Gitzo Explorer Poll: Got mine, How do you like yours?

WalterK said:

Since I read the poll on tripods & heads, I became interested in
how other people use and like their Explorers, particularly the CF
versiions.

I have the 2227, which is my "everything" pod except for when I use
a monopod. The 2227 will be used for general shots, landscapes and
panos, zoo shots, outdoor macro shots of flowers, bugs, etc.

Usually it will have my Arca Swiss B1 mounted on it, but for panos
I will use the Gitzo 1372 3-way pan head with the Kaidan pano head
mounted on it.

When I use my 100-400, out comes the Wimberley Sidekick, which will
be added to the B1.

What has been your experience in these areas: Stability,
rigidness, vibration damping, convenience?

Have you found a quick way to get the tripod level?

Are there any down sides with this tripod that you have discovered?
--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

I level it quickly and easily on uneven ground by adjusting the
angle of the legs, using the built-in bubble level. I then level
the camera horizontally using a Hama hotshoe spirit level. But
I've noticed that when I do that, the camera isn't really perfectly
horizontal on a 180 degree pan. I hadn't thought about it before,
but now that you mention it, the center post's not being truly
vertical in the locked position would account for that.

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

Does your pano head have a built-in level? Does it differ from the
built-in level on the tripod? That would confirm this issue.

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

Other than that, I have found no drawbacks to this tripod
whatsoever. I really like it a lot.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Click to expand...

Lee Rothman said:

I have had mine and used it since March of this year. I've found it
indispensible for product shooting as it can easily be set to some
very weird positions. Also for Macro I find this to be the best
tripod as I can quickly get to ground level if necessary and also
any position needed. That really is this tripod's forte'. With that
said, I do my share of wedding portraiture as well as landscape
outdoor shoots. I had found, when I was using a Gitzo 1377 center
ballhead that indeed level shots were a challenge. Fortunately that
problem has dissapeared since getting a Manfrotto 410 geared pan
tilt head. This head has it's own level, and not only allows for
fine adjustments in all planes, but levels them as well. It is fast
and accurate and has eliminated the problem that previously plagued
me with landscape shots. The ability of the tripod to quash
vibration is admirable. When using say my 1D and a 100-400L lens
with a 1.4xII teleconverter I do not find it necessary to shoot
with mirror lockup. It is very stable in a wind and of course the
myriad of possible positions it can be set to is astounding. The
weight is not the reason I chose the CF model but rather the
vibration damping characteristics of the Carbon Fiber. There are
some that doubt this but frankly, I've had both with and without
and the difference is unmistakable in either a wind or longer
heavier lens. I highly recommend this tripod all the time.......

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Mike

Lee Rothman said:

I have had mine and used it since March of this year. I've found it
indispensible for product shooting as it can easily be set to some
very weird positions. Also for Macro I find this to be the best
tripod as I can quickly get to ground level if necessary and also
any position needed. That really is this tripod's forte'. With that
said, I do my share of wedding portraiture as well as landscape
outdoor shoots. I had found, when I was using a Gitzo 1377 center
ballhead that indeed level shots were a challenge. Fortunately that
problem has dissapeared since getting a Manfrotto 410 geared pan
tilt head. This head has it's own level, and not only allows for
fine adjustments in all planes, but levels them as well. It is fast
and accurate and has eliminated the problem that previously plagued
me with landscape shots. The ability of the tripod to quash
vibration is admirable. When using say my 1D and a 100-400L lens
with a 1.4xII teleconverter I do not find it necessary to shoot
with mirror lockup. It is very stable in a wind and of course the
myriad of possible positions it can be set to is astounding. The
weight is not the reason I chose the CF model but rather the
vibration damping characteristics of the Carbon Fiber. There are
some that doubt this but frankly, I've had both with and without
and the difference is unmistakable in either a wind or longer
heavier lens. I highly recommend this tripod all the time.......

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

Since I read the poll on tripods & heads, I became interested in
how other people use and like their Explorers, particularly the CF
versiions.

I have the 2227, which is my "everything" pod except for when I use
a monopod. The 2227 will be used for general shots, landscapes and
panos, zoo shots, outdoor macro shots of flowers, bugs, etc.

Usually it will have my Arca Swiss B1 mounted on it, but for panos
I will use the Gitzo 1372 3-way pan head with the Kaidan pano head
mounted on it.

When I use my 100-400, out comes the Wimberley Sidekick, which will
be added to the B1.

What has been your experience in these areas: Stability,
rigidness, vibration damping, convenience?

Have you found a quick way to get the tripod level?

Are there any down sides with this tripod that you have discovered?
--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Lee Rothman said:

I have had mine and used it since March of this year. I've found it
indispensible for product shooting as it can easily be set to some
very weird positions. Also for Macro I find this to be the best
tripod as I can quickly get to ground level if necessary and also
any position needed. That really is this tripod's forte'. With that
said, I do my share of wedding portraiture as well as landscape
outdoor shoots. I had found, when I was using a Gitzo 1377 center
ballhead that indeed level shots were a challenge. Fortunately that
problem has dissapeared since getting a Manfrotto 410 geared pan
tilt head. This head has it's own level, and not only allows for
fine adjustments in all planes, but levels them as well. It is fast
and accurate and has eliminated the problem that previously plagued
me with landscape shots. The ability of the tripod to quash
vibration is admirable. When using say my 1D and a 100-400L lens
with a 1.4xII teleconverter I do not find it necessary to shoot
with mirror lockup. It is very stable in a wind and of course the
myriad of possible positions it can be set to is astounding. The
weight is not the reason I chose the CF model but rather the
vibration damping characteristics of the Carbon Fiber. There are
some that doubt this but frankly, I've had both with and without
and the difference is unmistakable in either a wind or longer
heavier lens. I highly recommend this tripod all the time.......

Click to expand...

Mike said:

So do you think the CF is worth the extra money over the Al version?

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

Mike said:

So do you think the CF is worth the extra money over the Al version?

Click to expand...

There are several reasons I got the CF for $450 instead of Al for
$207 (at B&H).

It is not the weight, since there is less than .5 lb difference.
I wanted the extra couple of inches without the post extended, as
well as with it extended. I also find that the larger leg locks
are much easier to turn on the CF pod. I have the 1224 with the
smaller locks and had to live with them. The CF locks are a
pleasure.

Having now used the CF in cold weather, my hands tell me they are
much happier than when I used the Al pod, even with leg warmers on
the upper legs.

What I miss about the Al pods is the convertible feet: pull the
rubber off and you have some very aggressive spikes. Oh,
well...can't have it all!

As far as tools go, there is an allen wrench in a clamp-on bracket
around one of the upper legs. It is for adjusting the tension of
the locks that maintain the angle of the legs. Nothing else.

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

Mike said:

So do you think the CF is worth the extra money over the Al version?

Click to expand...

There are several reasons I got the CF for $450 instead of Al for
$207 (at B&H).

It is not the weight, since there is less than .5 lb difference.
I wanted the extra couple of inches without the post extended, as
well as with it extended. I also find that the larger leg locks
are much easier to turn on the CF pod. I have the 1224 with the
smaller locks and had to live with them. The CF locks are a
pleasure.

Having now used the CF in cold weather, my hands tell me they are
much happier than when I used the Al pod, even with leg warmers on
the upper legs.

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

What I miss about the Al pods is the convertible feet: pull the
rubber off and you have some very aggressive spikes. Oh,
well...can't have it all!

As far as tools go, there is an allen wrench in a clamp-on bracket
around one of the upper legs. It is for adjusting the tension of
the locks that maintain the angle of the legs. Nothing else.

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the reply. I'm just having a hard time justifying $250
more for the same tripod...almost. I can get some other things with
that money. However, if CF is really that much better then I'll go
that way.

Click to expand...

Nill Toulme said:

I preferred both the feet and the legs on the 2220 though--the feet
for their rubber/spike convertible aspect and the legs because they
are grooved and don't twist like the carbon legs. It's only a half
pound heavier than the 2227 and it's a LOT cheaper, so if you can
live with the height I'd recommend it over the 2227.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the reply. I'm just having a hard time justifying $250
more for the same tripod...almost. I can get some other things with
that money. However, if CF is really that much better then I'll go
that way.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Nill

Thank you very much. I think you have saved me some money. I'm only
5'9" so height shouldn't be a problem. If I remember right the 2220
is 6" shorter then 2227. So 2220 should be for me the same as 2227
is for you.

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

Mike said:

Nill

Thank you very much. I think you have saved me some money. I'm only
5'9" so height shouldn't be a problem. If I remember right the 2220
is 6" shorter then 2227. So 2220 should be for me the same as 2227
is for you.

Click to expand...

Mike,

Nill wrote that he uses the 2227 with a ballhead PLUS the Wimberley
Sidekick, which adds another 4-6 inches to the height. Before you
decide, try to get to a photo store that has these tripods. Don't
count on using an extended centerpost to make up for lack of
tripod height, because it just defeats the purpose of the pod.
Also, if the pod is even a little too low, you'll find that
stooping to see through the viewfinder gets to be a real drag,
especially when tilting up, say, for a building top, etc.

I'm speaking from expensive personal experience. And I made my
mistakes one at a time, so that it took me 4 tripods to get to the
one that really suits me.

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the heads up. I was planning on using a acratech
ballhead and Qtop QR. I think this will add about 4". I think the
2220 is 50" max w/o center col extended and 2227 is 56". So if Nill
is 5" taller then me it should work. I'm I missing something?

Mike

P.S. there is no place around here to look at one of these.

Click to expand...

WalterK said:

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the heads up. I was planning on using a acratech
ballhead and Qtop QR. I think this will add about 4". I think the
2220 is 50" max w/o center col extended and 2227 is 56". So if Nill
is 5" taller then me it should work. I'm I missing something?

Mike

P.S. there is no place around here to look at one of these.

Click to expand...

It's probably OK, but you should still go to a camera store and
take a tape measure with you.. Take any of their tripods, extend
the legs until the plate on which you mount the head is 50" from
the floor. If the only tripods they have have built-in heads,
measure to the bottom of the head. This will give you an idea of
what you will be dealing with.

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Mike

WalterK said:

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the heads up. I was planning on using a acratech
ballhead and Qtop QR. I think this will add about 4". I think the
2220 is 50" max w/o center col extended and 2227 is 56". So if Nill
is 5" taller then me it should work. I'm I missing something?

Mike

P.S. there is no place around here to look at one of these.

Click to expand...

It's probably OK, but you should still go to a camera store and
take a tape measure with you.. Take any of their tripods, extend
the legs until the plate on which you mount the head is 50" from
the floor. If the only tripods they have have built-in heads,
measure to the bottom of the head. This will give you an idea of
what you will be dealing with.

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Mike said:

Walter thank you, you might have saved me a head ache

Mike

Mike said:

Mike

WalterK said:

Mike said:

Walter

Thanks for the heads up. I was planning on using a acratech
ballhead and Qtop QR. I think this will add about 4". I think the
2220 is 50" max w/o center col extended and 2227 is 56". So if Nill
is 5" taller then me it should work. I'm I missing something?

Mike

P.S. there is no place around here to look at one of these.

Click to expand...

It's probably OK, but you should still go to a camera store and
take a tape measure with you.. Take any of their tripods, extend
the legs until the plate on which you mount the head is 50" from
the floor. If the only tripods they have have built-in heads,
measure to the bottom of the head. This will give you an idea of
what you will be dealing with.

--
Walter K

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...