Monopods - how stable are they? - DPChallenge Forums

07/10/2003 05:21:10 AM · #1

I'm considering buying a monopod, but before I do I'd like to know how much difference they actually make.

Assuming it's a fair bright day and I'm taking a photo outside, how much difference would using a monopod make, compared to hand held?

If there's any examples, that would be fantastic.

Thanks,
Paul.

07/10/2003 05:25:54 AM · #2

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

I own a monopod, but to be honest it is only good when I use heavy lenses (600mm and the likes). For your Powershot A70 it will be just about useless.

Get a nice sturdy tripod instead.

HJ

07/10/2003 05:39:35 AM · #3

Ok - the question now is - how much difference do tripods make? :-)

(BTW SharQ - I fixed my gallery vuln.)

07/10/2003 05:41:48 AM · #4

If shooting conditions are fine then a monopod won't make any difference. The beauty of them is that you can get away with slower shutter speeds than you would handheld, get into places that don't allow tripods and they're a lot smaller and lighter. In effect you are forming the other two legs of the tripod with your body, just remember these words of wisdom from my daughter "but how does it stay up when you're in the picture Dad?"

07/10/2003 05:45:12 AM · #5

Originally posted by robsmith:

just remember these words of wisdom from my daughter "but how does it stay up when you're in the picture Dad?"

Hahahah. Words of wisdom indeed. :-)

07/10/2003 05:48:31 AM · #6

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Ok - the question now is - how much difference do tripods make? :-)

From //www.enginova.com/Minimum%20Shutter%20Speed.htm

For a handheld 35mm camera, the conventional rule of thumb is to select a shutter speed of at least the reciprocal of the lens' focal length to avoid blurring due to camera shake. For example, with a "normal" 50mm lens, the shutter speed should be no slower than 1/50th of a second.

The basis of this rule of thumb is seldom discussed, inviting the question whether it is, in fact, correct. I have conducted experiments that indicate that although the reciprocal-of-focal-length rule may be adequate for small enlargements, sharpness can be increased with significantly faster shutter speeds. Indeed, buried within one of Ansel Adams' books, he suggests that with a normal lens and a handheld camera, a shutter speed of anything less than 1/250th second may produce less than a completely sharp image. (See The Camera, Little, Brown and Company, 1980, p. 116.)

In essence a tripod will make a heck of a difference as it will allow slower shutter speeds, just remember to use a remote release of self timer to avoid shake.

07/10/2003 05:54:24 AM · #7

Originally posted by robsmith:

I think I would argue against. Most tripods are for specialist use, and hence use heavier materials than cheap tripods.

The times where I need a monopod (rarely, and even rarer that I haven't brought my monopod if I need it), I usually just extend the legs of the tripod, and keep them together. Not ideal, but it works.

In general; If you do not have a tripod, you need a tripod. If you have a tripod, get some memory cards or something. If you have all that, consider a monopod. However, remember that you can always steady your camera on walls, the ground, trees etc, with better effect than with a monopod. (trees don't move ;)

is a tripod effective?

Allow me to retort with a phrase a friend of mine likes to use; "Does a bear shit in the woods"?

i.e yes. You will want to use a tripod.

If you don't believe me, try this: Tape a laser pointer to your camera. Point it at something 30-40 meters away, and TRY to press the shutter without moving the laser dot.

Get a tripod and try again.

Now, use your self-timer (with the camera on the tripod), or a remote-shutter release and try again.

If you cannot be buggered trying it yourself, just trust me on this one: Get a tripod, and use it all the time, unless you are 100% certain you have enough light.

As a rule of the thumb, you can shoot handheld with shutter times that are equal as your focal length.

i.e if you are shooting with the 35mm equivalent of a 50mm lens, you can shoot 1/50 second shutter speed. If you are shooting with a 400mm equivalent, you can shoot down to a 1/400 second shutter speed without problems.

Even with a 20mm lens, I would not recommend shooting at 1/20 - 1/60 is really the slowest you can get away with.

People are going to argue that I am talking rubbish, and that they have handheld a camera at 1/10. So have I, but I have never taken a picture at 1/10 that would not have been significantly better if I had taken it with a tripod.

Hope this helps!

Haje

(edit: Blah, I was beaten to the finish line.)

Message edited by author 2003-07-10 05:56:01.

joannadiva

07/10/2003 05:58:11 AM · #8

The reason I'd recommend a monopod over a tripod is that you can use a monopod to beat off a mugger when he tries to steel your expensive digicam while you're out on "night on the town" shoots. It's a lot harder to inflict any real damage with a tripod they are much heaver and clumsier than the monopod and if you can use it to beat off a pervert or thief then you probably don't need either

hope this helps

07/10/2003 06:01:05 AM · #9

Originally posted by SharQ:

Originally posted by robsmith:
If shooting conditions are fine then a monopod won't make any difference. The beauty of them is that you can get away with slower shutter speeds than you would handheld, get into places that don't allow tripods and they're a lot smaller and lighter.

I think I would argue against. Most tripods are for specialist use, and hence use heavier materials than cheap tripods.

Sorry you've lost me there - are you saying that tripods are more portable than monopods?

Robro

Canon EOS-20D

07/10/2003 06:06:55 AM · #10

I use my monopod as a walking stick to help me get up steep hills!! It means I can take great pics of fantastic views!!

;-)

07/10/2003 06:11:30 AM · #11

Thanks for the advice everyone. Looks like it might be wise to save my pennies and opt for a tripod.

07/10/2003 06:15:43 AM · #12

Originally posted by PaulMdx:

Thanks for the advice everyone. Looks like it might be wise to save my pennies and opt for a tripod.

Or you could always go for one of the Manfrotto/Bogen ones with the extra legs! (Sorry couldn't resist throwing that one in!). SharQ's advice is best, tripod first, monopod second (or if you're like me tripod, tripod, tripod, tripod, monopod, tripod - just don't tell the wife) :{>

07/10/2003 06:17:12 AM · #13

Originally posted by joannadiva:

The reason I'd recommend a monopod over a tripod is that you can use a monopod to beat off a mugger when he tries to steel your expensive digicam while you're out on "night on the town" shoots

Well, yes. This is true. BUt have you ever considered what a great weapon a heavy camera makes? Just hold it by the strap and beat them senseless with it.

On a more serious note: FOr the "night on the town" shots, a monopod would be useless, as you won't be able to hold the camera still enough for long exposures.

If you want camera equipment that doubles as weapons, may I suggest getting a flamethrower??

HJ

07/10/2003 06:19:06 AM · #14

Originally posted by robsmith:

tripod first, monopod second (or if you're like me tripod, tripod, tripod, tripod, monopod, tripod - just don't tell the wife) :{>

Or in my case: Cheap tripod that broke, Cheap tripod that broke, Cheap tripod that broke, Cheap tripod that broke, Cheap tripod that broke, expensive SLIK tripod that cost a ridiculous amount of money and weighs as much as my car, but is the steadiest tripod in the world, and has taken more punishment than any other piece of camera kit. Including one time I took a swing at someone with it, because they were trying to steal my camera.

So there you go.