Monopods - any good?

[alanbeeb]

I can't be troubled carrying a tripod about, and setting it up, so I shoot handheld almost all the time.... but as my photographic range increases I recognise that there are shots I can't take handheld due to low light or wanting to use very small aperture and so need some support for.

Is a monopod worthwhile, like how many stops of stabilisation can one provide? or do I really need to go all in on a tripod? thanks

 

[Vinny]

Speaking from the point of using one for a scope, rather than camera, it all depends on what you have to brace against - ideally you need something to provide the two missing legs. Sometimes you can achieve this with your own body and tensioning carrying straps etc., but not always - it obviously depends on light levels and object distance.

 

[DGP]

I've owned and used monopds over the years almost always unsuccessfully. They tend to create an odd directional blur rather than the random shaking that occurs without a support. The only really successful light single legged device I ever found was a chestpod - a short adjustable length monopod with a neck strap attached to one end. That provided the necessary triangulation without two extra legs. I tend to use a bean bag or thick cloth these days though I do have a very neat mini Manfrotto that I religiously carry but rarely use.

As Vinny says using your legs and a wall to get your three points and elbows tucked into your hips works well.

 

[PaulMB]

I have a friend who was a news photographer (including several wars) and he used it a lot. He told me he braced it against the side of cars, trees, lampposts, walls, and could whip it out in a second. From my own experience of hand-held traditional photography, I would think you could gain easily a couple of stops. Depending, of course, on movement of the subject. Taking a portrait with a "normal" lens I imagine you could use 1/8 or even 1/4 second if the subject kept very still.

 

[Cesare]

I think that monopods serve two purposes - firstly, they take the weight of the camera + lens, and so if you are trying to use a telephoto for any extended period, help immensely with fatigue. Second is the reduction in blur from the stabilisation. This would be I would guess a couple of stops.

For a casual shooter wanting to get sharper shots handheld, the first port of call would be an image stabilised lens or body. These will offer you a significant advantage in the order of a few stops, with claims being up to 5 stops or something like that (so take a couple off to be more realistic). I'd tended to have few if any problems shooting image stabilised lenses over the years, but they are expensive.

 

[Derek Wright]

or go for the later Olympus OMD models that include In Body Image stabilisation, currently they claim a 7 stop improvement in shake removal. I have a bad tremor such that I cannot hold a camera still and I get excellent results of up to 1 second exposure, younger healthier users are getting severall seconds exposures.

 

[Tony Lockhart]

Buy a new Canon R5, combine that with a lens with built in image stab, and they reckon you’ve 8 stops for the use of. For most photography a monopod is a hindrance and unnecessary, especially as you’d need to turn IS off!

 

[alanbeeb]

I've no need of a new camera - the nikon z6 that I use and its lenses already have IS... but even then it would still be better to have a stable platform some of time - but I just don't want to lug a tripod around and set it up!

 

[Tony Lockhart]

I've no need of a new camera - the nikon z6 that I use and its lenses already have IS... but even then it would still be better to have a stable platform some of time - but I just don't want to lug a tripod around and set it up!

I suppose we need some examples of the shooting situations that you say you need a mono or tripod for. Lens, shutter speed would be good. I can handhold at 16mm for a second, if I take a few shots and use the best one. With a longer lens or exposure, a tripod with remote release and mirror lock up is the answer.

 

[martin clark]

Try a Manfrotto Pixi tripod. Tiny little thing, but light and rock solid; light/discreet enough I use it sideways handheld off building walls and the like for long interior shots and so on.

Goes brilliantly with my X100, and 30s+ just fine even in windy conditions. those two, and a 10-stop ND filter are my complete rig - yet utterly pocket-able.

 

[andrewd]

I have a Z6 and have never once contemplated using a tripod. If its a bit dark just crank the iso up.
I think the only time monopods make sense are for comfort when shooting sports with a huge lens like 400mm f2.8. You would still be using a high shutter speed to freeze the action, so the only purpose of the monopod is to avoid getting tired arms.

 

[Joe P]

I have a monopod and it’s useful to help steady the camera, so yeah it does as advertised on the tin.

But since I got a Joby Gorillapod it’s been my lightweight support of choice. It’s small, easily adjustable, has gorilla in the name and its legs look like the robot’s in Forbidden Planet.

Joe

 

[Lefty]

I can't be troubled carrying a tripod about, and setting it up, so I shoot handheld almost all the time.... but as my photographic range increases I recognise that there are shots I can't take handheld due to low light or wanting to use very small aperture and so need some support for.

Is a monopod worthwhile, like how many stops of stabilisation can one provide? or do I really need to go all in on a tripod? thanks

Alan,

Am I right in saying you intend to mostly photograph landscapes? If that's the case, I think you'll find a monopod even more cumbersome / restrictive than a tripod. You'll still have to carry it around and while it will be lighter, it doesn't give you anywhere near as much compositional freedom / adjustability as a good tripod.

Consider a scenario in which you want to shoot low to the ground. With a good tripod, you can either remove the centre column, flip the centre column so it's horizontal (as on my Manfrotto) or at the very least, the centre column will be short enough to allow you to get sufficiently close to the ground. With a monopod, you'll have to tilt it forward, while pitching the camera up to get the shot. This is likely to be even less stable than hand holding I'd say. It is also unlikely to allow you to get as close to the ground as a tripod / hand holding. The other consideration is no matter how good the monopod, you won't be able to use it for exposure much longer than 2 seconds I'd have thought. (even that is pushing it).

Whilst I hardly use a tripod these days (I'm happy to ramp the ISO up if needed), I still need it for certain situations and wouldn't be without one. I always take it with me and if I feel I don't need it, I just leave it in the car.

Lefty

 

[Colinb]

I have had a Giottos monopod for years and hardly used it. I also have a couple of manfrotto tripods; a very heavy 144 Bird 2 which is rock solid but rarely gets used as its just too heavy to carry around for very long and a manfrotto 190 Pro More which has a useful centre column that can be used reversed or at right angles and leg positions that allow shots very closeto ground level, so gets used more often. I also have a hide clamp which gets used in bird hides and anywhere that you can clamp it to a rigid surface. I find none of them are really that necessary given that all my lenses have VR anyway. I find I only use any of them for indoor studio work and when I go out specifically to do landscapes or birds using my gimbal head. However, I have just bought a new Kenro carbon tripod which is fairly lightweight and has one leg which unscrews to be used as a monopod. It gets good reviews but I haven't really had the chance to test it yet. If it does the job the rest apart from the hide clamp will be sold.

 

[Rockmeister]

I have a friend who was a news photographer (including several wars) and he used it a lot. He told me he braced it against the side of cars, trees, lampposts, walls, and could whip it out in a second. From my own experience of hand-held traditional photography, I would think you could gain easily a couple of stops. Depending, of course, on movement of the subject. Taking a portrait with a "normal" lens I imagine you could use 1/8 or even 1/4 second if the subject kept very still.

exactly...you brace IT against anything solid, then it's good. I have one I rarely use but light, strong and luggable it is. Top stuff.

 

[canonman]

Buy a new Canon R5, combine that with a lens with built in image stab, and they reckon you’ve 8 stops for the use of. For most photography a monopod is a hindrance and unnecessary, especially as you’d need to turn IS off!

Or the R6. Same amazing IS/ AF but real world mp and a lot cheaper. Both are astonishing performers and one should be in the bag by Xmas.

 

[Hazelberry]

I used a monopod in my film days and agree with JoeP. Extended fully it reached higher than eye level. In this way I’d angle it away from my body and treat it as the front leg of a tripod, with my legs as the other two. It worked well.

I used it twice to defend myself against dog attacks.

In my much younger days I could sometimes get crisp pictures at 1 second, handheld.

Camera body mass is a factor in steadiness. The heavier the better as a rule, as long as the lens is lighter or not too much heavier.

 

[alanbeeb]

I suppose we need some examples of the shooting situations that you say you need a mono or tripod for. Lens, shutter speed would be good. I can handhold at 16mm for a second, if I take a few shots and use the best one. With a longer lens or exposure, a tripod with remote release and mirror lock up is the answer.

So today I was in the hills shooting with a 70-300mm zoom (blame @Lefty !) and just the weight of that lens meant I was struggling to keep it still while standing on uneven ground, quite gusty wind, and at full zoom 300mm I was even struggling to keep it still enough to frame properly. That said - the results I got did not show any signs of camera shake or blur - but it just was a bit tricky to take shots comfortably. I think I'm going to give one a go.

 

[Mr Perceptive]

So today I was in the hills shooting with a 70-300mm zoom (blame @Lefty !) and just the weight of that lens meant I was struggling to keep it still while standing on uneven ground, quite gusty wind, and at full zoom 300mm I was even struggling to keep it still enough to frame properly. That said - the results I got did not show any signs of camera shake or blur - but it just was a bit tricky to take shots comfortably. I think I'm going to give one a go.

Don't think for one moment that gusty wind will keep a large lens/camera combo steady on either a monopod or on an extended lightweight tripod, in conditions like that you need a much more serious tripod. I had movement issues above Llyn Idwal with @Lefty due to gusts of wind (using a GFX50S and a Manfrotto 055 Tripod), it was so bad @Lefty resorted to lying on the ground and using his tripod with no extension.

But since I got a Joby Gorillapod it’s been my lightweight support of choice. It’s small, easily adjustable, has gorilla in the name and its legs look like the robot’s in Forbidden Planet.
Joe

Be careful with Gorillapods, the legs can be folded beyond their elastic limits where the ball pops out of a socket, breaking the leg. This is particularly true if you wrap the legs around railings, etc, don't want expensive camera equipment crashing to the ground! Used within their limitations they are good pieces of kit though.

 

[Rockmeister]

deleted post.