Shoulder stocks - how well do they work?

I'm interested in people's experience with

shoulder stocks and telephoto lenses. Just

how well do they work? I read an article in

an old Outdoor Photographer which claimed

that they enables one photographer to shoot

a 300/2.8 at 1/60 and still get sharp images.

I think this was some sort of advanced device

though, with a shoulder harness system, not

just a plain "rifle" type shoulder stock.

Yes, shoulder stocks can be used quite well for long telephoto work, however, best results are achieved by using the same technique as a rifleman. I used a home made stock made from 1" mahogony plank fitted with aluminum mounting plates and triggered by a long cable release placed at the usual trigger area found on a rifle. I made it to fit my own body dimensions. With my sheek against the cheek rest on the comb of this stock. my eye was directly placed at the camera's finder. This was a Nikon "F" fitted with a 300mm lens. Using this arrangement is quite like shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight. One should take a breath, let half of it out, stop breating, observe pulse beat in the "scope" and "fire" on the diastolic heart stroke. If one practices this, yes, you can expect to shoot a 300mm lens down to 1/60 sec. and get quite sharp results. The results depends on the skill of the "shooter" All parameters are same as rifle marksmanship. Breathing, pulse, and let-off. One must practice so that the instant of triggering does not move the camera. The exact moment of let-off has to be accurate as well as avoiding movement in the stock. As a long time pistol/rifle shooter, I found it a successful venture in many instances, however, nothing beats a rugged tripod for this kind of work.

Russ. Hamilton (Old timer. Formerly of the Phila. Bulletin, TIME Magazine and Cornell U.) rch6@cornell.edu

I agree with the above using the stock as one would a rifle/shotgun. I found it most useful in shooting (camera type)stooping peregrine falcons. I worked with the Peregrine recovery project in Minnesota. Part of this was getting blood samples and banding the chicks. One of the power companies donated a number of smokestacks for at various coal burning plants as nest sites. As peregrines are cliff breeders this worked out very well. Using a 300/2.8 with 1.4 multiplier and all mounted on the shoulder stock gave me images I could not have gotten otherwise. The smokestacks vary in height from 700 to 800 ft. There are diamond grate catwalks at various heights. Diamond grate is the stuff that looks like chainlink fence. Standing on it is looking straight down at the ground SCARY at 600ft. A tripod would not have worked as the birds are moving too fast to track well but with the shoulder stock no problem. Peregrine falcons are very possessive about their cliffs and chase anything that comes near their chicks. They do not chase at the same speeds they would when hunting. Good thing as I have tried to shoot them diving on prey. I have not yet found a good way to do that. So bottom line, yes there are times when a shoulder stock is useful. Would I have bought one if I did not have this opportunity, I don�t know. I have the Rue Harry Bonner version. Shooting at 1/60 and sharp can't say. At .250th yes, the stock is well supported at the top at the top of the shoulder and does lock in well by pulling back into the shoulder. But as I used to shoot skeet competitively I may have some advantage over someone who does not have that background.

I've used two shoulder stocks: the one supplied with the Novoflex lens system, and the Leica shoulder stock normally supplied with the Leica 400 f/6.8 but also usable on other long lenses. If I'm photographing an active subject that requires a hand-held camera they're the only way to go!

 

<p>

 

I've found that 1/60 is the slow-speed limit for a 400mm lens, or 1/125 for a 560. I normally use the Leica 400 with its shoulder stock and have been delighted with the combination.

I use my home-made shoulder stock with my 300/2.8, sometimes with the 1.4x converter, quite frequently. Most recently yesterday, out on a 65 ft boat in 6 ft swells - tripods and diesels don't mix, IMO. The shoulder stock is also much quicker for getting on stuff which might be on the bow, or the starboard quarter, or directly astern, or all three in rapid succession. Quarters are generally tight and you can't just pan in place when things like the wheelhouse, other passengers, the cabin, etc get in the way so it's almost a necessity to handhold in some manner. Plus you're bouncing around and ducking random big swells that break over the boat and stuff.

 

<p>

 

You can see an example of a black-footed albatross taken underway with diesel blasting (on an earlier trip, a 42 footer with swells 8+ ft) with my shoulder stock at http://donb.photo.net/photo_cd/d/b17.html.

It will give you an idea, at least, of how well this technique works.

 

<p>

 

1/60th of a second, though? Not by my standards of sharpness, I think. I go for the 1/focal-length rule normally, with the stock just making it a lot easier to use the lens and letting me fudge a bit, perhaps. But not down to 1/60th! Maybe 1/200 or something...

 

<p>

 

Brian Wheeler, well-known for his photographs of raptors in flight, eschews use of a shoulder stock altogether, just handholding his Canon 2.8 + 1.4x. However, he's built on a bigger, more rugged frame than I and I find the shoulder stock makes doing this kind of shooting much easier for me.

 

<p>

 

My stock is a variation of the stock modeled by John Shaw in his book (the one with the egret on the cover).

For those of us not talented (or mechanically adept) enough to make

our own shoulder stocks, what do you recommend in terms of purchasing

a shoulder stock? I've recently tried out Kirk's shoulder stock but

find that the actual shoulder part is horribly uncomfortable and digs

into the underarm. Reading over some of the other posts, it seems

that a lot are using and liking Leica?

I have been trying out the BushHawk shoulder mount. It is very light weight and has several adjustments to make it adaptable. The mounting screw clearly is not enough to handle a 400mm lens and a camera, however, so I added a Manfrotto hexagonal QR plate adapter. Overall, it appears to be quite a well-designed piece of equipment for only $69.00

I have used an Ocean Instruments Bushhawk for 8-9 years, with a Pentax 300F4 w/ and w/o a 1.4 teleconverter. The stock has worked flawlessly. Since the camera is the only support point, I mounted a small metal strip with a rubber bumper on the front and back edges of the camera mounting plate to eliminate camera/lens rotation. For the money, it is quite a bargain. At equivalent 420, I routinely shoot at 1/125, with 15X loupe sharpness. It is obviously ideal for birds in flight or animals on the move, but is also very good for stationary targets.