# Do you prefer long legs?



## ghosthouse (Sep 27, 2017)

Greetings friends, 

How long are your legs? On my short list is a GT4543LS/GT4533LS or a TVC-24L. I think the Gitzo’s would finish out right around eye level and something about extending the legs all the way to hit eye level seems really convenient me. I was leaning towards the TVC-24L and probably a BH-40 and wanted to hear from you about your experience with owning a tripod that finishes out higher than eye level. Do you ever regret it? I wish they engraved little marker lines on the smallest legs for a visual reference. I am probably overthinking this and with some practice extending a tripod to eye level with some left in tube becomes second nature.

I’ve been managing (surprisingly well to be honest) with an older aluminum travel angel like tripod. My eye level is roughly 69 inches off the ground and even with the center column extended I am hunched over and it is even worse if I am posted up on an embankment. 

I shoot with a 5d iv and mainly shoot scenic. I play with ND filters so long exposures and water are what I’ve been up to lately. I hike and shoot but to be honest I rarely hike more than 3 miles so weight is not a huge concern. I’ll probably go with three sections for travel. I carry a 16-35, 24-70 and an older 70-200. I also have a 400 prime with a foot that I rarely use. My next lens will probably be that 100-400 or the 185 macro. I don’t macro but it does look fun. Money is not really an object. I have a pass to buy once / cry once. 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on my next set-up.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 27, 2017)

Eye height with all three legs fully extended, with a central column to extend higher to account for uneven ground, standing on rocks etc is my minimum requirement for a landscape tripod. Higher would be better, but often not practical due to the weight of the tripod when carrying, luggage restrictions on aircrafts etc

I'm a rarity in that I prefer an aluminium tripod over the same tripod design in carbon fibre, I believe that the extra weight aid's stability when shooting in the wind or when the tripod legs are in moving water.


----------



## Don Haines (Sep 27, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> Eye height with all three legs fully extended, with a central column to extend higher to account for uneven ground, standing on rocks etc is my minimum requirement for a landscape tripod. Higher would be better, but often not practically due to the weight of the tripod when carrying, luggage restrictions on aircrafts etc
> 
> I'm a rarity in that I prefer an aluminium tripod over the same tripod design in carbon fibre, I believe that the extra weight aid's stability when shooting in the wind or when the tripod legs are in moving water.



+1


----------



## Random Orbits (Sep 27, 2017)

I use a TVC-24L with the BH55 ball head and it works well. The height comes in handy when shooting upward and you don't have to crouch as much. The additional length also comes in handy on sloped terrain. It also helps out when using it to take video of my daughters' recitals. Fully extended, it clears most people walking in front while giving me a good view of the stage.


----------



## IglooEater (Sep 28, 2017)

Mine are a bit below eye level, quite a bit higher than qu wife's eye level (actually hers, but we both use it.). Truth be told I don't think I've ever used it that high. When I'm using a tripod I almost always find myself within a foot of the ground.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 28, 2017)

I use the Gitzo GT4542LS (older brother of the GT4543LS) and I find the height just about right. Certainly with a head and camera on top it is a fair bit higher than I need but on sloping ground (next to waterfalls etc) then the extra height is very useful.

Just a thought? You are looking at 4 series Gitzos and a 2 series RRS - why? I love my 4 series Gitzo but it is overkill for what you are doing - mine is for my Canon 800mm and is more than up to the job. Perhaps a 2 or 3 series Gitzo should be on your consideration list? My GT2531 Mountaineer is quite up to the job with my 300 F2.8 L IS.

I can't say anything about the RRS tripods except that they have a great reputation. Here in the UK they are silly money so I bought 3 new Gitzo tripos, a new Gitzo Mono Pod and a used Gitzo tripod for a little less than a single 3 series RRS. This is why I have not tried RRS! Naturally in the US the prices are much closer.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

I chose the RRS TVC-33 for use with a 600/4L II. In practical use (with the leveling base, a ballhead or gimbal, and a 1-series body which puts the VF higher on a ballhead), I have ~8" of extra height over eye level available. I find that to be sufficient for my needs. I opted for 3 leg sections mainly for faster set-up/take-down. It's a big set of legs, so I also have the TQC-14 for air travel.


----------



## chrysoberyl (Sep 28, 2017)

It all depends on what I am shooting and whether I am hiking more than 6 miles. I am 6'1" and have a Manfrotto MT055XPRO3 (aluminum tripod) with a KPS T5D geared ball head. The height is good but it takes up to 7 sec. to settle down, so it will be replaced at some point a RRS TVC-24L.

I have a Gitzo Traveler that settles down in less than a second. It goes on my longer hikes.


----------



## Ladislav (Sep 28, 2017)

I have GT3542LS. I quite often don't extend the last section. The reason is that on 3-series the 4th section is quite tiny and I don't consider it very stable. I bought this tripod to replace smaller Manfrotto with center column but to be honest when it is rough windy weather there is not much difference between center column or tiny last section of legs. With no wind last section of legs is definitely much more stable for longer lenses then center column.

I wonder if I would be more happy with 4-series or 3 section. The tripod is too big to be carried on my backpacks anyway so I need to carry it separately. But if the question is just Long or Regular and you don't mind additional weight and size, go for long. 

At the end I keep both Manfrotto and Gitzo (+ Joby GorillaPod Focus) and use them depending on how much mobile I need to be. 

Update: I also found eye level not that important when using live view.


----------



## LDS (Sep 28, 2017)

IMHO mostly depends if using a central column is an issue for you or not, depending on your shooting style and needs. 

With heavy setups, longer exposures, and the need to keep the camera at normal "eye level", avoiding to raise the central column (or removing it altogether) helps in minimizing vibrations - as long as the tripod is rigid enough (many sections may make them less rigid, although more portable)

The downsides are the longer time needed to set it up if you need to change the height often, and the larger footprint needed, although it also makes the set up more stable with heavier weights on top.

Both tripods allow to add a central column to make them more versatile, although it will increase weight.

When I can, I prefer to use a bigger tripod with legs full extended, and column retracted - but I also own a smaller, lighter one, because sometimes it's too difficult to travel with the larger one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

LDS said:


> IMHO mostly depends if using a central column is an issue for you or not, depending on your shooting style and needs.



Personally, I've only found one single use case where I'd want to use a center column. My TQC-14 has one, and I never extend it. I bought it before RRS released a corresponding travel tripod (the TFC-14), and while I would have bought that version had it been available, I simply removed the center column from my TQC-14. My TVC-33 does not have a center column.

The only time I would have wanted a center column was when shooting a series of headshots in a corporate setting – many subjects of different heights at a fast pace, and being able to rapidly raise and lower the camera would have been helpful. Instead, I just grabbed a pneumatic stool, and had the subject move up/down instead of the camera.


----------



## Eldar (Sep 28, 2017)

I have a TVC34L, which I normally use without a center column. However, I got a center column for studio work and for some shooting sessions outdoors, when I need to be able to change height often. 

Even though the TVC34L have very long legs, I have on numerous occasions used its full length, including the center column (where I stand on a rock, chair ...), so it has been useful.


----------



## Talys (Sep 28, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> Eye height with all three legs fully extended, with a central column to extend higher to account for uneven ground, standing on rocks etc is my minimum requirement for a landscape tripod. Higher would be better, but often not practical due to the weight of the tripod when carrying, luggage restrictions on aircrafts etc
> 
> I'm a rarity in that I prefer an aluminium tripod over the same tripod design in carbon fibre, I believe that the extra weight aid's stability when shooting in the wind or when the tripod legs are in moving water.



This is what I'd want in a perfect world, too. The problem is, with large heads, almost all tripods that aren't travel are too high for me with all legs fully extended. Certainly, all the full size tripods (because as they get heavier, they generally have higher reach too). 

What I've settled for is this: 

For on the go light, I've decided on the Manfrotto 190 Go! because it's relatively sturdy and not that expensive to replace if it gets badly abused, and importantly, because it's a little lower with all of the legs extended (I think it's about 130 cm with no head, which is perfect if I add a large ball, pan, or gimbal head). I am not a fan of 4-section twist lock, because it takes longer to get the tripod ready and collapse (yes, only by a few seconds, but that matters if you're collapsing and expanding it a lot).

If I don't need to hike, I'll pack a Manfrotto 190 3-section instead. It's way too high with a big head on it, but frankly, this isn't a problem with snap locks. I extend the legs with the tripod closed, and lock the lower legs. Then, I lower the tripod to the desired height, and snap the three upper legs, and finally, open it. My preference, when using a tall head, is about halfway extended on the upper stage, because this allows me to angle down and be above the viewfinder. Of course, if I need to angle sharply upwards instead, or be level with a subject that's elevated, that's different.

In the studio, I'm a huge fan of Vanguard tripods. I haven't tried their latest ones, but I find them very pleasing to use, but a little less rugged. Obviously, tripod height isn't as big a deal in the studio, because you fiddle with it to get it just the way you like it.

Also: I'm with you on the aluminum/carbon fiber thing. One problem with light tripods is that that... they're light  I do own a Manfrotto 290 Carbon, though I use the 190 Go! instead almost all of the time. It's 100g heavier, and 4 instead of 3 section -- I choose it, though, because it's the right height with all legs extended.


----------



## ray5 (Sep 28, 2017)

Eldar said:


> I have a TVC34L, which I normally use without a center column. However, I got a center column for studio work and for some shooting sessions outdoors, when I need to be able to change height often.
> 
> Even though the TVC34L have very long legs, I have on numerous occasions used its full length, including the center column (where I stand on a rock, chair ...), so it has been useful.



I have the same. RRS 34L with BH55LR. It's well higher than my needs most of the time but I can make a tripod shorter but not longer. I have on occasion shot from on top on a boulder or bench and that gives me the additional height. The combo is not light, lighter than other companies perhaps but not light by itself. I hiked upto the Delicate arch with it and more gear and near about didn't reach it....
I have thought about buying a travel tripod but RRS is so expensive but so well built that I just suck it up and do travel with it.


----------



## ghosthouse (Sep 28, 2017)

Thanks for sharing your experience. What a great resource! Yeah, so I’ve jumped off this notion of measuring the camera, ballhead, leveling base, etc… and finishing out exactly at eye level. I would benefit from the extra length for the reasons you’ve suggested. Also, thanks for the aluminum suggestions. Aluminum was not on my radar. 

Johnf3f, I agree the Gitzo 4 series is overkill. There is something to be said about RRS keeping the same tripod names through their revision cycles (at least I think they do) because the part where you have to wade through Gitzo’s naming conventions and all model updates and name changes can take effort for a guy like me. I think I am up to speed now. 

I was also glad to hear Random Orbits was using a 55 head on a 24L and the 24L was not exclusively for the 40 head. I think the 55 would be a little heavy duty for my needs but from I have read it is joy to use and I’ve often wondered if it would match up with e 24L. I also read they recently redesigned the 55 to be a tiny bit smaller too.

Outside of aluminum legs, I think we are closing in on a handful of you cannot go wrong choices with the GT3542L, GT2543L, 24L or 34L. I was just pricing the GT3542L and bandh has it for 779. 779 seems low to me when compared to 950 for the lighter duty GT2543L so I wonder if the 3542L model is being discontinued?

I just checked again using more precise measurements and at 6’3” my eye comes in at around 70 inches take away 7 inches for a ball head and camera body puts me at 63” (without any extra leveling or panning gear which I don’t own atm). 

24L = 66.1 / 168 cm 3.7 lbs
34L = 68.8 / 174 cm 4.7lbs
GT2543L = w/o center 59.4 / 151 cm 3.7 lbs
GT3542L = w/o center 59.1 / 150 cm 4.3 lbs

In writing the above specs on paper just now it looks like I’ll using the center column on the Gitzo’s I am leaning towards the 24L or 34L and after reading ray5’s Delicate arch hiking trip weight is something to consider.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 28, 2017)

Talys said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Eye height with all three legs fully extended, with a central column to extend higher to account for uneven ground, standing on rocks etc is my minimum requirement for a landscape tripod. Higher would be better, but often not practical due to the weight of the tripod when carrying, luggage restrictions on aircrafts etc
> ...



We are of similar minds when it comes to tripods, we both own two Manfrotto tripods, and prefer our heavier Aluminium versions almost all the time, In my case it's the 055 series, as the 190 doesn't reach my eye height without using the central Column, although I do use my lighter carbon fibre pod when on long hikes.

We both don't get on with twist locks as well, with Manfrotto pods you can see if the power leg lock's are secure by just glancing at the tripod. With twist lock I used to be continuously going around the tripod legs checking if they are secure and missing out on shots as a result. I'm probably a rarity again, but twist locks and me don't work.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 28, 2017)

bitm2007 said:


> We both don't get on with twist locks as well, with Manfrotto pods you can see if the power leg lock's are secure by just glancing at the tripod. With twist lock I used to be continuously going around the tripod legs checking if they are secure and missing out on shots as a result. I'm probably a rarity again, but twist locks and me don't work.



To each, their own. I've never pinched my finger in a twist lock (I did once, on my 190CXPRO4...hurt like hell!). When I get salt spray or sand on my RRS tripod, I just unscrew the locks, pull apart the joints, and rinse everything off. No tools required, no springs to boing away. I also find twist locks faster to set up — flip locks on a leg can all be closed at once on retracted legs, but not all opened at once, while twist locks can also all be opened at once. Twists are asier to operate with gloves, too. I was ok with flips, but I prefer twists.


----------



## Zeidora (Sep 28, 2017)

Eldar said:


> I have a TVC34L, which I normally use without a center column. However, I got a center column for studio work and for some shooting sessions outdoors, when I need to be able to change height often.
> 
> Even though the TVC34L have very long legs, I have on numerous occasions used its full length, including the center column (where I stand on a rock, chair ...), so it has been useful.


+1 
34L usually with fixed base plate, but bought column also for inverted shooting. At 6' I usually just extend the last leg section half way, but on a slope I have extended one or two legs all the way. I like the versatility, don't mind carrying a few more grams/ounces.


----------



## bitm2007 (Sep 28, 2017)

neuroanatomist said:


> bitm2007 said:
> 
> 
> > We both don't get on with twist locks as well, with Manfrotto pods you can see if the power leg lock's are secure by just glancing at the tripod. With twist lock I used to be continuously going around the tripod legs checking if they are secure and missing out on shots as a result. I'm probably a rarity again, but twist locks and me don't work.
> ...



Good points regarding flips locks, when I first switched to a Manfrotto pod with the latest power locks I did have a minor pinching issue with the back end of the locks (maybe a result of being left handed), but I haven't had a recurrence since the second time out (even at night), I think I've subconsciously adapted to the new design.

I also use the bottom leg sections first when on beaches to prevent sand getting into the locks, once in there it is a pain to remove.


----------



## tpatana (Sep 29, 2017)

How many wrong ways you can read the title...


----------



## ghosthouse (Sep 29, 2017)

tpatana said:


> How many wrong ways you can read the title...



I can think of one... if this were a sommelier forum and we were discussing red wine, alcohol content, sweetness and surface tension


----------



## ghosthouse (Sep 29, 2017)

chrysoberyl said:


> The height is good but it takes up to 7 sec. to settle down, so it will be replaced at some point a RRS TVC-24L.
> 
> I have a Gitzo Traveler that settles down in less than a second. It goes on my longer hikes.



So this is the other part of it; data! Where is the tripod data? I can't find any. Most if not all of us make data driven decisions about the gear we buy and there is a ton of data on most of the gear we own. I read it here all the time. I remember researching an ND filter and there was a lot of data out there for $100 dollar piece of tech. 

_It takes 7 seconds to settle down_ is a great data point and I am surprised I can't find more of that kind of data or other stability data / tests for something that can cost more than a grand. 

Maybe I am looking in the wrong place or maybe there is an opportunity here for us to be the DXo mark of tripods


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 29, 2017)

ghosthouse said:


> So this is the other part of it; data! Where is the tripod data? I can't find any. Most if not all of us make data driven decisions about the gear we buy and there is a ton of data on most of the gear we own. I read it here all the time. I remember researching an ND filter and there was a lot of data out there for $100 dollar piece of tech.
> 
> _It takes 7 seconds to settle down_ is a great data point and I am surprised I can't find more of that kind of data or other stability data / tests for something that can cost more than a grand.
> 
> Maybe I am looking in the wrong place or maybe there is an opportunity here for us to be the DXo mark of tripods



Here are some data:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=20499.msg392683#msg392683


----------



## ghosthouse (Oct 2, 2017)

Thank you, neuroanatomist, for sharing that. Good thread for someone like me who is in the market for high end tripod. Also, we need more empirical evidence like your testing demonstrated.

I also wanted to add another set of long legs to the thread which is from relative new comer promediagear and their TR344L offering.


----------



## ghosthouse (Oct 24, 2017)

I was shooting sunrise by the Shenandoah river last Saturday and I bumped into a retired marine doctor who travels and shoots with his wife for retirement. 

What a stroke of luck as he had the TVC-24L with a BH-40 with the PC-LR on a B2. He was nice enough to let me fiddle around with it. Wow! 

The height was perfect! I have to agree with everyone who appreciates tripods that are taller than eye level. What struck me the most was how beefy the legs were. I had considered a 33 but I don't think I'll need that for my 5d Mark IV. It was very nice to hold, extend and collapse. The BH-40 was also very nice and locked down solid. 

I am participating in another forum discussion about the Promediagear TR344L (71 inches) and if it is a worthy rrs competitor. An experienced user in that discussion is going to PhotoPlus in NY this weekend and I am looking forward their impression as prodmedia has a booth there.


----------

