Getting some extra shutter time with a monopod

Maybe this is old hat. I dunno. But I strung a long loop of rope from the top of a monopod down to the ground to form a rough triangle. Apex at the top of the monopod, and the two base corners being spread out and stepped on by my feet. Then I pushed the monopod forward so as to create tension on the rope, and compression on the monopod. Edit: I forgot to mention that the base of the rope was rearward of the point of the monopod (therefore, another rough triangle demarcated on the ground).

Without the rope, I was able to get a relatively sharp shot at 1/15 second. With the rope, I got it down to 1/8 second.

Not very scientific, since I only did one trial with each method (but with several shots in each from at least 1 second down to 1/30 second.

The initial image is without the rope. It also compares the same vantage point made months earlier with a tripod.

And here's the result with the rope.

Even better using the ten second timer, instead of having my finger press the shutter. Somewhat anomalous results (to be expected) with the one second and half second turning out sharper than the quarter second. However, I can guarantee that I'd never be able to get a reasonably sharp one second shot with just the monopod without the rope.

Hmm. Presumably, if that works (and you don't mind tension on your tripod mount), it should be possible to make a "spreader" that you can stand on, then use three pieces of light inextensible string (of the kind my maths teacher used to use when tethering elephants in Newtonian mechanics, but more practically fishing line) to form a tripod. I've heard of using a single tensioned string as a cheap monopod (which still leaves you open to rotating around the base, and is less stable than an actual monopod because your legs aren't spread), but not so much as an actual tripod. You'd need a fair spread (and upward force) to give you decent rigidity, but that feels like a solvable problem, and you presumably wouldn't need as much as the height of a typical tripod.

Then you'd still have the problem of the camera rotating, rather than just shifting (which is usually a bigger problem). But if you could separately tether both the lens foot and the camera base to the same spreader, you might be able to fix this as well. Or have an extended camera foot, if the lens doesn't have one.

I'm now vaguely tempted to try this, although it's going to be a long time before I get to it. I've always thought someone should put a pull-cord gyroscopic stabiliser on a monopod. (You can get powered ones, but they're expensive for what could be a couple of lead yoyos.)

A monopod minimizes vertical translation and tilt, but leaves yaw, lateral translation and axial translation. A string only reduces vertical translation. Since camera shake is random in all directions, the effectiveness of either is questionable. The best use of a monopod is to support a heavy lens, as for sports photography. For normal distances (e.g., 10xF) translation motion can largely be ignored, but tilt and yaw remain significant.

The right monopod might serve other uses, if constructed and used properly (q.v., Cane-Fu). Mine are made of 18 layers of carbon fiber or hickory.

FWIW, here's a "commercial" stabilizer from before some of us were born

Modern Photography 1979-06

Hmm. Presumably, if that works (and you don't mind tension on your tripod mount), it should be possible to make a "spreader" that you can stand on, then use three pieces of light inextensible string (of the kind my maths teacher used to use when tethering elephants in Newtonian mechanics, but more practically fishing line) to form a tripod. I've heard of using a single tensioned string as a cheap monopod (which still leaves you open to rotating around the base, and is less stable than an actual monopod because your legs aren't spread), but not so much as an actual tripod. You'd need a fair spread (and upward force) to give you decent rigidity, but that feels like a solvable problem, and you presumably wouldn't need as much as the height of a typical tripod.

 

Then you'd still have the problem of the camera rotating, rather than just shifting (which is usually a bigger problem). But if you could separately tether both the lens foot and the camera base to the same spreader, you might be able to fix this as well. Or have an extended camera foot, if the lens doesn't have one.

 

I'm now vaguely tempted to try this, although it's going to be a long time before I get to it. I've always thought someone should put a pull-cord gyroscopic stabiliser on a monopod. (You can get powered ones, but they're expensive for what could be a couple of lead yoyos.)

I just thought I'd say: oh look. I'm assuming that's convergent evolution rather than anyone patenting an idea that's been publicly disclosed on a forum. (To be fair, it's not like tents don't work on this principle - and they have a pole, whereas I was just suggesting that the photographer pull against the cables.)

I would have guessed there was some benefit, but you have to carry it around (not difficult), set it up, and faf about getting the length correct etc. Marginal increase over a monopod, so you could 'do a Rockwell' and increase ISO marginally to get the same effect, even if there is one.

I assume your' Skills for Simple Living' didn't come to much as you are onto 'Life on the Brink!'

I do admit that, though I have some gorillapods of varying sizes, I relatively rarely use them for camera support. They're not all that stable, but mostly I find an inconvenient lack of trees or other support structures where I want to put the camera. I've rarely used bean bag "pods" for the same reason, though I have a couple.

On the other hand, even a very flimsy tripod like a Tamrac ZipShot or a Velbon VTP-787 will sometimes just about hold a big dSLR, if you use mirror lock up and shield from the wind. I've kept the camera strap around my neck when doing so just in case of collapse, though.

I failed to work out why I couldn't activate my D850's video electronic VR on a recent trip (focus peaking was on, even though it doesn't do anything unless the camera is in manual focus mode, which it wasn't), and resorted to a (for once) convenient tree trunk to lean on. A tripod would have been better, but I barely survived the walk with the amount of stuff I was already carrying. Perhaps there's a market for a tripod stabilised by water reservoirs integrated into its legs. (If that turns up on kickstarter I'll know someone's watching.)

Anyway: IBIS good (although not much help for framing if you have a dSLR - has anyone ever tried to stabilise the mirror?), lens stabilisation also good, support good, high ISO good, fast lenses good. Combination, better.

Hmm. Presumably, if that works (and you don't mind tension on your tripod mount), it should be possible to make a "spreader" that you can stand on, then use three pieces of light inextensible string (of the kind my maths teacher used to use when tethering elephants in Newtonian mechanics, but more practically fishing line) to form a tripod.

 

(snip)

 

Then you'd still have the problem of the camera rotating, rather than just shifting (which is usually a bigger problem). But if you could separately tether both the lens foot and the camera base to the same spreader, you might be able to fix this as well. Or have an extended camera foot, if the lens doesn't have one.

(snip)

A triangle such that the three strings or chains don't all attach at one point would give some damping on rotation.

When I am out without a tripod, or one isn't allowed, I find something to lean on, or to lean the camera against.

I was recently at Butchart Gardens at night, and found some things to lean against, though not so many as I might have liked.

I am not sure what I leaned against here, but it is 1/2 second at ISO 3200 with a D700 and zoom lens at 28mm f/3.5

No tripod, monopod, chain, or string.