Gitzo GT5533LS Series 5 Test Data

The Gitzo GT5533LS Series 5 is expected to be the most stable tripod in Gitzo’s lineup, and it doesn’t fail to deliver.  The stiffness is absolutely absurd.  It damps extremely well too.  That combination results in the most stable tripod I have ever tested.  Its not even particularly close.

NameGitzo GT5533LS Systematic 5 Series
Stiffness About Vertical Axis3511 +/- 7 Nm/rad
Damping About Vertical Axis1.65 +/- 0.16 Js/rad
Stiffness About Radial Axis8324 +/- 48 Nm/rad
Damping About Radial Axis1.11 +/- 0.11 Js/rad
Retail Price$1050
Weight6.02 lbs (2.729 kgs)
Manufacturer weight rating88 lbs
Maximum Height56.6 in (143.8 cm)
Minimum Height17.0 in (43.2 cm)
Center ColumnNo
Base Diameter3.6 in (9.1 cm)
Folded Length26.7 in (67.8 cm)
Folded Circumference16.5 in (41.9 cm)
Folded Volume578.0 cu. in. (9.5 liters)
Leg MaterialCarbon Fiber
Leg Sections3
Primary Leg Angle25.5 deg
Leg LocksTwist
Top Tube Diameter41.3 mm
Second Tube Diameter36.9 mm
Third Tube Diameter32.9 mm
Exchangeable FeetYes
Foot TypeRubber Platform

The stiffness and damping data are the averages of 10 trials for each measurement.  The reported error is the standard error, except in the case of the damping data.  I have set the error in the damping at 10% as the standard error metric does not appropriately capture the error in fitting to the data.  All of the reported specifications are measured, with the exception of the weight rating.

Example data:

We can see that both the stiffness and damping are exceptional.  They are so good that it was actually somewhat difficult to take good data for this tripod.  The vibrations were small, and died out quickly.  A lot of inertia was required to bring down the frequency.  The tripod handled it effortlessly.

Again, a very well behaved Fourier spectrum.  I believe that the large secondary peak at around 24 Hz is the vibrational resonance of the camera bar used for testing.

The fit is actually good here, but the oscillation pattern is aliasing with the finite pixel size of the image, rendering it impossible to see.   There is more error in the fitting for the radial data, and thus the higher error in the reported average.

Again, very good behavior, properly confirming the frequency in the fit.