Monopod - worth it?

[mark_beaumont]

<p>I'm wondering in real terms how much you can actually gain from using a monopod. Maybe it's not quantifiable, but would you say you could halve you shutter speed by using one?</p>

[mwtphoto]

<p>I am not sure if you can half your shutter speed but it certainly makes for better IQ with slow shutter speed shots. The monopod can also give your arms a rest on long shoots like at a rugby game etc. A tripod is definitely better to stablize the camera and cut your shutter speed by half but in the times where portability is more important than a monopod is beneficial. I use mine as a walking stick while hiking.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I have a really cheap Manfrotto modo monopod that comes in handy for me. I use it mostly for video or with more tele lenses. I am sure I can get something more stable but this one is really compact. </p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I've never quantified it, either. But I'd be surprised if it weren't worth at least one stop. It's also pretty much cumulative with an image stabilized lens: you can get sharp pictures at lower shutter speeds using both IS and a monopod than you can with either one alone.</p>

 

<p>As also pointed out above, if your equipment is heavy and/or you're shooting for a long time, a monopod is great, because now you only need your arms to point the lens in the right direction while the monopod carries the weight.</p>

 

<p>Tripods, of course, have advantages that monopods don't. They keep the camera much more stable, can maintain precise framing, and don't fall over if you take your hands off them. But it's usually quicker to set up and tear down a monopod, is almost always much quicker to adjust where it's pointing, and if floor/ground space is at a premium, it may be easier to find enough room for a monopod than for a tripod.</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>For me, a monopod is absolutely worth it. I hike a lot, sometimes in dim foresty areas. When I combine a monopod and leaning against a tree, I can buy myself 2-3 stops no problem. I regularly shoot at 1/15 and 1/30, even with longer lenses (100-200 equivalent).</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>Look at it this way . You are carrying a four pound camera and perhaps a three pound telephoto lens. It gets to feel like a barbell set after a while in the field. So your hands are getting quivery and less steady. Any support gets the weight off the arms and allows more precise aim and control. Wouldn't be without it in the arsenal- of which a tripod is essential support too in many situations. Best part, the price is low enough to just give it a try and see if it works for you. Even at what would be a comfy f stop and a reasonable shutter speed combo for the gear you want the most solid low movement possible and that little extra margin of stability. That seems to add up enough to make it worth trying and what else is there to say. I guess Steve Dunn covered those points, so I just want to second what he wrote.</p>

[famico]

<p>It's definitely worth it to me. Like Michael Howard, I hike with my camera. I was never the steadiest holding a camera anyway, so the monopod really helps me.</p>

[jmck]

<p> I have and use both a Monopod and a tripod, the only problem I have had was that i got a monopod off of E bay and it was to short for me (I am 6'1") so I ended up with a walking stick or a monopod to use when sitting only, i replaced it with a longer one and use it as much or more then the tripod.</p>