Tripod vs. Monopod

Pete wrote:

> My question is wether a monopod would work well
> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a tripod?

No. Monopods are only to relieve one of the effort of supporting the
entire weight of the camera. You can play some tricks with a monopod,
but in the end, if you need to carefully constrain the attitude of the
camera, a tripod is necessary.
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

Ron Lacey wrote:
> On 12 Jan 2006 06:26:51 -0800, "Pete" <pedrofu75 RemoveThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My question is wether a monopod would work well
>> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a
>> tripod?
>
> Depends on how slow and the focal length. Wide angle and normal focal
> lengths should come out fine hand held as slow as 1/60 if you have a
> reasonably steady hand. A monopod will help for longer focal lengths,
> 200mm or more, at speeds as slow as 1/125th, again depending on the
> user. Anything slower would really require a tripod. Actually anyone
> who invests in a DSLR system should really own a good tripod as a
> matter of course.
>
> Also try shooting at faster shutter speeds by increasing the ISO
> value.
>
> Ron

... or invest in image-stabilising lenses?

David
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

"Ron Lacey" <ron.TakeThisOut@ronsfotos.com> wrote in message
news:ce3ds1dbuo6j48pi6a2a4ovjoki255l2us@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:22:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor.TakeThisOut@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>.. or invest in image-stabilising lenses?
>
> Yep to a point, though I don't think my 400mm IS lens would allow me a
> sharp image at less than 1/60th. Of course a 70-200mm f2.8L has an
> $800 Cdn premium for the IS version, you could by a couple of very
> fine tripods for that<g>.
>
> Ron
>
It is a lot easier to carry an IS lens than to carry a tripod and a non IS
lens. <g>

Ron
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

"Pete" <pedrofu75 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137076011.859318.214660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I was recently on vacation on Orlando and took a lot of pictures at
> night with my D70. Some of them where good but most of them where bad.
> I guess since I was shooting with slow speeds without a tripod. Since
> I was on vacation I did not want to carry around a tripod. I thought
> that a monopod be better because is lighter and easier to carry around
> than a bulky tripod. My question is wether a monopod would work well
> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a tripod?

A monopod helps by stabilizing the y axis, but still leaves the x and z axes
unsecured. IOW the camera can no longer move up and down, but it can still
move from side to side and back and forth. It does help in lots of
situations, but it is not a substitue for a tripod. For that matter a light
tripod is not a substitute for a heavy tripod is many situations. It all
depends on your needs.

When using a monopod one way to make it more stable is to brace the leg
against something fixed, like a fence rail. Of course those are not always
handy. If you don't need the full height, there are many lighter, smaller
tripods that will get up to about 1m50 (60" or so). Even with the center
post fully extended, these will be much more stable than a monopod, unless
you are using heavy long lenses.

Toby
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

"Pete" <pedrofu75 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137076011.859318.214660@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> I was recently on vacation on Orlando and took a lot of pictures at
> night with my D70. Some of them where good but most of them where bad.
> I guess since I was shooting with slow speeds without a tripod. Since
> I was on vacation I did not want to carry around a tripod. I thought
> that a monopod be better because is lighter and easier to carry around
> than a bulky tripod. My question is wether a monopod would work well
> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a tripod?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pedro Fuentes
>
For me, a tripod definitely holds the camera steady and allows you to user
longer lenses and slower shutter speeds, even very long shutter speeds. You
can also shoot hands free to prevent any vibration or movement, and allows
you to use a wired or wireless shutter release. A monopod acts more like a
third hand, steadying the camera and letting you rest the weight of the
camera on the ground. It's also much easier to move the camera around, and
there's only one leg to adjust. They are really great for long, heavy
lenses, allowing your hands to work the controls instead of supporting the
camera.

I guess what you have to ask yourself is how slow are your shutter speeds
going to be. Sometimes you can get by with a beanbag or one of those pocket
tripods. I used to use my monopod with long lenses and very fast shutter
speeds for sports. It just took a load off and helped me keep the camera in
the same spot for long periods of time as racers sped by, but allowed me to
quickly move to another location without all the bulk.
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

> I was recently on vacation on Orlando and took a lot of pictures at
> night with my D70. Some of them where good but most of them where bad.
> I guess since I was shooting with slow speeds without a tripod. Since
> I was on vacation I did not want to carry around a tripod. I thought
> that a monopod be better because is lighter and easier to carry around
> than a bulky tripod. My question is wether a monopod would work well
> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a tripod?
>

carry a bean bag and use it to prop the camera on a rock etc.

but for long slow exposures you need a tripod, a good one.
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

In message <1137092331.311757.256070.TakeThisOut@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"AustinMN" <tacooper260.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I feel I get about the same results using a monopod that I would get at
>about 4 stops faster handheld.

4 stops is 16x the shutter speed. Is that what you really meant, or did
you mean a shutter speed difference of 4x?
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.TakeThisOut@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

AustinMN wrote:
> J....RemoveThis@no.komm wrote:
> > In message <1137092331.311757.256....RemoveThis@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > "AustinMN" <tacooper....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >I feel I get about the same results using a monopod that I would get at
> > >about 4 stops faster handheld.
>
> > 4 stops is 16x the shutter speed. Is that what you really meant, or did
> > you mean a shutter speed difference of 4x?
>
> Four stops.

<snip>

I should probably add two things. First, my monopod can hook into my
belt in situations where I can't or won't put it on ground/floor. In
those situations, I get about one stop.

I get essentially unlimited results using a tripod, but sometimes I
don't want to lug the tripod around, and sometimes it is simply not
allowed.

Austin
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

Toby wrote:
> A monopod helps by stabilizing the y axis, but still leaves the x and
> z axes unsecured. IOW the camera can no longer move up and down, but
> it can still move from side to side and back and forth.

Yes, what's wanted is a sort of a handlebar that allows you to use the width
of your shoulders and transfer that stability to the camera. After all it's
angular movement that matters more than linear...

Mike.
--
If reply address = connectfee, add an r because it is free not fee.
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

Pete wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was recently on vacation on Orlando and took a lot of pictures at
> night with my D70. Some of them where good but most of them where bad.
> I guess since I was shooting with slow speeds without a tripod. Since
> I was on vacation I did not want to carry around a tripod. I thought
> that a monopod be better because is lighter and easier to carry around
> than a bulky tripod. My question is wether a monopod would work well
> for shooting in slow speeds? Is it a suitable alternative for a tripod?
>
> Regards,
>
> Pedro Fuentes
>

Take a look at the Manfrotto Model 682 monopod (with three built in
legs) and see it that would suit your needs.
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

Ron Lacey <ron RemoveThis @ronsfotos.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:22:28 GMT, "David J Taylor"

>>.. or invest in image-stabilising lenses?

> Yep to a point, though I don't think my 400mm IS lens would allow me a
> sharp image at less than 1/60th.

*IF* you can hold your lens without IS at 1/400s (which may
not be possible, given the crop factor) and *IF* the IS is of
the same generation (or newer) as the one on Canons 70-200mm
f/2.8 IS, then you can expect 3 steps and thus 1/50s should
be handholdable.

> Of course a 70-200mm f2.8L has an
> $800 Cdn premium for the IS version, you could by a couple of very
> fine tripods for that<g>.

The IS even works with tripods: most tripods vibrate in high
wind or as trucks pass by.

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

In article <p02m93-p8v.ln1.TakeThisOut@ID-52418.user.berlin.de>,
Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02.TakeThisOut@sneakemail.com> wrote:

> most tripods vibrate in high wind or as trucks pass by.

Despite being weighed-down by the SANDBAGS you brought to the shoot? <g>

(Yes, my Bogen 3040 can handle sandbags just fine, thank-you. Hiking with it
up to Jenny Lake over Jackson Hole, Wyoming, USA, was a chore, though, WITHOUT
sandbags!)

Is Image Stabilization really THAT good?
Does it adequately address mere VIBRATIONS?

For the price premium, one might think it should in any case.
--

JR
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod 

In message <dqdtt7$4br$2@inews.gazeta.pl>,
Alan Browne <alan.browne.DeleteThis@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>nick c wrote:
>
>> Take a look at the Manfrotto Model 682 monopod (with three built in
>> legs) and see it that would suit your needs.
>
>The three built in legs are not usefully stable. They are there for
>convenience (leave things standing), but are useless for stability in
>shooting. In fact, based on my own, would say thet reduce stabity from
>the basic monpod setup.

I think three small legs would be superior, *if* they were designed
properly. They would need to have complete freedom in every axis,
except on the monopod's axis, which you would need to lift to adjust, or
surpass a certain amount of torque (with a clutch mechanism, perhaps).

One of the reasons I have never gotten into using my monopod is that it
seems that when I try it, there is more freedom of rotation on the
monopod's axis than when I am hand-holding. In other words, any small
unintended motions translate directly into rotation in the monopod's
axis. Perhaps that is because I am too tall, and have to hunch over to
use it.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS.DeleteThis@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 >> Stay informed about: Tripod vs. Monopod