GT5543LS vs GT4533LS (1 Viewer)

[cncbits]

Hello. Please share your thoughts.

First question: would this tripod height be enough for a large angled scope if I'm almost 190 cm/74.8" tall?



Second question:
Which tripod is more stable and sturdy?

GT5543LS - 4 sections(29, 32.9, 37, 41.3 mm/1.14- 1.3- 1.46- 1.63 in)
"With a top leg diameter of 41.3 mm, the long, 4-section GT5543LS is both sturdier and compact (its top casting is shared with Series 3 models)"
or

GT4533LS - 3 sections(29, 32.9, 37 mm/1.14- 1.3- 1.46 in)
"With a top leg diameter of 37 mm, this tripod is both sturdier and compact (its top casting is shared with Series 3 models)"

And how can they both share the same top casting if top leg diameter is different? And Series 3 tripods has top leg diameter only 32.9mm/1.3in.

Thank you

 

[Hermann]

IMO both will be stable enough. No problem at all. The height should be OK as well.

That said, I personally prefer tripods with a middle column. Easier to change the height if needed, e.g. when you want to look at a bird high up in the sky.

Hermann

 

[cncbits]

IMO both will be stable enough. No problem at all. The height should be OK as well.

That said, I personally prefer tripods with a middle column. Easier to change the height if needed, e.g. when you want to look at a bird high up in the sky.

Hermann

I have no doubt that both tripods are high-quality and sturdy. However, the differences arise from the details. Here we have different strengths and weaknesses: one has fewer joints, but a smaller upper leg diameter, and the other has more joints, but a thicker upper leg diameter.

In addition, the GT5543LS can hold a load of 40-42kg, while the GT4533LS can hold a load of 25-28kg. (I don't like it when the manufacturer provides different data about the product on the same page. It seems like Gitzo is careless in product descriptions).



But does this mean that the GT5543LS is stronger, more resistant to vibrations and can provide greater stability?

 

[Montereyman]

Both are gross overkill for a scope. A good rule of thumb is that the load rating should be double that of the actual weight supported. With Gitzo one is paying 2-3 times as much as other tripods that are more versatile and have better customer support. At least in the USA the Gitzo customer support is nonexistent. Despite their price the Gitzo tripods do not include a carry case and so the buyer needs to add that to the total cost.

 

[Hermann]

I have no doubt that both tripods are high-quality and sturdy. However, the differences arise from the details. Here we have different strengths and weaknesses: one has fewer joints, but a smaller upper leg diameter, and the other has more joints, but a thicker upper leg diameter.

In addition, the GT5543LS can hold a load of 40-42kg, while the GT4533LS can hold a load of 25-28kg. (I don't like it when the manufacturer provides different data about the product on the same page. It seems like Gitzo is careless in product descriptions).

Don't get too hung up about the load specifications. For a start, nobody know how exactly the manufacturers determine the maximum loads of their tripods. And let's face it: Whether a tripod can carry 40kg or 25kg makes no difference if you use it with a scope that weighs less than 5 kg. Both tripods are plenty stable enough for a big birding scope.

BTW, I myself would look at the GT3542L Mountaineer. It has got a middle column which I find essential and is still resonably light. Should be stable enough for "normal" birding applications. BTW, I use a Series 2 Mountaineer, a predecessor of the GT2543L. Works well even with the (heavy) Nikon Fieldscope ED82. But admittedly I usually use a heavier old aluminium Gitzo ("Reporter II") for the ED82.

But does this mean that the GT5543LS is stronger, more resistant to vibrations and can provide greater stability?

Possibly. However, I think it's overkill for birding. I'd get something a bit smaller, and if you often use the scope in stormy weather, you might want to get a second tripod, for instance a heavy wooden tripod. Or a Sachtler ...

Hermann

 

[4John]

if you often use the scope in stormy weather, you might want to get a second tripod, for instance a heavy wooden tripod. Or a Sachtler ...

Hermann

cncbits,

Or buy a tripod with a hook on the bottom of the centre column where you can hang some extra weight I have Feisol carbon fibre tripod I used many years ago before I switched to a monopod. It's a wonderfully light 1.1kg with large diameter legs that give good rigidity. It was however easily blown over in a breeze so I often had to hang my rucsac on the hook on the bottom of the centre column to hold it down.

 

[Hermann]

Both are gross overkill for a scope.

No. Not, if you use the scope in windy conditions.

A good rule of thumb is that the load rating should be double that of the actual weight supported.

That's the minimum. However, given that load ratings are, shall we say, "suspect", anyway, especially the load ratings of some Chinese manufacturers, I wouldn't really go by any rule of thumb. Especially not when it comes to the use of tripods with birding scopes.

With Gitzo one is paying 2-3 times as much as other tripods that are more versatile and have better customer support.

Yes, you do pay more, unless you compare them to e.g. RRS tripods. Versatility - how important is "versatility" when it comes to tripods? They're supposed to hold some optical gear steady reliably. Anything else?

At least in the USA the Gitzo customer support is nonexistent. Despite their price the Gitzo tripods do not include a carry case and so the buyer needs to add that to the total cost.

I don't know about the Gitzo customer support in the US. In Europe it's OK, even though I only ever needed it once, in almost 40 years. A carry case ... Well, I don't use carry cases anyway. When travelling the tripod goes in the luggage, wrapped in a big towel. And on the way back in some dirty clothes.

Hermann

 

[cncbits]

Thank you all for your answers and opinions. I just want to clarify that I am not a birder. I like watching birds, but I am not focused only on bird watching. I am more into urban scoping. I like to watch buildings, roofs, places that are usually difficult to see. I watch nature when I go to a country estate. But I usually do it from my terrace. I am especially interested in observing the sky, which is why I am looking for especially sturdy tripods. I travel and hike with a tripod extremely rarely, so its weight is not very important to me. My priority is only stability, strength. This purchase will be significantly expensive for me, so I want to be calm that I made the right choice.

 

[Birdister]

If you are interested in observing the sky, and you have a tripod without a centre column, bear in mind that you may need to have the tripod legs extended higher than they normally would be (for solely terrestrial viewing). You might therefore need an XLS version if you are tall.

 

[cncbits]

If you are interested in observing the sky, and you have a tripod without a centre column, bear in mind that you may need to have the tripod legs extended higher than they normally would be (for solely terrestrial viewing). You might therefore need an XLS version if you are tall.

Yes, this is a very important aspect! That's why I asked if those two would be suitable for me, as I'm almost 190 cm/74.8" tall. I think they would be too short for a straight scope. But maybe they would be suitable for a angled scope?

 

[Birdister]

I am slightly taller and I need the XLS version to look at the sky comfortably.

EDIT: with an angled scope

 

[Hermann]

I just want to clarify that I am not a birder. I like watching birds, but I am not focused only on bird watching. I am more into urban scoping. I like to watch buildings, roofs, places that are usually difficult to see. I watch nature when I go to a country estate. But I usually do it from my terrace. I am especially interested in observing the sky, which is why I am looking for especially sturdy tripods. I travel and hike with a tripod extremely rarely, so its weight is not very important to me. My priority is only stability, strength. This purchase will be significantly expensive for me, so I want to be calm that I made the right choice.

Well, that changes a lot. Given what you want to use the tripod for, I'd go for a cheaper, probably heavier tripod. Gitzos are probably overkill for what you want/need. My choice would be a wooden tripod (Berlebach, www.berlebach.de) because they dampen any vibrations very effectively, or an aluminium tripod. No need to pay the extra price for a carbon tripod, and once you get above a certain weight they'll be just as effective as carbon tripods. I'd look at Manfrotto, e.g. the 546GB-1. I think I'd prefer a twin leg tripod.

Hermann

 

[Ignatius]

Well, that changes a lot. Given what you want to use the tripod for, I'd go for a cheaper, probably heavier tripod. Gitzos are probably overkill for what you want/need. My choice would be a wooden tripod (Berlebach, www.berlebach.de) because they dampen any vibrations very effectively, or an aluminium tripod. No need to pay the extra price for a carbon tripod, and once you get above a certain weight they'll be just as effective as carbon tripods. I'd look at Manfrotto, e.g. the 546GB-1. I think I'd prefer a twin leg tripod.

Hermann

Wouldn't that be a bipod?

 

[Hermann]

Wouldn't that be a bipod?

Not really. Check the Manfrotto I mentioned or indeed the Berlebach tripods ...

Hermann

 

[Tringa45]

A couple of reservations about the Manfrotto 546GB: It is designed for a levelling head (i.e. no centre column) and has a floor-level spreader.
Better would be the Manfrotto 028B, which has single leg extensions and a geared centre column, a great convenience.
The weight at 4,1 kg is moderate but it nevertheless extends to 227 cm.
An alternative would be the Berlebach 422/K, also with geared centre column and a maximum height of 207 cm.
These heights may seem excessive but despite the tripod head, the eyepiece is going to fall to the level of the base plate at extended elevations.
There will also be a gain in stability if the leg sections are not fully extended.

John

 

[Ignatius]

Not really. Check the Manfrotto I mentioned or indeed the Berlebach tripods ...

Hermann

Aaah ... I see ... the Italians invented a new word for a tripod with three legs which has special, partially split legs. A bit like the German inventions like handy or dressman. Those things are always a bit difficult to understand for native speakers. So sorry about that.

 

[cncbits]

The more I look at Berlebach tripods, the more I like them.

I have another question. Would an Arca-Swiss head be suitable for skywatching? For example, the C1 Cube. I know it's damn expensive, I'm asking more for understanding. Such a beautiful piece of engineering would look great on a Berlebach tripod.

 

[Tringa45]

I have another question. Would an Arca-Swiss head be suitable for skywatching? For example, the C1 Cube. I know it's damn expensive, I'm asking more for understanding. Such a beautiful piece of engineering would look great on a Berlebach tripod.

Money to burn? It seems the C1 Cube is restricted to 30° vertical tilt, which would make it unsuitable for stargazing.
At less than 1/3 the price the Belebach 553 is regarded by many as expensive but is one of the best 2-way heads suitable for birding scopes.

John

 

[cncbits]

Money to burn? It seems the C1 Cube is restricted to 30° vertical tilt, which would make it unsuitable for stargazing.
At less than 1/3 the price the Belebach 553 is regarded by many as expensive but is one of the best 2-way heads suitable for birding scopes.

John

just trying to think outside the box let's say price is not important. If we use a leveling adapter, maybe then such a combination would work for sky observation? I know that the Arca-Swiss head I mentioned earlier is intended for other purposes (like architectural photography), if with the help of a leveling adapter (for example, this one: Levelling Adapter 33° Ø 100 mm/4 " from Berlebach ® Tripods) it would be possible to roughly aim at the desired position in the sky, and thanks to the Arca-Swiss head it would be possible to precisely select the observation object, maybe such a combination would work?