In theory like the idea of monopods but given a slim tripod is barely any bulkier or heavier I'll stick with a tripod of any sort over a fancy stick. But first choice would be a sensible tripod for the weight of the camera and the ability to make long exposures if necessary.
I use monopods a lot. Only trouble is that you let go of it to use both hands for something else as you would a tripod.
A tripod is certainly better than monopod, but if you travel and go into museums, historic buildings, and other places, tripods have to be relinquished before entry because users spread the tripod legs and get in the way of other visitors efforts to move about. A monopod often is ignored during entry. As Juan posted, "I’ve been able to get away with using monopods in places tripods are banned."
A collapsible one would be needed, as I'm a bike rider. I like the idea that it could be used as a weapon, assuming you were fending off a squirrel sized foe. The Nikon F4 is more deadly, but I'm done w/ carrying cameras that heavy. I wonder if you could get a monopod that held some brandy or a blade?
Put both feet in with legs splayed for a reverse duo pod.
My problem with a monopods is that they don't really do that much to stop horizontal rotation swing of the lens, and only a little to minimise up and down rotation.
A table monopod is often lighter, smaller and most important better. If you don't have anywhere to rest it, press it (gently) with two legs to your upper rips or clavicula and one on the sternum and you have essentially eliminated high frequency roll in all axis. Shift is much less of a problem, and that is minimal with your upper body anyway.
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps a stainless point at the bottom to fend off animals.
Sounds like a good idea. Perhaps a stainless point at the bottom to fend off animals.
Never bought one. One can fix a string in a long loop to the tripod screw and put the loop end under their foot, stretch it tight [make the loop the correct length to do this] and that will hold the camera steady.
To save the effort of adjusting the string, why not use shock, (bungee), cord instead to apply tension between foot and camera? This will provide tension over a range of shooting angles compared to a fixed length non-stretching piece of string or cord.
I'm currently adopting a monopod as I recover from a smashed-up leg, thankfully abandoning crutches and starting to walk with a stick, and knowing that building up distance is desirable to strengthen the bones. I've had a love/hate relationship with tripods, and despite much helpful advice from forum members in this thread, I couldn't make up my mind which to buy. So while still undecided, I have bought a mid-price (Sirui) monopod which was advertised as suitable to use as a trekking pole. Additionally, I thought it was handy that the shutter button on a Leica is directly above the tripod bush and thus directly above a monopod.
Playing with the 'pod and an empty camera, I noticed that - contrary to my expectation - squeezing the shutter button did cause noticeable movement as seen through the viewfinder. However, triggering the shutter with a cable release was a lot steadier, so that is how I plan to use the 'pod. This (carbon fibre) monopod is light, compact, swift and easy to set up or collapse, and much easier than a tripod to manoeuvre around to frame the shot. I did buy a small ball head too, but feel that in practice it creates unnecessary complication.
I will start another thread with examples later when I have shot some comparison test shots on film.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?