Which Monopod?

"Skip" wrote in message
...
"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote in message
...


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?

You must have missed my message from earlier in the day

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...5c41 0e5d6c13

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.

"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote in message
...

"Skip" wrote in message
...
"just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote in message
...


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?

You must have missed my message from earlier in the day

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.p...5c41 0e5d6c13

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.

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.
I'd agree with the tiny camera part, though. Not enough of a burden to
require a 'pod of any sort.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:57:21 -0800, Skip wrote:

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

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:57:21 -0800, Skip wrote:

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


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.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

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.


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!

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
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... ;-)
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

ASAAR wrote:
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:57:21 -0800, Skip wrote:


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


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

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:08:05 -0600, J. F. Cornwall wrote:

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.

"ASAAR" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:57:21 -0800, Skip wrote:

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

Agreed. But not for *sports*, which normally require higher shutter speed.

"Ian B" wrote in message
...
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).


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.