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.
| Name | Gitzo GT5533LS Systematic 5 Series |
|---|---|
| Stiffness About Vertical Axis | 3511 +/- 7 Nm/rad |
| Damping About Vertical Axis | 1.65 +/- 0.16 Js/rad |
| Stiffness About Radial Axis | 8324 +/- 48 Nm/rad |
| Damping About Radial Axis | 1.11 +/- 0.11 Js/rad |
| Retail Price | $1050 |
| Weight | 6.02 lbs (2.729 kgs) |
| Manufacturer weight rating | 88 lbs |
| Maximum Height | 56.6 in (143.8 cm) |
| Minimum Height | 17.0 in (43.2 cm) |
| Center Column | No |
| Base Diameter | 3.6 in (9.1 cm) |
| Folded Length | 26.7 in (67.8 cm) |
| Folded Circumference | 16.5 in (41.9 cm) |
| Folded Volume | 578.0 cu. in. (9.5 liters) |
| Leg Material | Carbon Fiber |
| Leg Sections | 3 |
| Primary Leg Angle | 25.5 deg |
| Leg Locks | Twist |
| Top Tube Diameter | 41.3 mm |
| Second Tube Diameter | 36.9 mm |
| Third Tube Diameter | 32.9 mm |
| Exchangeable Feet | Yes |
| Foot Type | Rubber 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.