Which Monopod?
Ian B
Your expert opions are sought to help me decide on which type of monopod
would suit my situation best. I have just bought a Finepix S5600 Zoom (10x)
and take photos of my son's Rugby Team. I have thought about getting a
monopod, but there seems to be 2 main types, either with a 'proper' tripod
head, or just a screw fit direct on handle. I am swayed towards the Screw
handle type as I think this is suitable for me moving around a sports pitch
quite easily. I also think the Pan & Tilt Head would be a bit of overkill.
However, I would like your opinions before I buy, I might be missing a trick
somewhere.
Thanks,
Ian
ASAAR
> This reminds me of the 'poor-man's steadycam' project that's been
> floating around for a while: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~johnny/steadycam/>
Neat idea, especially for video, and one of them only costs about
as much as I paid for the monopod. But for a still camera, if I had
to carry that amount of weight I'd rather bring my tripod along.
Eric Miller
A pan & tilt head is overkill for most cameras. The monopod itself will
swivel effortlessly and tilt to some degree. You only need a head the
tilts like the Bogen/Manfrotto 3232 or 3229. 3229 has a quick release,
3232 does not. You can probably get by without it for sports, but you
may still find it useful for shooting from bleachers or other positions
above or below the subject.
However, if you do not have a tripod collar, you may want to consider a
head that will allow you to change your camera from landscape to
portrait orientation. The heads above will allow this, by mounting the
camera perpendicular to the tilt axis, but will not allow tilt at the
same time.
Eric Miller
Ian B
"Eric Miller" <millerno...@bellnospamsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fjPoh.18$b8...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
Thanks for that Eric, hadn't really thought about the orientation problems
that could arise.
Ian
just bob
"Ian B" <ian....@baesystems.com> wrote in message
news:45a3b436$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
Why do you think they need a monopod to shoot sports with a little camera?
I know you are not alone - I see a lot of people with little cameras using
monpods. And while I think they are great for video cameras, I don't
understand what people they think they are gaining using a monopod because
it limits their range of motion to follow the action.
I only use my monopod for sports when I'm using a very large prime lens,
i.e. because the weight is too great. And I never pan with a monopod, i.e.
for motion blur I find I can hand hold and pan with a low shutter speed
better than I can with a monopod.
Chris Gilbert
> I would like your opinions before I buy, I might be missing a trick
> somewhere.
I do a lot of backcountry stuff and I have a Leki Sierra Trek-pod
to which is permanently attached a general purpose quick release
shoe. The camera carries the attachment, obviously. It thus serves
the dual purpose of being a trekking pole and a handy monopod
when a tripod is overkill or too timeconsuming. I agree that a pan/
tilt head is probably overkill, if not contradictory. If I need to spend
time on a compostion that needs pan/tilt I'll hoy out the tripod.
Chris
just bob
"Chris Gilbert" <christopher....@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1xQoh.13999$696....@newsfe7-win.ntli.net...
And I'm going to guess if you were trying to shoot something which was
moving you would not use your monopod at all (or your tripod unless you had
a big Wimberley head or similar)
Chris Gilbert
> And I'm going to guess if you were trying to shoot something which was
> moving you would not use your monopod at all
Correct. Even setting the pod up takes a few seconds and
whatever you're shooting has gone by then. I have IS
specifically for those situations. It works well.
Chris
ASAAR
I use an inexpensive but nicely made Velbon RUP-43 monopod (3
sections, 64.4" fully extended, 20.8" collapsed) which includes a
ball head and it has proven to be more convenient than if it only
had a screw built into the top end. I can sometimes lean it into a
nearby solid object to get better stability, and the ball head makes
it easy to reposition the camera properly even when the monopod
itself is necessarily leaning at an awkward angle. I sometimes keep
the collapsed monopod attached to the camera even when not using it
in the normal manner, since it's extra weight increases stability
even if it's not touching the ground. It might not be a good idea
with a really heavy camera, but at slightly under a pound. it's
quite easy to hold with an even less heavy camera such as the S5600
attached. I use it with Fuji's previous model, the S5100/S5500.
While it can't come close to matching the stability of a decent
tripod, it reduces a lot of the camera shake that a monopod-less
handheld camera would have.
Neil Ellwood
My monopod has a tilting plate that works well. Personally I think that a
pan head is overkill on a monopod.
--
Neil
Reverse 'ra' and delete 'l'.
Neil Ellwood
>> However, if you do not have a tripod collar, you may want to consider a
>> head that will allow you to change your camera from landscape to portrait
>> orientation. The heads above will allow this, by mounting the camera
>> perpendicular to the tilt axis, but will not allow tilt at the same time.
>>
>> Eric Miller
>
> Thanks for that Eric, hadn't really thought about the orientation problems
> that could arise.
>
> Ian
That is no real problem - just change the angle of the camera on the plate.
Paul Mitchum
> [..] I sometimes keep the collapsed monopod attached to the camera even
> when not using it in the normal manner, since it's extra weight increases
> stability even if it's not touching the ground. It might not be a good
> idea with a really heavy camera, but at slightly under a pound. it's quite
> easy to hold with an even less heavy camera such as the S5600 attached. I
> use it with Fuji's previous model, the S5100/S5500. While it can't come
> close to matching the stability of a decent tripod, it reduces a lot of
> the camera shake that a monopod-less handheld camera would have.
This reminds me of the 'poor-man's steadycam' project that's been
just bob
IS (mode 1) or monopod: my point is you use neither if your subject is
moving.
Guy
I've used a Gitzo Monotrek for a couple years to good result. Its a
light duty 'walking stick' type monopod with a small ball head. The
ball head is a real help because often the angle the pod has to be
braced at wouldn't leave the camera pointed in the right direction. If
you want, the ball head can be removed and the camera screwed right to
the pod. -Guy
Ian B
"Guy" <guy.j...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:TeudndEbnv2KBDnY...@comcast.com...
Thanks to everyone for all the replies, has certainly given me some ideas,
and something to think about. Will hopefully try out the camera this
weekend, a test session should let me know if I need a monopod or not. I
think if I do go for one it would have a tilt head (ball & socket).
Thanks again,
Ian
Chris Gilbert
> IS (mode 1) or monopod: my point is you use neither if your subject is
> moving.
IS mode 2. Specifically for moving subjects.
Chris
Bryan Olson
Usually the stock head is screw-mounted, so there's not really much
difference. The kind with the head is simply a package deal, not a
different type of monopod.
I got a super-light tripod that came with a small ball-head. Then I
bought a Gitzo monopod with just a screw. Move the small head to
the monopod, put a better head on the tripod, and all is right
with the world.
--
--Bryan
Skip
news:45a3d616$0$68990$742e...@news.sonic.net...
>
> And I'm going to guess if you were trying to shoot something which was
> moving you would not use your monopod at all (or your tripod unless you
> had a big Wimberley head or similar)
>
Why wouldn't you use a monopod to shoot something moving? That will come as
news to pretty much every sports shooter on the planet.
I'd say these subjects were moving...
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44142570
I'll concede that you'd probably not use a tripod, but not use a monopod?
What do you think is under all those monster lenses at sporting events?
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm
Skip
camera without losing other aspects of its orientation.
I use this one:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=398&A=details&Q=&sku=5491&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
But this one might work just as well:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=398&A=details&Q=&sku=5498&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation
Chris Gilbert
> ... monster ...
Key word
Chris
just bob
"Skip" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Oi6ph.15090$kM1....@newsfe11.phx...
You must have missed my message from earlier in the day
Specifically this quote:
"I only use my monopod for sports when I'm using a very large prime lens,
i.e. because the weight is too great. And I never pan with a monopod, i.e.
for motion blur I find I can hand hold and pan with a low shutter speed
better than I can with a monopod. "
He's not using a big lens - he is using a P&S camera. Therefore he does not
need a monopod for sports, unless his neck strap is hurting him.
Skip
is such an absolute word. "Rarely" I could accept. But, if you're shooting
motorsports, or even a football game, you will, at some point, be panning
just to keep the subject framed. Or you will be taking the camera/lens
combination off of the monopod, just to pan.
I'd agree with the tiny camera part, though. Not enough of a burden to
require a 'pod of any sort.
ASAAR
> I'd agree with the tiny camera part, though. Not enough of a
> burden to require a 'pod of any sort.
That's one way to look at it, but the smallest cameras, due to
their miniscule weight, would take more "shake free" pictures if
some additional mass could be added. A small monopod - even nothing
more than a large bolt would help. Along those lines, the extremely
small, super-lightweight cameras might take better pictures if they
were designed to use NiMH batteries instead of Li-Ion. <g>
Skip
news:f91bq2d1cssnv847c...@4ax.com...
True, I never seem to think of it that way, but I never use a tiny camera
for anything but grab shots.
One thing no one has mentioned is a string pod. Your reference to "a large
bolt" jogged my memory. A bold the size of the tripod thread and a piece of
string. Stand on the string, and tadaaaa, a stabilized camera.
ASAAR
>> That's one way to look at it, but the smallest cameras, due to
>> their miniscule weight, would take more "shake free" pictures if
>> some additional mass could be added. A small monopod - even nothing
>> more than a large bolt would help. Along those lines, the extremely
>> small, super-lightweight cameras might take better pictures if they
>> were designed to use NiMH batteries instead of Li-Ion. <g>
>
> True, I never seem to think of it that way, but I never use a tiny camera
> for anything but grab shots.
> One thing no one has mentioned is a string pod. Your reference to "a large
> bolt" jogged my memory. A bold the size of the tripod thread and a piece of
> string.
Yep, those string things have been mentioned from time to time.
You shouldn't even need a bolt for the tripod socket, just some way
to attach a string to one or two of the camera's eyelets that are
normally used for attaching wrist or neck straps. I wonder what
kind of results you'd get if instead of a string, a bungee cord is
used? <g> Seriously, the first time I read of using this method,
the recommended connector wasn't a string but a lightweight metal
chain, probably because many strings are more elastic than most
people realize.
> Stand on the string, and tadaaaa, a stabilized camera.
And while you're not looking, junior ties your shoelaces and
tadaaaa . . . a destabilized Skip trips! :)
Skip
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:18:44 -0800, Skip wrote:
>
>>> That's one way to look at it, but the smallest cameras, due to
>>> their miniscule weight, would take more "shake free" pictures if
>>> some additional mass could be added. A small monopod - even nothing
>>> more than a large bolt would help. Along those lines, the extremely
>>> small, super-lightweight cameras might take better pictures if they
>>> were designed to use NiMH batteries instead of Li-Ion. <g>
>>
>> True, I never seem to think of it that way, but I never use a tiny camera
>> for anything but grab shots.
>> One thing no one has mentioned is a string pod. Your reference to "a
>> large
>> bolt" jogged my memory. A bold the size of the tripod thread and a piece
>> of
>> string.
>
> Yep, those string things have been mentioned from time to time.
> You shouldn't even need a bolt for the tripod socket, just some way
> to attach a string to one or two of the camera's eyelets that are
> normally used for attaching wrist or neck straps. I wonder what
> kind of results you'd get if instead of a string, a bungee cord is
> used? <g> Seriously, the first time I read of using this method,
> the recommended connector wasn't a string but a lightweight metal
> chain, probably because many strings are more elastic than most
> people realize.
Yeah, I always used Dacron, which, as far as string goes, is pretty
inelastic.
>
>
>> Stand on the string, and tadaaaa, a stabilized camera.
>
> And while you're not looking, junior ties your shoelaces and
> tadaaaa . . . a destabilized Skip trips! :)
Well, there is that, but it's usually something in the way of alcohol that
destabilizes me. And my clients wonder why I don't drink at their
weddings... ;-)
J. F. Cornwall
My photos from a Canon Powershot A80 are better when I put it on my
monopod (extensible hiking staff w/ standard screwhead) than when I
don't use it. Even at just the 3X optical zoom it is a noticable
difference, because I can brace the monopod better than I can brace the
camera alone.
Just because some folks don't care to use one sure doesn't make them
useless...
Jim
ASAAR
> My photos from a Canon Powershot A80 are better when I put it on my
> monopod (extensible hiking staff w/ standard screwhead) than when I
> don't use it. Even at just the 3X optical zoom it is a noticable
> difference, because I can brace the monopod better than I can brace the
> camera alone.
>
> Just because some folks don't care to use one sure doesn't make them
> useless...
I've also noticed that the shapes of my cameras seem to make
bracing them a bit awkward. Near the top of the monopod is a nice
neoprene grip that when used for bracing also helps prevent
slippage. Also, since I don't have a camera with IS or VR, this is
just a conjecture, but it seems as if the added mass of an attached
monopod might even help to slightly increase the effectiveness of IS
by increasing the periods of the highest frequency camera jitters,
making corrections a bit easier to manage. If this is true, I'd
expect that IS would be slightly less effective when used by the
smallest, lightest cameras. Maybe someday review websites will try
to accurately rate the effectiveness of the IS used by different
cameras, but I won't hold my breath. It might require some homemade
computer controlled testing equipment.
just bob
Agreed. But not for *sports*, which normally require higher shutter speed.
just bob
> and something to think about. Will hopefully try out the camera this
> weekend, a test session should let me know if I need a monopod or not. I
> think if I do go for one it would have a tilt head (ball & socket).
>
I hope you understood my point since virtually no one else did. Seems
everyone ignored the fact you said you had a small camera and shooting
sports. To repeat one more time, in my opinion, if you are shooting action,
as you said, with a small Point and shoot camera, a monopod is not going to
make your pictures any better. However, if you are shooting with any
camera, big or small, the subject is *not* moving, and you are going to have
a slow shutter speed, a monopod is a great help.
Good luck to you.
PS. My monopod is a $39 Bogen Manfrotto with no head. I use it for
motorsports with a very big/heavy camera and lens combo.
just bob
> Ok, but I'd still take issue with "And I never pan with a monopod."
> "Never" is such an absolute word. "Rarely" I could accept. But, if
> you're shooting motorsports, or even a football game, you will, at some
> point, be panning just to keep the subject framed. Or you will be taking
> the camera/lens combination off of the monopod, just to pan.
Yes, but the difference is when I shoot action with the big lens on a pod
it's *not* to steady the shot but instead to handle the heavy load of the
heavy camera and lens to save my arms and back. Of course if the subject is
not moving, *then* I can use the pod to steady a slow-shutter shot.