the last thing I guess I need to decide on.



Neither would do well as a carryon, and either would fit in a checked suitcase. That's actually why I have two tripods - the TQC-14 with BH-30 ballhead in its quiver bag fits inside my Storm im2500 carryon hard case, and is quite suitable for anything up to and including a white zoom (70-200/2.8, 100-400, 28-300). It would hold the 600 II, but if I were to travel with that, the TVC-33 would go in checked luggage.


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 7, 2013)

The news Gitzo 3 series from a weight handling perspective should work fine. Especially since the new 600 II weighs about the same as the v1 500mm IS. I had the 800mm before the 600 II, so the greater weight of that lens and all the other stuff that bolts on was a concern. That is what swayed me to get the 4 Series. Most folks I spoke with actually recommended a 5 Series, but I did not want the added weight and girth (5 series is huge). 

All I would say is, for the amount of mula you are spending for a new tripod, I would look to the future and get something that you will not have to replace (unless it breaks). If you think that one day you will want to get a RRS tripod, I'd suggest just getting one now. You might save some $$$ now by getting a 3 series on Amazon, but will loose a lot if you try selling it later to get the RRS. Buy once, not twice or three times. 

You could always save your Amazon points to purchase things like a Lenscoat for the 600mm or a replacement foot, or Don Zeck front cap, etc.

Kind regards,
Jason Simmons


----------



## jrista (Feb 7, 2013)

jasonsim said:


> The news Gitzo 3 series from a weight handling perspective should work fine. Especially since the new 600 II weighs about the same as the v1 500mm IS. I had the 800mm before the 600 II, so the greater weight of that lens and all the other stuff that bolts on was a concern. That is what swayed me to get the 4 Series. Most folks I spoke with actually recommended a 5 Series, but I did not want the added weight and girth (5 series is huge).
> 
> All I would say is, for the amount of mula you are spending for a new tripod, I would look to the future and get something that you will not have to replace (unless it breaks). If you think that one day you will want to get a RRS tripod, I'd suggest just getting one now. You might save some $$$ now by getting a 3 series on Amazon, but will loose a lot if you try selling it later to get the RRS. Buy once, not twice or three times.
> 
> ...



Well, I guess I am not quite convinced that the RRS is enough better than the Gitzos, which are themselves very good, that it warrants paying almost double the price. The Gitzo will certainly do the job, and as I mentioned before, all of the professional or other highly skilled bird and wildlife photographers I follow seem to use Gitzo exclusively, so it can't be all that bad of a brand. I also have no doubts that the Gitzo will last me for...well, forever, barring some random unknown event that breaks it for me ( :).

On top of that, I have a bunch of Gitzo parts and cleaning supplies, such as the grease used for the joints and such, that came with my other Gitzo Series 0 Mountaineer (GT0541). I guess I also feel it would be nice to stay within the family.


----------



## jasonsim (Feb 7, 2013)

jrista said:


> jasonsim said:
> 
> 
> > The news Gitzo 3 series from a weight handling perspective should work fine. Especially since the new 600 II weighs about the same as the v1 500mm IS. I had the 800mm before the 600 II, so the greater weight of that lens and all the other stuff that bolts on was a concern. That is what swayed me to get the 4 Series. Most folks I spoke with actually recommended a 5 Series, but I did not want the added weight and girth (5 series is huge).
> ...



Sounds good to me. I trust Gitzo and that's why I bought another. I have three Gitzos and they have never once let me down. The new version 2 of their systematic line is very innovative, you will be both impressed and very pleased. RRS I am sure is great too and I have one of their monopods which is an absolute beast. 

I too purchased my Gitzo from Amazon, used my Amazon Visa points and got the Gitzo rebate to boot. From a value stand point, you cannot go wrong. Best of luck!


----------



## charlesa (Feb 7, 2013)

High quality eqiupment, but I feel overpriced. Seems to be a recurring theme with most photographic equipment... see Canon and their pricing!


----------



## EvilTed (Feb 7, 2013)

I toyed with the idea of getting a RRS 34L but it is a lot more expensive for a California resident than the Gitzo.
I bought a Gitzo GT3542LS for $724 from B&H and use an Arca Swiss Z1 + RSS quick release clamp.

The whole kit is cheaper out the door than the RSS 34L.

ET


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

Aye, I couldn't justify the TVS-34L. It sounds really cool, and I am sure the technology is very advanced. It can apparently handle more than 100 pounds of load, too. However...I won't be putting 100 pounds of load on my tripod. Hell, I probably won't ever put 50 pounds of load on it. So, despite all of its more advanced awesomeness, I really couldn't justify the nearly-double cost.

I pulled the trigger on the GT3542XLS. I figure I'll only need to use three and a half legs most of the time, which is fine...that should mean better stability. I did want the extra flexibility to drop one of the legs down the side of a hill or mountain, though, to get better stability on uneven terrain. I think it should make it easier to get my camera right up to eye level than a 57" tripod, too. Additionally, for birds in flight, where the lens is pointed up and the viewfinder tends to drop a couple inches, the option for greater height would also be there. 

I saved a bundle by buying through Amazon, and only spent about $650. That is about 60% the cost of the TVS-34L, however I think it is more like 90% as good...so it feels like a great deal to me. Should arrive tomorrow, so I'm pretty excited! Will be nice to use a more stable tripod than I have for the last year (my old one, even before breaking, was never really great...it was my first tripod ever, about four years old, a rather creaky thing, and it tended to shift at the upper joint where the legs met the tripod plate.)


----------



## Flemming (Feb 9, 2013)

Very interesting topic. I am 6"3 (191 cm) and have been eyeing the GT3542XLS as well. I have also looked at the RRS but since I am being located in Europe it will be very expensive after added VAT and import duties. Regarding the GT3542XLS I have been wondering the following. Since it so tall, I recon it will often be used with the last section only partially extended. How difficult is it to adjust the partially extended legs to make it level. Is it easy or does it involve a lot of fidling to get all 3 legs evenly extended?

What do you think.

/Flemming


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2013)

Flemming said:


> How difficult is it to adjust the partially extended legs to make it level. Is it easy or does it involve a lot of fidling to get all 3 legs evenly extended?



Not too difficult to get close (I usually only partly extend the last leg sections on my TVC-33). But unless you're shooting on flat ground (and sometimes even then), getting the platform perfectly level does mean fiddling. But with a ballhead, there's no need to level the platform. With a gimbal head, there is - that's why I recommend the leveling base - you don't need to worry about the legs to get the platform level.


----------



## dolina (Feb 9, 2013)

The suggested Gitzo tripod legs that has been suggested are the 3, 4 and 5 Series for the 600mm IS II. I'm eying the GT3542LS.

I am also looking for legs as well. Will be attaching it to the Mongoose 3.6 due to the weight. It weighs 1 lbs. 8 ounce or about 680g.


----------



## Flemming (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Not too difficult to get close (I usually only partly extend the last leg sections on my TVC-33). But unless you're shooting on flat ground (and sometimes even then), getting the platform perfectly level does mean fiddling. But with a ballhead, there's no need to level the platform. With a gimbal head, there is - that's why I recommend the leveling base - you don't need to worry about the legs to get the platform level.



Thanks. Really helpful info.


----------



## deleteme (Feb 9, 2013)

I looked at the RRS tripods and went with a Gitzo 5532LS. 
I liked the RRS but my local camera store stocks Gitzo. 
I cannot imagine any gear that I may own in the future that would tax this tripod.
Yes its heavy-ish but I shot mostly architecture and transport is not an issue.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Feb 9, 2013)

Three years ago I bought a GT3541LS and it's extraordinarily stable compared to any Manfrotto I've tried. But it's achillies heel is sand and sea water. In fact it's so bad in coastal conditions that they are appalling. I recently did a trip on the Lincolnshire coast shooting grey seals and the tripod needs so many replacement parts in only 9 hours of shooting. It needs three lower tubes and all the locking joints need replacing. 
In my opinion, these tripods are useless in extream sea salt and sandy conditions. They literally seize up or fall apart.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

Well, received my new tripod a short while ago. It is a thing of beauty, I'll definitely offer that. I think I may have...miscalculated...the height though. This thing is WAAAY TALL. I all four leg sections fully extended, it is way, way above my head. Even with only three out of four sections extended, with my Jobu Pro 2 gimbal head and camera attached, the viewfinder is right at the very top of my head. I guess I forgot to account for the fact that my eyes are actually a couple inches below the top of my head. Even though I am just over 6' tall, my eye level is more like 5'8" high.. To get it all set for eye level, I have to drop the top section a couple inches, at which point it ends up just right for eye level.

I may end up having to return this in favor of the GT3532LS or GT3542LS. I am not sure I'll EVER use the fourth leg section, in which case this thing is larger at minimum size, heavier, and slightly bulkier than I really need. I guess there are a few cases where a slight overhead advantage might be worthwhile, such as BIF, or maybe night sky photography...but in general...yeah, this puppy is freakin super-tall!



GMCPhotographics said:


> Three years ago I bought a GT3541LS and it's extraordinarily stable compared to any Manfrotto I've tried. But it's achillies heel is sand and sea water. In fact it's so bad in coastal conditions that they are appalling. I recently did a trip on the Lincolnshire coast shooting grey seals and the tripod needs so many replacement parts in only 9 hours of shooting. It needs three lower tubes and all the locking joints need replacing.
> In my opinion, these tripods are useless in extream sea salt and sandy conditions. They literally seize up or fall apart.



That is really surprising to hear. While I think the RRS sounds awesome, and would have picked one up instead if the price had been right, I read a LOT of bird photographer blogs and personal sites. Just about all of them, including Art Morris who is often thought of as the worlds premier bird photographer, use Gitzo on sandy beaches on a continuous basis. Many also frequently use them IN sea water if that is what is necessary to get the shot. Art Morris has some good articles about the care and maintenance of Gitzo tripods, with his preferred being the GT3532LS.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 9, 2013)

jrista said:


> Well, received my new tripod a short while ago. It is a thing of beauty, I'll definitely offer that. I think I may have...miscalculated...the height though. This thing is WAAAY TALL.



Don't say you weren't warned... 



neuroanatomist said:


> For that reason, I'd consider the 3542*X*LS instead of the 3452LS (*although that's really a tall set of legs!*). XLS too tall, LS too short, TVC-34L would be just right.


----------



## jrista (Feb 9, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > Well, received my new tripod a short while ago. It is a thing of beauty, I'll definitely offer that. I think I may have...miscalculated...the height though. This thing is WAAAY TALL.
> ...



Hah, true...I was warned. _Although you also said the LS would be too short!_  Actually, I think it will be just perfect for the bird photography. On top of eye height, you still have to lean into the camera a bit, which shaves off about another inch. I've measured it several times now, and the height I need when I am fully forward, looking into the viewfinder, with the lens pointed down towards the relatively near ground, is about 63" (when pointed at the sky, it is about 60"). The other Gizo pods are 58" high, and the Jobu adds another 68", which puts it about 5" higher than I need in the worst-case scenario. I think even a 68" high tripod would be too much, as with the Jobu attached, I'm back to 78" high, or 15" too tall!

Well, live and learn, I guess.


----------



## dolina (Feb 10, 2013)

Went cheap with the Manfrotto and really regretted buying it. I ended up buying a Gitzo that I am superbly happy with.



GMCPhotographics said:


> Three years ago I bought a GT3541LS and it's extraordinarily stable compared to any Manfrotto I've tried. But it's achillies heel is sand and sea water. In fact it's so bad in coastal conditions that they are appalling. I recently did a trip on the Lincolnshire coast shooting grey seals and the tripod needs so many replacement parts in only 9 hours of shooting. It needs three lower tubes and all the locking joints need replacing.
> In my opinion, these tripods are useless in extream sea salt and sandy conditions. They literally seize up or fall apart.


----------



## jrista (Feb 10, 2013)

I will say this...the design of the GT3542XLS is wonderful. I have not had the pleasure of trying out the RRS tripod in person, so it may be a bit above this tripod. But...WOW. This thing is ROCK-SOLID. I locked down the Jobu, started recording video, then stomped around on my deck (which is getting a little rickety). The camera hardly registered any vibration at all, where as my old tripod usually registered a ton.

I can't imagine needing extra height with my Jobu attached to this thing, and the Jobu is very similar in design and dimensions to the Wymberly and Mongoose. I'd suspect you would have around 68" of total height, and around a 65" eye height with a camera attached to any one of those tripods, which is just about perfect for a 6' person. I figure I'll need some additional height for landscape photography, especially if I need to drop a leg down a slope or something for better leveling. Given the stability of the GT3542XLS at full extension, I am not worried about using a center pole base to give me the extra height I need. With the wide angle lenses I use for landscapes, the tiny amount of vibration that might actually reach the camera shouldn't be an issue (especially with a camera with a less-dense sensor than the 7D.)

So, for those of you who are wondering about what tripod to get next, and are interested in Gitzo Systematic...I'd say only consider the XLS if you are nearly 7' tall!!! I can't imagine any other reason someone would buy this thing for general purpose use. If you really need the "overhead" capability, then it will serve that need superbly well. The base was about a foot over my head when fully extended, and with the Jobu attached, the camera was nearly 2 feet over my head. For all other circumstances, the GT3532LS or GT3542LS will probably serve you well. I had a little bit of a hard time with the four leg sections on the XLS, and not just because the legs were so long. I've ordered the GT3532LS as the replacement instead, as I think the fewer leg sections will be easier to work with. 

Well, hope that information helps other prospective buyers out. If you are a giant, get the XLS. If not, get one of the other Systematics. If you got the cash, the RRS sounds pretty awesome, but I would have to actually test one out side-by-side with my Gitzo to really feel out any real-world differences. I wouldn't be hanging from the tripod myself, either...and I suspect the differences are minor.


----------



## docholliday (Feb 10, 2013)

dolina said:


> Went cheap with the Manfrotto and really regretted buying it. I ended up buying a Gitzo that I am superbly happy with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I had a Bogen/Manfrotto that shattered on me at 20F - and dropped my Hasselblad 203FE with 110/2 on the ground when I was shooting. Yeah, that was the last of my touching anything Manfotto branded.


----------



## dolina (Feb 12, 2013)

Not to say Manfrotto does not have it's uses but it isn't to be used with gear exceeding $4,000.

You are courting trouble if you do.



docholliday said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > Went cheap with the Manfrotto and really regretted buying it. I ended up buying a Gitzo that I am superbly happy with.
> ...


----------

