Lightweight Tripod Heads: Comparing Gitzo 2180 to Velbon FHD-51Q (1 Viewer)

[aomcm]

I own both of these tripod heads to use to support my Swarovski 65 spotting scope. I previously posted my dissatisfaction with the Gitzo and I tried the Velbon based on some comments in another thread. Here is my take since I own both and can compare them directly:

Gitzo: I was unhappy with this head because it only pans and tilts smoothly at low drag settings. You have to tighten and loosen both pan and tilt every time you carry the scope for it to hold the scope from flopping around. If you set the drag high enough to hold the scope while carrying the tripod, it is too jerky when pointing the scope and shows a slight rebound when you let go. In addition, the drag is cumbersome to set and there is no lock. You set the drag by turning knobs on the side of the head. It takes several turns of both to loosen and tighten them each time you set up to use the scope. The only thing I really liked about this head, other than its weight, is that at the low drag settings, it pans and tilts effortlessly with a very silky movement. It also feels extremely well made and has a very solid quick release plate (much better than the Bogen's I have used). Still I was disappointed that it really seems suited to only very light loads and is not really suitable for even a small spotting scope unless you want to fiddle with the knobs every time you carry the scope from one spot to another. I was going to live with these limitations because I need a lightweight head until I heard about the new Velbon.

Velbon: For almost half the price, this is a MUCH better head for use with spotting scopes, at least with my 65. It is much more stable. I did not really notice a problem with the scope settling when I used the Gitzo, but the Velbon is so much faster (it settles in maybe a third of the time), I was pleasantly startled by it. A very solid, sturdy head with the load I have on it and this does really help the view. In addition, the drag settings are much better. Adjusting the pan is set and forget. I found a setting that allows smooth panning with little movement when the scope is carried. Tilt is almost as good. However, here I found the setting needed to allow the scope to be carried was maybe just a little higher than I like for pointing the scope. However, the tilt drag is very easy to adjust and requires just a very small movement of a lever to go to a lighter setting. Thus, the scope can be used at the higher drag settings necessary to carry it, but when settling down for extended scanning, I do like to tweak the tilt setting a little lower. Again, this is easy to do. In addition, there is no rebound after pointing the scope at a new target. At lower drag settings, the head is not quite as silky as the Gitzo but I think this would only be important to someone shooting video. In practice, the advantages of the Velbon greatly outweigh anything the Gitzo does. The Velbon comes with a quick release plate that is as solid as the Gitzo and a long plate is standard so it was easy to balance my scope. My only complaint about the head is that there is no quick release plate with a 3/8 inch screw so I have to use the adapter to mount my Swarovski. I prefer the security of the larger screw.

Overall it should be obvious I think the Velbon is a great head and is way better than the Gitzo. At only 1.3 lbs it is a great alternative for those looking for a high performance, light weight head.

 

[Bill Atwood]

Thanks for the Velbon review Mike. Any opinion on how it compares to the Bogen 3130?

 

[aomcm]

Thanks for the Velbon review Mike. Any opinion on how it compares to the Bogen 3130?

Its been a while since I used a 3130, but I think it is a better head if you can handle the extra weight, but not by much. I remember the 3130 being very smooth and having a very wide range of useful drag settings. I have never liked the Bogen quick release plates. I think the Velbon is better than either of the lightweight Bogen heads (700 and 701). It is quite compact too. I travel a lot with the scope and am trying to keep the weight down (the reason I went with the 65). The combination of the Swarovski 65, Velbon FHD-51Q and the Velbon 640 legs I am using seems like a great travel kit. Very light weight, compact and very sturdy in the field. Probably not quite up to what a digiscoper would want, but for my needs I am very happy with it. Beats the Bogen jr. I was using by quite a margin for stability, but still weighs the same.

 

[henry link]

Mike,

Thanks for the thorough review. I'm curious about the Velbon leg set you use. Have you compared it to comparable Gitzo legs like the 1258? I notice that the Velbon 540 appears on paper to be just as capable of supporting the head and scope you use and weighs less than the 640. Did you try that one?

Henry

 

[kabsetz]

Mike and Henry,

Piqued by the good review and Henry's comments I just went and checked the Velbon website for the specs of these new models. The main difference between the 5 and 6 series seems to be in the leg tube diameter (of the thickest tube), which is 28mm in the 6's and 25mm in the 5's. Personally, I got interested in the 630. With a marginal weight increase it is rated at 6kg for load instead of 4kg. I have no experience with Velbon specifically, but I am a great believer in having all the extra rigidity one can reasonably carry since it very often makes a rather dramatic stability difference when there is wind. Likewise, three-section legs are always more stable than four-section legs, and I'm willing to compromise with minumum packing length in order to maximise stability and set-up speed. After Mike's favorable review I will eventually take a look at Velbon's 630 as a potential lightweight alternative to my rather heavy and large Manfrotto 028 legs.

Thanks for the information,

Kimmo

 

[aomcm]

Now we are talking about legs!

I choose the Velbon 640 legs over the comparable Gitzos because of price, price, a preference for flip lock legs and over 3 inches shorter folded length. I needed to fit the tripod inside a specific case for travel. That is why I went for the 4 sections and the Velbon. Without that constraint, the 630 would definitely be a better choice.

I choose the 640 over the 540 because I am fairly tall. I would be using the 540 most of the time with the center column fully extended, even with my angled scope. With the 640 I can use it without any center column extension if I have to and am very comfortable with only a couple inches extended.

So far, I am very impressed with the Velbon products. They have come a long way compared to the products they were making many years ago. I will let you know in a couple years how durable they are, but they feel very solid and durable to me and seem to be a very good value.

Mike

Mike and Henry,

Piqued by the good review and Henry's comments I just went and checked the Velbon website for the specs of these new models. The main difference between the 5 and 6 series seems to be in the leg tube diameter (of the thickest tube), which is 28mm in the 6's and 25mm in the 5's. Personally, I got interested in the 630. With a marginal weight increase it is rated at 6kg for load instead of 4kg. I have no experience with Velbon specifically, but I am a great believer in having all the extra rigidity one can reasonably carry since it very often makes a rather dramatic stability difference when there is wind. Likewise, three-section legs are always more stable than four-section legs, and I'm willing to compromise with minimum packing length in order to maximise stability and set-up speed. After Mike's favorable review I will eventually take a look at Velbon's 630 as a potential lightweight alternative to my rather heavy and large Manfrotto 028 legs.

Thanks for the information,

Kimmo

 

[Sc0tty]

Still on the subject of legs...

I've noticed on the Warehouse Express website and http://www.velbon-tripod.com/sherpa_pro01.htm that Velbon are bringing out replacements for some of the carbon fibre range: CF-531, CF-541, CF-631, CF-641 are being replaced with the CF-535, CF-545, CF-635, CF-645. All of these have lever leg locks which I prefer to twist locks, e.g. on the CF-630 and CF-640.

Rich

 

[Swissboy]

Now we are talking about legs!

I choose the Velbon 640 legs over the comparable Gitzos because of price, price, a preference for flip lock legs and over 3 inches shorter folded length. I needed to fit the tripod inside a specific case for travel. That is why I went for the 4 sections and the Velbon. ....So far, I am very impressed with the Velbon products. They have come a long way compared to the products they were making many years ago. I will let you know in a couple years how durable they are, but they feel very solid and durable to me and seem to be a very good value.

Mike

I have been using a Velbon Sherpa Pro 6400 for a bit more that three years now. And it has held up extremely well. The only major gripe is the twist-lock system of the legs. I would have preferred a flip-lock type. But, apparently, that has been changed now. A second gripe is the fact that the center column can only be changed with the legs extended. That is a bother when using the tripod in the car. Compared to my two Manfrotto tripods (055, 190), the Velbon is at least as sturdy as the 190. I originally intended to use it as a a travel tripod only, but it has long since become my standard tripod. It is mostly used with the heavy Leica Apo 77.

My Velbon tripod is combined with a Novoflex Dino head and a Manfrotto quick-release plate. This set-up weighs in at just below 1900 grams.

 

[hinnark]

I have been using a Velbon Sherpa Pro 6400 for a bit more that three years now. And it has held up extremely well. The only major gripe is the twist-lock system of the legs. I would have preferred a flip-lock type. But, apparently, that has been changed now. A second gripe is the fact that the center column can only be changed with the legs extended. That is a bother when using the tripod in the car. Compared to my two Manfrotto tripods (055, 190), the Velbon is at least as sturdy as the 190. I originally intended to use it as a a travel tripod only, but it has long since become my standard tripod. It is mostly used with the heavy Leica Apo 77.

My Velbon tripod is combined with a Novoflex Dino head and a Manfrotto quick-release plate. This set-up weighs in at just below 1900 grams.

Robert,

which Manfrotto quick-release plate do you use and how do you atouch it to the Dino head?

Steve

 

[Swissboy]

Robert,

which Manfrotto quick-release plate do you use and how do you atouch it to the Dino head?

Steve

It is model #323, you should be able to see it here:

http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/offonce/pid/3266?livid=103&lsf=103&child=3

It is screwed on to the head instead of attaching the scope directly to the head.

I like the fact that it has a safety catch.

 

[hinnark]

It is model #323, you should be able to see it here:

http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/cache/offonce/pid/3266?livid=103&lsf=103&child=3

It is screwed on to the head instead of attaching the scope directly to the head.

I like the fact that it has a safety catch.

I see, thank you Robert. The Dino I know doesn´t move that smoothly or fluid. There are the two wheels for horizontal and vertical panning and fixation. If I untwist them the scope is too loose and if I fix them I cannot move the scope. Now I wonder if this is an issue only with my sample. How does your Dino work in this respect?

Steve

 

[jacquot]

I have a Velbon Carmagne 630 that I like except for the twist leg releases, but it came with the PH-268R head that got very stiff in cooler weather this fall and started unscrewing from the tripod rather than rotating in the horizontal plane. Even in warmer weather it is quite stiff.

I want to replace the head, and thought of the 3130 but the FHD-51Q sounds like a good option. I like the weight! I think the original poster is saying that the 3130 is a little better, correct? Also, the Velbon head seems to be almost twice the cost of the 3130 from what I have found in the US. I'm using a Nikon FSIII ED with angled eyepiece. I was told to avoid the 700/701 Manfrotto options and have read a good deal here about those heads and problems with the balance of the Nikon scope. Very little is written about the Velbon heads, however. I'm tempted to order one, but the only sources I have found are the NYC photo shops. I've never seen one in the field I could test.

 

[Swissboy]

I see, thank you Robert. The Dino I know doesn´t move that smoothly or fluid. There are the two wheels for horizontal and vertical panning and fixation. If I untwist them the scope is too loose and if I fix them I cannot move the scope. Now I wonder if this is an issue only with my sample. How does your Dino work in this respect?

Steve

Steve, it's clear these light-weight heads are a compromise to some degree. I have to tighten the screws before I carry the scope. And depending on the angle, the vertical screw needs some adjusting. But, overall, my Dino functions quite smoothly. A have removed that smallish panning lever. Instead, I use that hole for an additional screw to help keeping that quick-release plate from getting loose. Again, kind of a compromise, as I very much want that quick-release. Yet, it leads to some instability.

 

[hinnark]

Steve, it's clear these light-weight heads are a compromise to some degree. I have to tighten the screws before I carry the scope. And depending on the angle, the vertical screw needs some adjusting. But, overall, my Dino functions quite smoothly. A have removed that smallish panning lever. Instead, I use that hole for an additional screw to help keeping that quick-release plate from getting loose. Again, kind of a compromise, as I very much want that quick-release. Yet, it leads to some instability.

It´s a pity and really annoying that most quick release plates tend to get loose. The only one I know that works quite good in this respect is made by Linhof for one of their ball heads.

Steve

 

[aomcm]

I promised to follow up my original post with a report on the durability of the Velbon FHD-51Q. I am sorry to report that the head does not seem to be holding up the rigors of everyday birding demands.

I still very much like using the head. I have used it for several weeks with my Swaro 65 so it is not under a very heavy load (for a birder). I have not subjected it to anything other than normal birding use pulling it in and out of the back of my car. Recently, it has developed a wobble in the vertical (tilt) plane even when locked as tight as possible. I have tried tightening all the various screws on the head to no effect. It actually seems that some component of the head has become bent. I will probably send it back to Velbon for repair and switch back to the Gitzo.

 

[alfred33]

Hello Mike,

I hope Velbon will repair your FHD-51Q quickly. I have been considering to buy this head since your description convinced me. I need a lightweight head for filming with a 2,5 kg camecorder (full loaded with all the gear). I have now the gitzo 2180, which behaves as you described. Silky by little drag-dampening, at the end of a pan/tilt a rebound, which deminishes the heads efficiency a lot in the tele position. So I am looking for another head and the Velbon FHD-51Q seemed to be ideally. Did I understand right: Silky drag by higher dampening and no rebound at the end of a pan/tilt? Do you think the big brother the FHD-61Q is more stable? Do you think the head will be usable for my purposes? Thanks.

 

[KorHaan]

Hello all,

Interesting thread. I just bought the Gitzo 2180 head to replace my Velbon PH 368 head. The latter got annoyingly stiff in panning and tilting in cold weather, resulting in turning loose from the tripod. I had to loosen up the center column to allow any tilt movements, the whole head turning with the center column this way. Quite ridiculous and not very practical, but the head itself seemed well made and sturdy.
The Gitzo 2180 was quite a relief, panning and tilting smoothly. I use it with Velbon Pro Sherpa CF 530 legs and a Zeiss Diascope 65. It's the best setup I've ever had, I'm very satisfied. The Gitzo head needs tightening of the screws when moving about, but I'm not that much in a hurry that I find that annoying.
Besides, the Gitzo 2180 has a feature not yet mentioned here, I think. It has built-in counterweight balance; this is really good, it prevents your scope from drooping and slamming against the legs, when the pan/tilt screws are loosened. You point the scope in any direction, let go and it stays in this position! No need to tighten screws, it is something I never experienced with any head before. Only when carrying the equipment the screws must be tightened, this is true.
What I like about this head also, is that it's all metal; the Velbon 368 head seemed to be made of a metal/plastic compound.

Greetings, Ronald

 

[alfred33]

My experiences with the gitzo show, that panning and tilting is only possible with little drag smoothly. For filming (the head is distributed as video-head, too) there are some limitations, which also restrict the joy of birdwatching.

The head works great up to a focus of about 200mm (equivalent to a 35mm photo-cam). My Sony PD 150 has in the utmost teleposition a focus of 480mm (equivalent to a 35mm photo-cam). Beyond 200mm slow panning is a problem and at a stop the rebound effect kills the quality of such a clip. Unfortunately it is not possible to counteract this rebound -effect (holding tension on the pan-handle), because the attenuation of the head is too less. Considering this restrictions the head works great.

Concerning the counterbalance there are some restriction at least with my head. It is possible to hold the cam (2,5 kg) steady either against foreward or backward decline but not against booth directions. You have to decide for one, because there are only a few degrees stabile hub for the opposite direction from the horizontal axis. If you move the tripod not tighned the knobs, you have to take care leaning the triopod in the stabilised direction otherwise the cam or spective will move down and bang to the tripod legs.

Ronald, the Velbon Ph 368 head seems to be a less sophisticated construction than the FHD 51/61/71 at least concerning the price. (The FHD 51/61/71 costs 3 times more). So Iam curiose to get information about this head.

I hope to find with the experiences of the group the best lightweight head (with a flat base) for filming in the field. (I have a Sachtler-set with a 75mm ball: weights 5kg, supurb for schlepping 500 metres to and fro the car.).

By the way, what´s about the Dino head of Novoflex? Is it a better option for my filming purposes?

Alfred

 

[PYRTLE]

Velbon Ph - 368

Hi Alfred 33, this is a much lighter and imo not anywhere as good as the FHD 51Q which I first posted on BF a few weeks ago and have had some favourite PM feedback on. The 368 is prone to leakage if heavily used.

 

[Mike Penfold]

It´s a pity and really annoying that most quick release plates tend to get loose. The only one I know that works quite good in this respect is made by Linhof for one of their ball heads.

Steve

Bogen/Manfrotto used to make a series of quick release plates, specifically machined for a custom fit on Zeiss, Swarovski, Leica, and Nikon scopes to prevent twisting/loosening. While B&H doesn't catalogue these now, some or all of them are available from Amplis, the Canadian distributor, and they may also be available on the web.

See: http://www.bogenimaging.us/product/ (Click on Manfrotto heads; then Spotting Scope Plates.) for information about these custom plates. I've used the 200CZ1 plate (substituting a 3/8" screw from another QR plate) with a 128RC head and a Zeiss 85 for a couple of years, and it works well. The only issue is that it can't be reversed in the head to allow the handle to be switched for those who prefer to focus with their right hand.

Bogen/Manfrotto appears to have replaced these with the 200USS Universal Anti-Twist Quick Release Plate for Spotting Scopes, and the 3157ANR (3/8" screw), 3157NR (1/4" screw) Anti-twist Quick Release Plate. These can be used with the 700RC2 head (which turns the quick release plate 90 degrees).

The 700RC2 head is a light (17.6 oz.) head, with apparently good controls, and I'm interested in the experience of birders who have used it.

Mike