«

I'm not familiar with the photography so I don't know many things
about it. Please allow me to ask the simple basic questions.

I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy. I see
that it'll be much better than just holding the camera with the bare
hands so many media photographers are using it. However, I'm not
pretty sure I can use it without any problem.

Before I purchase one and try it, I would like to ask you if it is
worth for the very novice amateur photographer like myself.

Thanks in advance.

>From: (Healthy Strong)

>Before I purchase one and try it, I would like to ask you if it is
>worth for the very novice amateur photographer like myself.

Extend just one leg on your tripod and see how well you do with it. This will
be similar to using a monopod.

>I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
>doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy.

It's not as steady as a tripod, but more steady that hand-holding, especially
with longer lenses.

There are tricks you can use, like leaning against a wall or letting the
monopod lean back against your chest and bracing the camera against your cheek,
to make it more stable. It's not as good as a tripod but many times it's good
enough.

(Healthy Strong) writes:

> I'm not familiar with the photography so I don't know many things
> about it. Please allow me to ask the simple basic questions.
>
> I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
> doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy.

It's not anywhere near as sturdy as a tripod. Without a monopod, your
hands are both holding up the camera and keeping it still. With the
monopod, the monopod supports the weight of the camera, so all your
hands are doing is keeping it stable.


--
Richard W Kaszeta

http://www.kaszeta.org/rich

On 28 Aug 2003 20:33:29 GMT, dy (Bill Hilton)
wrote:

>>From: (Healthy Strong)
>
>>Before I purchase one and try it, I would like to ask you if it is
>>worth for the very novice amateur photographer like myself.
>
>Extend just one leg on your tripod and see how well you do with it. This will
>be similar to using a monopod.

Almost. Throw the rest of the tripod away so that you don't have the
weight and space to contend with.

In practice, when I just bring the monopod, I frequently wish I had
just lugged the tripod along (I own both). Unless, of course, I bring
the tripod ... then I often wish I had only brought the monopod. You
can't win.

However, on a recent hike, the monopod allowed me to keep a relatively
level pan while shooting a 5-7 shot panorama. The tripod would have
been better (but given I was hiking a very steep trail at 12,000+
feet, extra pounds and stuff to carry were not welcome.) With a quick
release, my monopod doubled as a walking stick -- welcome on this
particular trail.

Without the monopod, I wouldn't have held much hope for the pano.

Since you are new to this, I would say certainly buy a decent tripod
first. Then, if you find you aren't using/bringing it for certain
types of shooting because of size, mass, setup time or other reasons,
then consider adding a monopod to your equipment.

I would imagine the combination of image stabilization and skilled
monopod use could make some very low shutter speeds worth exploring.
I have neither! (IS lenses or good monopod skills!)

Stuart

> I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
> doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy. I see
> that it'll be much better than just holding the camera with the bare
> hands so many media photographers are using it.

You got it all right. Here is something to think about... if you are
going to have to drag around a monopod, why the hell not just bring a
tripod? That's what I do. I can't image ever buying or carrying
around a monopod.

In a case where you don't want to carry anything else around but the
camera, look for a large stick and you have your monopod.

Healthy Strong wrote:
> I'm not familiar with the photography so I don't know many things
> about it. Please allow me to ask the simple basic questions.
>
> I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
> doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy. I see
> that it'll be much better than just holding the camera with the bare
> hands so many media photographers are using it. However, I'm not
> pretty sure I can use it without any problem.
>
> Before I purchase one and try it, I would like to ask you if it is
> worth for the very novice amateur photographer like myself.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Absolutely. Although not as good as a strong tripod, it is far better than
handholding alone, especially with long lenses and/or slow shutter speeds.
With proper technique, it can allow you to shoot at significantly lower
shutter speeds and still obtain a sharp image. Also, there are many places
that will not allow the use of a tripod, but monopods are OK.

Borrow one and shoot a few shots with it, and then shoot a few handheld
only at the same camera settings. Examine the images closely, and you'll
easily see the advantage of using the monopod (assuming you have decent
gear/glass to start with).

<<< Dan >>>

"Douglas Whittaker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> > I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
> > doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy. I see
> > that it'll be much better than just holding the camera with the bare
> > hands so many media photographers are using it.
>
> You got it all right. Here is something to think about... if you are
> going to have to drag around a monopod, why the hell not just bring a
> tripod? That's what I do. I can't image ever buying or carrying
> around a monopod.

I have a very nice monopod manufactured and sold by Adorama. It is
extremely light weight, and collapses small enough to be easily thrown in my
camera bag. I use it both for video and still work. It makes a huge
difference for video, and also for still at slow shutter speeds. I've yet
to find a tripod as compact and lighweight, even including the extremely
expensive carbon fiber sticks.

There are several additional points in its favor. It makes a nifty camera
boom for video work. And, for both video and still, there are many places
that do not allow tripods, but will allow a monopod.


>
> In a case where you don't want to carry anything else around but the
> camera, look for a large stick and you have your monopod.
>
>

"Douglas Whittaker" <> wrote in message
news:...
> You got it all right. Here is something to think about... if you are
> going to have to drag around a monopod, why the hell not just bring a
> tripod? That's what I do. I can't image ever buying or carrying
> around a monopod.
>
> In a case where you don't want to carry anything else around but the
> camera, look for a large stick and you have your monopod.

Douglas, no "large sticks" in places like Disney World Also, a lens
mounted on a monopod is much less bulky when carried on your shoulder or
slung from it for that matter. Have walked over places like Disney for many
hours fairly comfortably with my mono and would not want the experience of
doing the same with any tripod I own - 'course, most of mine have three legs
and are fairly heavy

Shoot'em up, steady, unsteady, falling down, Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and all the
rest will love you for it!!

Jim

A monopod is a compromise between the rigidity of support that a tripod
offers you, and the lack of motion control in a hand-held situation.
Generally speaking, tripods are heavier, take a bit of time to set up, and
can be awkward to carry. A good one giving your camera the best support will
also be expensive, and heavy to carry about (especially after a long walk).
Also, may historical sites and museums prohibit their use. On the other
hand, a good tripod can make the difference between success and failure
when using long lenses or shooting under low light levels.

Monopods give far less control, but are less expensive and more portable.
When combined with other shooting practices, such as pressing the camera
against a wall, it's possible to reduce camera shake to an acceptable level.
It's a substitute to be used when you can't use the best tool for the job (a
tripod). In my case, for example, it often fills the gap between refusing to
lug around another piece of equipment, and pretending that the tremors of
hand-held cameras have nothing to do with my advancing years. All in all, a
good monopod is probably better than a poor tripod--or, to put it another
way, there are many cases where a monopod is better than hand-held.

It also depends on the type of photography that interests you, and what kind
of photographer you might become.

Just my 2¢ worth.

Al W.

"Healthy Strong" <> wrote in message
news: om...
>
>
> I don't get the idea about the monopod. I didn't try it yet, but it
> doesn't look that the monopod is able to hold the camera sturdy. I see
> that it'll be much better than just holding the camera with the bare
> hands so many media photographers are using it. However, I'm not
> pretty sure I can use it without any problem.
>
> Before I purchase one and try it, I would like to ask you if it is
> worth for the very novice amateur photographer like myself.
>
> Thanks in advance.

>Douglas Whittaker wrote:

>Here is something to think about... if you are
>going to have to drag around a monopod, why the hell not just bring a
>tripod? That's what I do. I can't image ever buying or carrying
>around a monopod.
>

You forget the cases where they will not let you in with a tripod but will let
you in with a monopod.
We have a botanical garden in the city with an excellent orchid hothouse.
You cannot bring a tripod and set it up but you can have a monopod. Sports
events are another place where you can bring a monopod but not a tripod.
Like another poster mentioned, on hiking trails a monopod can serve as a cane
and can let you take apicture fast without stopping and setting up.


Rosita