Related Links:
Camera Support Selection
How To Use A Monopod
How to Use a Monopod
Monopod Discussion at Photo.Net [12/2000]
Beanpods (U.K.) [3/2001]
Beanbad Tips [4/2002]

I admit to being a fan of monopods. Monopods are light weight, lower cost (vs. similar tripods), and much easier to carry around. Put a quick release base on your camera, and you can pop your monopod/ball on and off for that marginal shot. Speed of setup and use is another plus of many monopods too.

Monopods aren't a complete substitute for a good tripod. You can't take sharp shots beyond about 1/15th second for most users. Still, the monopod opens up 3 or 4 stops worth of shooting territory for most telephoto lens users. Considering the huge cost of even a 1-stop faster tele-lens (a 300mm f/2.8 telephoto vs. a 300mm f/4 telephoto, say), and you can see why monopods offer a cost effective option.

A few tripods offer the option of removing a leg (or a fourth leg) which can be used as a stand-alone monopod (or integral extension arm/leg).

Finally, monopods have some hidden uses. You can use one as a walking stick for those really long, uphill hikes. They can hold up a tarp or raincape in a sudden downpour. Thieves are less likely to attack someone carrying a sharply pointed stick, er, monopod.

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How Do You Use A Monopod?
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 12:37:50 GMT

Think of the monopod as one leg of a tripod, and your two legs as the others. You can hold your camera in a steady, vibration free, way if you lean into the monopod, and have it leaning toward you, just like a tripod. Practice it a bit and you will see. I had used monopods wrong (straight up) for years until I was shown the proper technique by a company which makes them.

I don't know which head that is, so no help on verticals. I use the Manfrotto rubber head on my Gitzo monopod.

Bob Shell

>
> I just bought a Bogen Monopod (3016) and have 2 questions.
>
> What techniques do you recommend to keep it as steady as possible?
>
> Also, I bought it with a quick release swivel tilt head (3229). It  states it
> allows up and down movement( which is no problem ) and vertical set  ups. I
> don't understand how to do a vertical. Do they just want you to loosen the
> screw on the quick release and rotate the camera or is there a simple  way I'm
> missing?
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> [email protected]
>

From: [email protected] (Karl Snyder)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How Do You Use A Monopod?
Date: Sat, 08 Aug 1998 23:00:02 GMT

Hi, Yes, it is that simple--"loosen the screw on the quick release and rotate the camera". Things to keep in mind when using a monopod:

1> Keep the other end firmly planted on the ground (a good solid surface) --obvious, but sometimes needs to be said,

2> Use the "loosen the screw" thing to get the monopod to stand as straight up as possible--this is why we do not screw the camera directly onto the end of the stick,

3> If working in low light and/or with a long lens, try to also brace yourself against an object such as a large rock, poll, sign, building or other object for additional support,

4> You may also want to consider using a remote release--it may cut down on camera movement, and

5> Practice good breathing and shutter release techniques to prevent camera movement--as you would if you were hand holding.

For other who read this and have a tripod and do not have a monopod and would like to try one--let only one leg on you tripod down and you have a poor man's monopod. Also, good if you do not have time to set up the tripod to get the killer shot!

Karl S.

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How Do You Use A Monopod?
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 1998 18:47:59 GMT

> How long can I expose for like this?
>
> It seems a good rule-of-thumb for handholding is that the shutter can
> be as slow as 1/(lens focal length). The fastest a 50mm lens can be
> handheld is 1/50th of a second, for example.
>
> How about with a monopod? Is there a general rule-of-thumb I can use
> with it? I know I can't do a 30 sec exposure like with a tripod, but
> I'd obviously expect better than hand-held speeds.
>
> Dan
>

I know of no rule of thumb. I suppose it varies from person to person. I have shot at 1/15 second with a 100 - 300 zoom at the 300 mm end and gotten needle sharp results. It takes practice, though.

Bob

rec.photo.technique.misc
From: [email protected] (D.Grabowski)
[1] Re: recommended handheld shutter speed for MF?
Date: Sat Oct 31 06:39:25 CST 1998

On 31 Oct 1998 01:13:39 -0600, [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>Hi - lots of folks use the 1/shutter speed for both 35mm and med fmt
>
>I recommend going one stop more conservative for both formats if in doubt
>
>the best answer is to setup a tripod and take your lens(es) out and shoot
>at a series of speeds, two or three slower and faster than the 1/shutter
>speed, then shoot on the tripod, and compare. Don't do this on a windy day!
>
>you quickly reach the conclusion that dang, I better use a tripod ;-) !
>                                                                      
>camera holding is somewhat personal, and varys, so you have to experiment.
>
>on the other hand, you may repeat the above test, using a monopod, and
>discover that you can get another couple of stops worth of slower shutter
>speed using the monopod for the same results as handheld. I find monopods
>much lighter (under a pound or two with ball-head) and fast to use. They
>also make handy walking sticks, and help deter camera theft (mine has a
>big old metal spike in it I display prominently ;-)
>
>regards bobm
>--
>* Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 

My stepson has adopted the monopod as if to be an extension to his body. He uses it for nearly all shooting except for very low light with longer exposures. He also uses it as a walking stick for trails and support when flyfishing! He shoots mostly medium format with it and some 35mm. It shows an improvement over hand holding for sure.

On the other hand, I use a tripod for all cridical exposures or exposures of 1/30 sec. or slower and hand hold for the rest. I have a personal rule that I will not hand hold for an exposure of less than 1/60 second( prefer 1/125 or faster) with short tele to wide lenses and try not to hand hold any long lens if at all possible. I don't get all hung up on focal length - film speed factors. FWIW and I'm sure it's for multiple reasons , I have found the 6x6 TLR's I own to be more forgiving than 35mm. in this regard.

David Grabowski

From Hasselblad Digest:
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 1998
From: Waldo Berry [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad Hand Shooting

On your question of hand hold speed. I have held mine al the way down to 15. I would really practice not breathing when you release the shutter if you do this. The safest is of course 60, but I mostly do 30 to 60 as my lows. One great way to help and still have a sense of hand held is to get a monopode. O carry one around all the time for low lights and shots in the 15-30 speed range. You can even get a belt pouch that lets you insert the monopode and shot the camera using your body as the platform. The trick in hand held is to have the three opposing directions of force. You also need a prism viewfinder to shoot at these lower speeds handhold. Your right hand in the strap is force one, your head and face on the eyecup is two and your left hand makes three. If you add a monopode you get to eliminate one and add more force to prevent side to side and forward and back motion.

Waldo Berry

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Johan Prins" [email protected]
[1] monopod
Date: Tue Nov 17 06:12:23 CST 1998

A tripod is to bulky for me to carry. Now there is on B&H's site the Cullman 4-Section Deluxe Monopod (1747) http://www.bhphotovideo.com/photo/support/cullman/monopod.html It has built-in tri-support legs so I imagine you could use it as a tripod on a windless day. Does anyone own/used this item and can tell me his/her experiences with it?

Sincerely yours

Johan Prins

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Yeti Man)
[1] Re: Monopods
Date: Sun Nov 29 21:45:51 CST 1998

I have two Bogen monopods, a 3216 (3 section, one pound) which I bought first, and is light weight, and a 3218 that I bought afterwards.

I found that when using an eos-1 and 300 f4 with teleconverter, the 3216 flexed some.

I then got the 3218, which is also 3 sections, and more rigid (though almost twice as heavy, its still pretty light compared to a tripod).

I like the Gitzo monopods _a lot_. I thought the 4 section Gitzo's were at least as rigid as the 3 section Bogens. I found the 4 section Bogens much less rigid when loaded then the 3 section models.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Harry Lockwood)
[1] Re: Monopods
Date: Mon Nov 30 16:42:36 CST 1998

(Tom Sapiano) wrote:

>  I am looking into getting a monopod.  I am going to use it for sports
>photography with an Nikon F5 body.  I am currently using a 300f4.o, but I
>intend to buy an AFS 400f2.8 sometime next year.  What tripod would be
>best for this type of environment.
>
>Any help would be appreciated,
> Thomas Sapiano,
>  [email protected]
>  [email protected]
>--
>Thomas M. Sapiano
> [email protected]    
> [email protected]    

I just bought a Cullmann CT 304 monopod. It has a very smooth quick release (leg) that I found far superior to the QR Bogen, and it's built like a tank. I also bought the Cullmann ball head with pan motion. Cullmann has a "system" that lets you mix and match various components for heads, tripods and monopods. I'm using the stroboframe QR with the Cullman.

I haven't had the chance to use the combination extensivley yet, but I believe it will do the job well. Look at the Cullmann stuff before you make a decision.

HFL

--
Harry F. Lockwood
[email protected]

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Merlin11)
[1] Re: Monopods
Date: Tue Dec 01 20:46:50 CST 1998

well, i went through a couple of the Bogen monopods, then finally encounted the Gitzo G1564. I have an F5, and use it for my 300/f4, and even my 500/f4. it's sturdy, and travels easily. I use it as my walking stick on mountain hikes, then as the monopod when shooting.

Also, if you have an arca QR system, you can get the little bogen swivel head (about $10 or $12) for the top of the monopod, and then get a QR plate adapter from either Kirk or RRS, and be able to use the arca QR system on the monopod w/o having to put a ballhead on it.

Cliff

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Rob Dupcak)
[1] Bogen Monopods
Date: Wed Dec 02 11:56:53 CST 1998

Hi,

I'm considerring getting a monopod and am having a difficult time deciding upon what model to get... My first major use of it will be on a safari trip to Botswana/Zimbabwe. The heaviest thing that will go on it is a Nikon N70 with an 80-200/2.8. I'm concerned about stability, weight and to a certain extent minimum height (for packing reasons).

Can anyone lend some insight on monopods in general given the following items...

Bogen

3006 (4 section, light weight) - doesn't come in black, will it be too unstable?

3216 (3 section, light weight) - longer minimum height, will it be too unstable?

3218 (3 section, "professional") - heavier and longer

3249B (4 section) - heavier, but are 4 sections generally that much more unstable?

I'm trying to save weight (but not at the cost of stability) since there is a 12kg limit on the local air transfers (Does anyone know if they are really strict about those things?)

Thanks for any insights,
Rob

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Dave Martindale)
[1] Re: Bogen Monopods
Date: Wed Dec 02 21:36:01 CST 1998

Unless you absolutely need the shorter collapsed length of a 4-section monopod, buy a 3-section one instead. All other things being the same (construction quality, tube diameter), a 4-section monopod will be:

- less rigid

- heavier

- slower to set up and take down

- more expensive

than a 3-section one.

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ray Paseur" [email protected]
[1] Using a Chain as a Monopod
Date: Sat Dec 05 18:36:18 CST 1998

I've heard of a technique for camera stabilization that uses a long chain attached to the tripod mount. You drop the chain to the floor, stand on the end and pull the camera up taut.

Does anybody out there use this technique? What are your impressions of its efficacy versus a monopod or tripod?

It seems like it would be useful in situations where tripod photography was not permitted - assuming it works!

Thanks and regards to all,

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Rod Nabholz [email protected]
[1] Re: More Monopod Questions
Date: Mon Jan 04 07:18:17 CST 1999

KT0911 wrote:

> On monopod, you only need a tilting head which tilts one way.  Use it  to tilt
> the camera forward or backward.  Any other head which tilts all kind of
> direction would be a pain, and defeat the purpose of monopod.  Bogen  and other
> mfrs offer heads specifically for monopod.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ken

I have to disagree, this assumes that you will never take a vertical shot.

Additionally, this single axis type head severely limits your options with regard to the position of the monopod. I find many occasions in which the most stable position for the monopod/my body/and camera is something different than with the monopod in a perfectly vertical position.

A small ball head allows the flexibility to position the camera in an infinite number of positions and I find that it is invaluable in using a monopod to it's best advantage and stability

Rod

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
[1] Re: More Monopod Questions
Date: Mon Jan 04 08:55:33 CST 1999

I use a ball head on my monopod, and wouldn't want to go back to a single-axis head. There are too many times hiking or cycling when the added adjustment of a ball head helps make up for awkward positioning.

It's not a good enough head that I'd want it on my good tripod, but on my monopod I use a Bogen 3055S, their single-action large ball head with the same hexagonal quick release plates as their larger tripod heads. That way I can leave the same plates on all my cameras regardless of what I'm holding them with.

--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Steve [email protected]
[1] Re: Advice on Monopod
Date: Sun Jan 10 09:52:01 CST 1999

Kevin Miller wrote:

> Can anybody give a recommendation on a monopod and head. I like the "Bogen"
> but have never used a monopod and not sure which model and with which head
> would
> work best.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin

I have two favorites:

1. I took a piece of conduit, beat one end flat, drilled a hole, bent the flat end 90 degrees,screwed a 1/4-20 knurled bolt in the hole. Cost: $3

2. I found a mop handle with a 1/4-20 bolt already mounted in one end. I screwed a knurled flat piece of aluminum (looks like a fat washer with a threaded hole and a knurled edge). I screw the bolt onto the camera, then run-up the fat washer to secure the camera. I also drilled a hole in the opposite end, screwed a large lag-bolt into it, then filed it into a spike. It now doubles as a walking stick and monopod. Cost: $5

Steve

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Bill Schaffel [email protected]
[1] Re: Advice on Monopod
Date: Sun Jan 10 13:30:03 CST 1999

I have a Cullmann Magic 2 tripod. One leg of the tripod unscrews and mates with the removable center column to form a monopod with a mini-ball mount. You can also unscrew the leg and use the rest for a bipod; not sure there is any advantage but it points out the units flexibility. The Magic 2 weighs about 3lbs with the head and folds up into a rectangle of 16x5x1.5. The head mounts on a 1/4-20 screw. If you want to put a Bogen head on it, Bogen has an adapter to mount a 3/8 head on a 1/4-20 mount. This is a light tripod/bipod/monopod that has a max height of around 5ft but, its versitility make some of the shortcomings acceptable.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Dragonfly" [email protected]
[1] Re: Monopod vs. Tripod ?
Date: Fri Jan 15 13:55:50 CST 1999

A monopod can actually NOT be compared with a tripod. The mono will allow you to shoot things up to 1/2 sec (if you are VERY careful), of course also depending of focus length, etc.

However, I found that I get more good shots with the mono because:

(1) I have it more often with me than a bulky tripod

(2) allows me to shoot more intime scenes where a flash would not be adequate (both technically or psychologically)

(3) is fast to rig up, so I don't have the zoo of staring people around me while I rig up the tripod,

(4) gives me better quality shots (less motion blurr) when I leave it on the camera in "regular" situations. This is quite an improvement that I did not expect.

(5) consequentially allows me to use slower films and get more resolution

(6) is useful for all sorts of things like a hiking stick or for self defense when in transit between picture locations. But a mono is NOT the tool for close-ups and night shots. That's the world of a real good tripod.

Suggestion: Buy the best and longest monopod that you can get your hands on. And: Don't let the people talk you into buying ball heads and other accessories. You don't need it for 95% of the situations and these things are heavy, thus unpractical when travelling.

have fun.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Meghan Noecker)
[1] Re: Monopod vs. Tripod ?
Date: Fri Jan 15 02:31:04 CST 1999

On 15 Jan 1999 19:55:50 GMT, "Dragonfly" [email protected] wrote:

>Suggestion: Buy the best and longest monopod that you can get your hands
>on. And: Don't let the people talk you into buying ball heads and other
>accessories. You don't need it for 95% of the situations and these things
>are heavy, thus unpractical when travelling.
>
>have fun.

I found that with my longer lenses (35mm so 300mm lens), the camera would fall forward unless I kept the head locked. So with a ball head, I had a really hard time trying to get the camera aimed properly because it was so front heavy. I finally removed the ball head and just have a quick release adapter. No head at all on my monopod. I lean if I need to aim up or down. That's the only way for me to keep it sturdy.

I suppose the head would be okay for shorter lenses, but it's just as easy to get an adapter so that you can hike to where you want, and just snap the camera into place.

Meghan
Friesians in the Northwest
www.zoocrewphoto.com/friesian.htm

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael K. Davis" [email protected]
[1] Re: When you can't you use a Monopod...
Date: Wed Feb 10 13:08:19 CST 1999

Hi!

Robert Nicholson [email protected] wrote:

: If you're using shutter speeds say less than 1/30 of a second
: and you're not trying to convey motion or do long exposures
: can a monopod be effective or as effective as a tripod?

For the 35mm format, a monopod will only allow you to cut your shutter speed in half, or at most, to one quarter the speed you would use following the conventional advice for handheld shooting. So, for handheld shots, where your shutter speed should be equal to or faster than 1/n where n is the ASA, you wouldn't want to make an exposure any longer than four times this, using a monopod.

A monopod arrests linear motions parallel to the Z-axis, but because the monopod can be leaned in any direction, it only parially cancels the rotational motions of pitch and roll and does next to nothing to cancel yaw motions (rotation about the Z-axis). The only thing resisting yaw (panning) motions, is the friction afforded by the foot of the monopod against the surface it's standing on. In fact, I have always been quite annoyed by the way forces applied at vectors other than yaw, can be redirected into unwanted panning oscillations. In otherwords, it has been my observation that any little twitch or hand adjustment, applied at any angle to the camera your holding, is at least in part translated into a tiny panning motion. A monopod mounted camera almost has a greater tendancy to pan than if you were simply handholding it.

I never give myself more than double the exposure I would make handheld. That's how useful/useless monopods are to me. Shooting sports, with a long lens, with an intent to do panning, I think I would go to +2 or even +3 stops over what I would attempt handheld.

By the way, the larger the format, the less magnification there will be to a given print size, so a 6x7 can be shot handheld at 1/2 of 1/n where n is the ASA. The greater mass and associated increase in inertia, makes the heavier medium format cameras that much more stable for handholding, too. Thus a monopod mounted 6x7 would conservatively allow one more stop exposure beyond 1/2 of 1/ASA.

When you consider the tremendous improvement in image quality had with a stable tripod, a monopod gives you very little bang for your buck and very little bang for the weight savings.

Find a comfortable way to carry your Bogen 3021 with Arca-Swiss B1 ballhead with a quick-release clamp (or a Bogen 3028 panhead) and don't take the camera anywhere without it. Get quick-release plates from Really Right Stuff (see http://reallyrightstuff.com/ ). Use mirror lockup for so-equipped SLR's and a very flexible locking cable release that's at least 24 inches long. Carry a couple of plastic grocery bags to fill with rocks or sand and hang from the tripod's apex for extra stability. Don't extend the center column. Stand upwind of your camera during long expsoures, if you can, when you suspect any possibility of wind-induced camera motion.

Mike Davis

--
/---------------------\
Michael K. Davis
[email protected]

[Ed. Note: Errata to above:]

: I'm sorry, this just doesn't make sense.  I had always been taught that the
: lowest handholdable shutter speed for any given lens was approximately 1/n,
: where n is the focal length of the lens, not the ASA of the film used.

Your are absolutely correct. Thanks for catching it. I got ASA in my head and it stuck through the whole article, but yes, it's definitely 1/f where f is the focal length. Sorry about that.

My post had some other errors as well, that I've caught in reading it -- shame on me! In several places I suggest that the monopod can extend the exposure times by two stops, but I then say that this would modify the formula for determining how slow a shutter speed we can use as follows: 1/2 of the handheld speed. Obviously, I should have been saying TWICE the handheld speed.

I hope other readers take in the whole thread, to get these corrections. I got up on the wrong side of the bed!

Mike

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Tom)
[1] Re: When you can't you use a Monopod...
Date: Wed Feb 10 23:19:55 CST 1999

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999 08:43:46 +0800, Jed [email protected] wrote:

>Michael K. Davis wrote:
>> Robert Nicholson [email protected] wrote:
...snip...
>> A monopod arrests linear motions parallel to the Z-axis, but because the
>> monopod can be leaned in any direction, it only parially cancels the
>> rotational motions of pitch and roll and does next to nothing to
>> cancel yaw motions (rotation about the Z-axis).  The only thing
>> resisting yaw (panning) motions, is the friction afforded by the foot
>> of the monopod against the surface it's standing on.
> ...snip...

If the situation allows, try passing the monopod under your arm with its foot resting on a stable, high friction vertical surface (eg, a wall, the bleechers in back of you, etc.). Use a ball head to make the camera point in the same direction as the axis of the monopod. (The bogen squeeze-grip "action" ball head (#3265, I think) works well for this.)

Spread your legs to a comfortable degree, extend the monopod as far as you can, and you have created a situation in which angular pitch and yaw are greatly reduced, but roll stability (ie, along the axis of the monopod) is now the least stable angular variable.

Angular pitch and yaw stability are high because:

(a) while people may sway side to side by a several mm (even under the best of conditions), the long lever arm formed by the monopod sticking out in back of you tremendously reduces angular yaw.

(b) People don't wiggle up and down in height very much, and even if they did, the same angular reduction as in (a) still applies.

If you are going to have to deal with a given amount (on average) of angular movement around some axis, rolling a camera around its optical axis ( = the monopod axis) is probably the best axis to pick. Objects in the exact center of the frame don't move at all, whereas the motion of objects slightly off center increases linearly with distance away from the center of the picture.

Finally, if the situation permits, jam the foot of the monopod (presumed to be self-leveling) into whatever hole or indentation in the wall you can find. You can then do really smooth horizontally.

Just my $0.02

Tom
Washington, DC

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: James Robinson [email protected]
[1] Re: When you can't you use a Monopod...
Date: Wed Feb 10 18:12:23 CST 1999

Michael K. Davis wrote:

(SNIP)

> A monopod arrests linear motions parallel to the Z-axis, but because the
> monopod can be leaned in any direction, it only parially cancels the
> rotational motions of pitch and roll and does next to nothing to
> cancel yaw motions (rotation about the Z-axis).  The only thing
> resisting yaw (panning) motions, is the friction afforded by the foot
> of the monopod against the surface it's standing on.  In fact, I have
> always been quite annoyed by the way forces applied at vectors other than
> yaw, can be redirected into unwanted panning oscillations.  In otherwords,
> it has been my observation that any little twitch or hand adjustment,
> applied at any angle to the camera your holding, is at least in part
> translated into a tiny panning motion.  A monopod mounted camera almost
> has a greater tendancy to pan than if you were simply handholding it.
>
> I never give myself more than double the exposure I would make handheld.
> That's how useful/useless monopods are to me.

(SNIP)

I had pretty well given up on monopods for the same reason, when a friend pointed out that there was a better way to use them: He instructed me put the foot of the monopod farther away from where I was standing such that the monopod was angled at about 30 degrees from vertical. It acts more like a brace this way and significantly reduces the yaw about the monopod's axis. Have you tried using it this way?

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999
From: Jed [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod, what is the speed?

Glorious little thing, that monopod. I was racking my head and looking through my bank balance to see if I could come up with the cash for an 85/1.8, when I discovered a $30 Manfrotto 'pod instead (I did stick on a $65 head though!).

Now I use that on my 80-200/2.8 and get awesome shutter speeds, to the extent that subject motion blur is frequently the problem, not camera shake. As always, it depends on the person, as well as your technique. Properly braced, I cen get 1/30 without any other support at 200mm without any problem. 1/15 is touch and go, but if I have a chair or a wall to go along with it... the odds increase again. Whatever, I find I can get about 2 stops more with the monopod at a given focal length, though I've yet to try my 20mm at 1/4! Absolutely smashing.

Remember to breathe well regardless of 'pod or not, don't stab at the shutter, follow through, inhale, exhale abt 30% of your breath, hold your breath, release the shutter. Holding the 'pod is important too, and how you use it. If you use it in conjunction with your body, you're on the way. Try holding a long lens without the 'pod, then with the 'pod. If you can see a difference in the movement (you should be able to with a long tele) caused by shake, then you're on your way.

If nothing else, it takes a weight off a heavy lens (of which the 80-200/2.8 is relatively mild!) while I'm waiting for that optimum time to trip the shutter.

Good shooting,

Jed

Only me... wrote:

> A monopod will allow you to use faster times than you would hand held, but
> seeing as that changes from one person to another, so will the times  with a
> monopod.  For instance, I can shoot at about 1/60 with a 200mm lens and get
> away with it most times, so I may get away with 1/30 with a monopod, maybe.
> Someone older may not, as they may not be able to hold as steady.  What  ever
> your hand held times, reduce them by about half a stop, and that would be    
> about right for most people I've met.  It really does vary wildly though.
> You should try one and see what it does for you.  I've met those who can
> shoot as low as 1/4 with one, and I've also met people who tell me they do
> no good at all.
>
>     Suck it and see.
>
> David. 

From: [email protected] (Altopt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod, what is the speed?
Date: 26 Jan 1999

the best advice I ever had was from a former president of the english royal photographic society. here it is. use two times the focal length as a shutter speed and if you wish to use the depth of field scale on your lens always set it at one top wider than you have set. i.e. if you are using f8 set your infinity mark at 5.6 I hope this is of some use to you.

From: [email protected] (Altopt)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod, what is the speed?
Date: 26 Jan 1999

second reply

if you use a monopod you can probably use one half of focal length as a shutter speed, but you must first practice with the whole setup!

good luck- and yes, buy a monopod

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Moreno Polloni" [email protected]
[1] Re: Monopods: Pop Photo test shows....??
Date: Fri Feb 19 03:49:49 CST 1999

lemonade wrote in message ...

>In the latest Pop Photo, they show some enlargements comparing pictures
>taken handheld by three different people, at shutter speeds between 1/8 and
>1/250, with a zoom to 400mm lens, both with and without a monopod.
>
>Surprise: to my eye the monopod didn't give much if any improvement. I
>didn't read the text so I don't know their conclusion, but: some shots were
>better WITHOUT the monopod than with, even at near 1/15; this is just
>sample variation of course, but still, looking at all the photos, you
>didn't come out with the clear conclusion that a monopod was much help.
>
>Quite surprising...

Interesting. Were these people experienced in using monopods? Did the lenses have tripod collars?

Aside from contributing to sharpness (or possibly, according to Pop Photo) , a monopod can hold a heavy telephoto and camera in front of me all day without getting tired. It also allows for steadier following of action than hand held, which in turns allows better framing. I'd say these are the most important reasons for using a monopod.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Mel1wood1)
[1] Re: Monopods: Pop Photo test shows....??
Date: Fri Feb 19 21:53:08 CST 1999

"Moreno Polloni" [email protected] writes:

>There's a bit of technique to working with a monopod, but it's mostly
>straightforward. What I don't understand is the whole point of Pop Photo's
>tests. If you want to shoot at slow shutter speeds, you need a tripod. Most
>people using monopods use them for sports at higher shutter speeds.

I'm a photographer for the local newspaper, and believe me, a monopod in low light indoor conditions is a wonderful thing to have, it will not work miricles, but I'll tell you that there is no comparison between handheld and monopod usage....

oh one other thing.... Occassionally thr have been times where I have extended my monopod, set the camera on timer, held it above the crowd and got photos that I could not have ordinarily taken!

mel

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Len Cook [email protected]
[1] Re: Monopods: Pop Photo test shows....??
Date: Sat Feb 20 13:53:09 CST 1999

In my experience a monopod is terrific at doing 2 different jobs.

First, if I need to point a really heavy lens at moving targets for hours on end, like big teles at professional football players through 4 quarters of play. Shutter speed is not an issue, bicep failure is.

The second use is in the presence of an immovable object in dark places. Bracing the camera against the object and supporting it with the monopod provides real relief from shake.

Otherwise it's a lousy substitute for a tripod.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Colm Boran [email protected]
[1] Re: Monopods: Pop Photo test shows....??
Date: Thu Feb 25 21:06:12 CST 1999

If you get a chance, take a look at Wildi's book: The Medium Format Advantage. In one of the chapters he mentions how almost nobody knows how to use a monopod properly. He claims you should spread your legs and place the monopod's leg into the ground a foot or two in front of the camera, then lean the monopod back toward your head. Finally, press down firmly on the body of the camera and squeeze the shutter release. Pushing the monopod firmly into the ground will make a significant difference in the sharpness of the photo according to Wildi. Obviously, you wouldn't use this technique for panning, but it sounds useful for non-moving targets.

Take another look at the Pop Photo photographer showing off his monopod technique at the beginning of the article. He has the camera simply resting atop the top of the completely vertical monopod. I bet all the blurriness in those shots is due to him pressing the shutter release and getting some rotation in the camera body due to the pressure of his finger, which shouldn't be a whole lot different than if the camera was hand-held.

Colm Boran

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (John J Stafford)
[1] Re: Advice on a monopod sought...
Date: Fri Mar 12 16:06:24 CST 1999

>I hike quite a lot, almost 3 times a week, in the Tucson, Arizona area. I
>want to start taking my camera with me as often as I can but I prefer to go
>as light as possible so a tripod is out.  I was thinking of buying a monopod
>that I can also use as a walking stick or buy a collapsible walking stick
>and somehow use it as a monopod. I would need a quick release head I think.
>I do not want to spend more than ~$150 max, and I use a Nikon F100 with
>70-300mm zoom.

Ah! Well let me share my two-bits with you. I HAVE the Gitzo so-called Walking Stick (or so they once called it.) It is the lightest monopod they make, and comes with a removable "ski tip" tip-guard to help out in snow and soft earth (so you don't sink into the ground).

It is almost worthless as a monopod. The head is tiny and the pod will actually bend under your weight. It's simply not adequate as a monopod. But it's a pretty cool walking stick.

Go one step up in the Gitzo monopod category. That's a good monopod and rugged enough to use as a "walking stick." You will have to spend more than $150US.

I made an adequate alternative using a leg from an old Vivitar Pro tripod leg. Fitted a Slik ballhead to it. Works great. Costs less.

(See Gitzo's line at B&H Photo online. They have very good pictures of it. And fair prices.)

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999
From: Jed [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: More Monopod Questions

I get laughed at every now and then with my combination for low-light shooting, but I'm absolutely in love with it. I have a standard 3 section Manfrotto, coupled with the #222 Joystick head. Together they get quite long, but it was that or a Gitzo 5 times the price! IMO the Joystick head is simply unbeatable. Stability is a problem with the head on a tripod (particularly heavy loads on vertical, but if they are that heavy, the lens probably has a rotatable tripod collar), but with a monopod I don't find that a problem at all since the monopod doesn't allow that slow shooting anyway. What the head does give me is awesome flexibility -- one grip, one adjustment, hand back on shutter release. Much less clumsy than one twist (which can turn into a jerk if the knob was stuck), one adjustment, one twist, re-tightening, finger back to shutter. And definitely less cumbersome if you have to detach your QR plate to shoot verical... I just flop the joystick horizontal and rest my right arm on its length for extra stability. Imagine if you decide that you need re-adjustment... just MHO.

phil taylor wrote:

> I have the 3218 monopod (black version of the one noted below)  and I use
> a little tilting head that has Manfrotto 234 on it. I don't know the
> Bogen number.  You can also use the medium ball head as well.
>
> > Barry F Margolius wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks to all who gave suggestions about which monopod to buy; I  got a
> > > Bogen 3018.
> > >
> > > Now on to queston #2: Do you folks mount the camera directly on the
> > > monopod, or do you use a tilt/swivel head?  I had intended to use a
> > > tilt/swivel, but the one I looked at was quite large, and I'm having
> > > second thoughts.  Is there such a thing as a very small (perhaps  less
> > > functional or precise) tilt/swivel head?
> > >
> > > Thanks,  

From: [email protected] (Yeti Man)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999

Gitzo's monopods are wonderfull, but I havent parted my wallet for one yet.

As to Bogens, I would avoid the 4 section models as they are not particularly rigid. I had a 3216, and upgraded to a 3218 (heavier duty/larger diameter) for use with bigger lenses (300 f/4 L and 500 f/4.5). Very rigid.

I haven't used the 4 section Gitzo's in the field, but in the store they felt at least as rigid as a 3 section heavier weight/larger diameter Bogen 3218.

From: "Graham Lynch" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod?
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999

Hi Barry

As I use a large 300mm lens and the monopod is invaluable. When you're at a football or rugby ground for a couple of hours you really appreciate a monopod. It's practical where you can still move around, takes the weight of a heavy lens, and lets you still shoot at low shutter speeds.

Graham Lynch

From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1999
From: Patrick Warnshuis [email protected]
Subject: Monopods and Mini-Tripods [v04.n328/14]
Someone (I think in this Digest) suggested propping the monopod horizontally against a wall or tree behind you and aiming it like a rifle. Try holding it both under the arm, up in the armpit, and over the shoulder. I've been practicing with this and it does work quite well.

.....patrick

From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: monopod effectiveness?
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999

Richard Mansell wrote:

> Hi
>
> I was wondering if the difference that a monopod makes to
> shutterspeed/hand-shake has been quantified (formally or informally)?  I
> normally shoot at, say, 1/60th with a 50mm lens to avoid hand-shake.  If
> I  use a monopod how many stops can I expect to gain from increased
> stability?  1?  1 1/2?  2?

I'm surprised how consistent we are. My money is on 2 stops as well. About 1/15th with a 50mm. Fred and the others are certainly correct about it being technique dependent. Using a monopod is not a "license to poke the shutter release" or any other form of sloppy technique. A monopod is like a fencepost to lean the camera on that you happen to carry with you.

Somebody posted in a thread last week that monopods were a pain because you had to pound them so far into the ground. I assume they were joking, but I have a very nice 20x30" poster print on my wall where I did just that. I was hiking without a tripod, and came across a stream I wanted to photograph. I shortened up the monopod, drove about 18" of it into the soft forest floor, and did a 2 second exposure with the self timer (so I could let go). Water nicely blurred, rocks and trees sharp.

-Todd
--
Todd & Sharon Peach

From: Jed Wee [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod : How to?
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999

Take a look at my article on my site... explains as clearly as I can the proper way for holding the pod, without pics I'm afraid.

http://home.pacific.net.sg/~wee

...

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999
From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nightclub exposures

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> From: Godfrey DiGiorgi 
>
> A tripod might be hard to manage in a nightclub. I'd shoot 400 speed film
> at nominal or +1EV push, use an f/2.8 or faster lens, and maybe use a
> monopod to steady myself. You need to stay unobtrusive and able to move
> quickly.

I second the motion for a monopod. Black, if possible. A nice quick release as well; it's tricky to move through a crowd with a 'camera-on-a-stick'.

I'm losing track of this thread. Was the original poster a (starving) student? We may be swamping him / her with some 'throw cash at it'

Low budget: Fast film and borrow a 50mm f/1.8 lens from someone (ask around, somebody's bound to have one). Look around for things to brace on. Make yourself a cheap 'tension monopod' out of 6 feet of string and some 1/4-20 hardware from Home Depot. (Screw it into the tripod mount, trail the string on the floor, step on the tail of the string and pull up to apply tension. Don't pull too hard, don't wanna warp the bottom of the camera!).

Be sure to pack some disposable earplugs. Too often, the best angle at a music performance puts the photographer directly in front of the speakers.

-Todd --
Todd & Sharon Peach
Seattle, Washington
[email protected]
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/NoPlaceLikeHome.htm

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Radimus [email protected]
[1] Re: Why no cheap compact monopods??
Date: Sat Feb 05 19:31:50 CST 2000

Looking for light and cheap? Check out a Bogen 3006 monopod. Extends to 61", collapses to 19.5", weighs 14oz, and sells for less than $30 at B&H. For another $30 you can put a Bogen 3009 ballhead on it (you'll need the 3/8-1/4 adapter). I have this combination and it's great for hikes and such.

Rad

Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Another monopod question

[email protected] skrev:

>  I'm going to tell you what equipment I have only if
> you promise not to laugh.  Okay, as long as you promise, here is the
> run down :
> Ricoh Singlex TLS
> Auto Rikenon 55mm/2.8 lens
> Vivitar 85-205mm/3.8 lens
> Vivitar 2000 flash

I bet *you* laugh, all the way to the bank (or, from it)... :-)

No one is going to see any difference between the best you can do with this equipment and the best you can do with a modern SLR. And if you do good, you will out-perform many individuals with really, really serious gear.

As for a monopod, it can be said that it is the poor persons IS - Image Stabilisation. What you need to check is that the monopod (it doesn't have to be expensive) works semi-extended (you may sit and/or kneel as well as stand up when doing indoor sports) and that there is a usable ball head or pan head on it that can be folded 90 degrees easily.

A good ballhead or panhead can be used on a tripod to, so it is a useful item.

--
Anders Svensson
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (P. Campbell)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: A neat mono-pod trick ...
Date: 7 Feb 2000

You want a monopod , but hate the disgusting prices some places charge ? Found a trick in the Lee Valley Tools catalog ( Canadian ) Its a joining plug , like those used on pool cues . It is two special screw-in 1/4-20 bolt sockets with a 1/4-20 threaded rod . The mount on most cameras for tripod mounts and quik-release bases is 1/4-20 !

BEFORE you hack up that pool cue to get the bolts , you can buy blind-nuts at most hardware stores ( make sure they are 1/4-20 ! ) and 1/4-20 threaded rod , and use an old straight broom-handle .

For a ground spike , put one blind-nut on the lower end , and then screw on a ceiling fastener ( screw-threads one end , 1/4-20 the other )

Use a 1/4-20 bolt and a rubber foot for hard floors .

For the top end , you can use a bolt to seal the hole when not in use or make a fancy cane-head !

If you want to get terribly fancy , you could make it multi-part , in 18" sections or so , for easy transport . Then the cane-head is useful !

As I was writing this , I thought - aint that what the Swiffer broom is like ? Just slap the 1/4-20 bolt on one end and PRESTO ! It is not strong enough to double as a cane , but hey , its much cheaper than a monopod , much lighter and easier than a broom-handle !

The Great White Wolf

Date: 7 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (Jeffrey Steinberg)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Monopod for Hassleblad

I really like the Linoff Monomatic (about $189, available from Adorama only it seems). Its very light, compact and elegently engineered. You can adjust it with one hand but it requires pinching two small white tabs.

I love this piece of hardware. Its so very elegent.

--jeffrey

From: ALFROIO [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tripods for Travel

I assume the reason you want a tripod for travel is to get sharp vibration free shots and not to take pictures of yourself. If so, you may want to opt for a monopod along with a tripod. I have both and the monopod usually goes with me while the tripod sits at home or in the trunk of my car. Many museums and churhes in Europe won't let you set up a tripod but I've gotten around that problem by showing the Guide my monopod resting on the top of my shoe. Usually they'll give me a pass. Roger Tory Petersen, the bird guy, uses a monopod for most of his shots because it's easy to use and doubles as a walking stick.

Date: Tue, 19 Oct 1999
From: [email protected] (Chuck Ross)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod stability?

I have a Nikon 80-200 f2.8, a big, heavy lens, and mostly always use it on a monopod. There is no question it helps steady the camera and my hands. How much? Hard to say, but I've shot as low as 1/100th in relatively low light using the 80-200 plus monopod with good results.

The thing is, there's a way to use a monopod, and a way NOT to use one.

Actually, there are a couple of good ways. One is to pretend it's a tripod; place it's base about 18" away from you and have the monopod lean towards you, which placing your legs on either side of the imaginary triangle your legs and monopod will create. Thus, your body acts as the other two missing legs of the tripod.

Another good way to use it, and I like this one best, is to jam the base of the monopod against your left shot, sort of wrap your right leg up to the monopod's leg and press. This gives it a rather firm footing.

Liam's post does recall the hilarious thread that happened here a couple of months ago that went something like:

"I set my camera up on a monopod and walked over to my girlfriend to help her pose and the whole thing crashed to the ground! Wazzup??"

Date: 05 Aug 1999
From: [email protected] (Mcgchrs)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopod question

>>Hi, try this one  http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~wee/article2.htm  , good
>>Fabio D.

the foot of the monopod into the inside of your right shoe (I'll use shoe to refer to your foot, and foot to refer to the monopod's foot), and wedge it there. Thus you've stopped any possiblity of the foot slipping to the right. Next, push your left knee slightly forward, slightly bent, and place the middle of the monopod against the inside of your left knee, actually closer to you thigh. And lastly, grip the camera with your right hand as you normally would, and exert a gentle pressure towards the left. Your monopod is now anchored via 3 points:

Your shoe, stopping the monopod moving right.

Your left knee/thigh, pushing the monopod right and stopping leftward movement.

Your right hand, pushing the monopod left and stopping rightward movement. Think about it. Because of the 3 anchor points, and the fact that the monopod is angled, should leave you a very stable shooting platform. Better yet, you still have a left hand!

The above is cut and pasted from the above website, it's prefaced by telling you to lean the monopod about 30 degrees. all of the advice seems like a winner! Now all I'd need is a monopod! If this bracing thing doesn't work, where does one find a good, heavy sledgehammer that fits into a camera bag? Or do I just use my old Nikon F for that?

A friend was demonstrating how to hold his M6 and shoot at about 1/4 sec!! I started getting interested in trying to use my SLR similarly, but of course I'm dealing with mirror slap, as well! I've gotten good shots about 1 stop slower, though.

Date: Sat, 3 Apr 1999
From: "Eric Edelman" eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopot, with or without head?

Bogen makes a terrific little tilt/swivel head for $12 or so that works exceptionally well with a monopod. The part number is #3232.

From: Pam Niedermayer [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
Subject: Re: Mono Pods

Thanks, Doug, the price is certainly right ($13 at B&H, $25 with QR). I've been leaning toward the 3265 (grip action ball head w/QR). Have you looked at that one? If so, how does it compare to the 3232 (the picture on B&H isn't all that revealing on the 3232)?

Pam

Doug Caesar wrote:

> IMHO the answer for the verticals is a Bogen #3232 swivel.  It turns 90
> degrees in either direction on one axis only and is the perfect answer for
> monopods.  If you decide on the acra-swiss style quick release, Really Right
> Stuff can provide the Bogen swivel with the quick release clamp on it (I
> think), or at least can provide the clamp to mount on the swivel.  If you go
> to their web page www.reallyrightstuff.com and order their catalog (free) it
> has a photo lof the swivel with the clamp mounted.
>
> Doug
> "Pam Niedermayer" [email protected] wrote in message
> > I have a Bogen 3216 that I like a lot. It's suitable for
> > digital (Nikon 950 in my case) and 35mm, as well as a MF
> > TLR. I don't use it for a walking stick, usually leave a
> > camera attached, don't really want to jar it too much. Ries
> > makes a wooden one with spike that would be a great walking
> > stick. And there are many others. You may want to check out
> > some user comments at http://photo.net/photo/monopods.html.
> >
> > I'm still trying to decide on head and quick release. Right
> > now I can lean the pod for angles, no big deal; but would
> > like to go 90 degrees, which only works if I've got
> > something vertical to brace it on, say the side of a
> > building or a tree.
> >
> > Pam

Date: 16 Apr 2000
From: [email protected] (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Mono Pods

I've been leaning toward the 3265 (grip action ball head w/QR). Have you looked at that one? If so, how does it compare to the 3232

I use the 3232 on my Bogen 3249 and love it. It is very robust and solid. No way I would stick the 3265 on a monopod. First, a ball head simply isn't needed as it is quicker and simpler to just angle the monopod. Second, when I take the monopod I'm often using it because it is compact and lightweight. The large, heavy 3265 negates some of the advantages I was after in the first place! Third, I feel spending the $50 difference between them gains me nothing. Rather have the $$ for film processing!

Kent in SD

Date: Sat, 15 Apr 2000
From: Jack Daynes [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Mono Pods

"Smitty....." wrote:

> For the times I just can't carry a tripod in the woods all day I am thinking
> of getting a mono pod. I have seen some with a ball head and can't figure out
> if that is an advantage or not. I like the looks of the bogen because I could
> use it for a walking stick. Ideas anyone please?? -- Smitty.....
> From the frozen tundra of Central Minnesota

Smitty,

I recently decided that I wanted a monopod. I'd been using the Bogen 3021 tripod and alternating between the 3047 (very heavy) and the 3055 (light ball type) heads. The store I use had a pretty wide selection of pods (tri & mono). I opted for the 3230. It is not as light weight as some others I looked at, but it had a feature that really captured my imagination ... but unscrewing the bottom, you can release 3 little legs (~12") that allow the pod to stand on its own. At this time I've fixed the 3055 ball head to the 3230 and the 3047 sits on my 3021 tripod. It is working pretty well for my needs. I still rely on the tripod more than the monopod, but as monopods go this one seems pretty nice to me. If I don't expect to hike very far, the tripod is what I grab. If I am planning a longer trek and I want to keep the weight down (and I want a walking stick), I'll take the monopod.

By staying with Bogen, I was able to keep continuity of the quick release system I've been using (large hex plates). If you don't have a need to stay with a system, as I did, there may be other (better, cheaper, lighter) options that you should consider.

--
Jack

Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2000
From: "MJR" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Mono Pods

The Bogen 3018 monopod outfitted with the Bogen 3232 head (no quick release plate) or the Bogen 3229 head (same head with quick release plate) would be a more than suitable candidate.

I own and use this quick release combo (my Tripod accepts the same quick release plate). The most important thing about a monopod, IMHO, is its stiffness. In order to get the maximum control and the vertical, no shake benefit from a monopod, you have to "lean" into it, or otherwise apply downward pressure against the shaft sections. Otherwise, you can begin to sway from side to side or forward and back.

Gripping the monopod with the non-camera hand and forcing it downward with this free hand seems to minimize this side to side or front to back sway. Some folks also will apply pressure to the knee with the shaft sections to prevent sway and this too requires a substantial monopod.

Stay with the heavier, stiffer brands and avoid the lightweights. Walking stick? Sure, it will do that too. Take the camera off the head though, as the monopod used as a walking stick will send unwanted jarring through the sections and into the camera each time it hits the ground. Another good reason to use the quick release plate.

B&H sells the Bogen 3018 with the 3232 head for $50 and with the 3229 head for $63. You will own either for a lifetime.

Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2000
From: [email protected] (Tom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Mono Pods

[email protected] (Two23) wrote:

> I've been leaning toward the 3265 (grip action ball head w/QR). Have you
>looked at that one? If so, how does it compare to the 3232 
>
>   I use the 3232 on my Bogen 3249 and love it.  It is very robust and solid.
>No way I would stick the 3265 on a monopod.  First, a ball head simply isn't
>needed as it is quicker and simpler to just angle the monopod.  Second, when I
>take the monopod I'm often using it because it is compact and lightweight. The
>large, heavy 3265 negates some of the advantages I was after in the first
>place!  Third, I feel spending the $50 difference between them gains me
>nothing.  Rather have the $$ for film processing!

Sorry, but I must strongly disagree, and feel that you have somewhat of a limited perspective on the use of a ball head on a pod. For many PJ applications, the 3265 on a pod is super, for others, a smaller ball head is better.

Rarely do I find it "quicker and simpler to just angle the monopod". First, in PJ or sports photography, you are often stuck in a situation where you just don't have the space to angle the pod and camera - imagine the dignatary coming down the steps of a building and you are stuck in a crowd,

If all the shots you need are with the camera nearly level (e.g., football from the sidelines), angling the whole rig by small amounts may be acceptable, but I know I would feel pretty stupid to find that I couldn't get a shot because I couldn't point the camera in the right direction (simply because I thought the rig weighed too much).

I use the 3265 all the time for sports w/ a long lens. I also have used it at political appearances, religious events, etc., basically, anywhere where you need to move around, can't spread out a tripod's legs, but weight is not a serious consideration. For these applications, I find the 3265 on a pod to be the best tool available.

On the other hand, I would never take the 3265 on a backpack, or anywhere else where weight really was a serious consideration.

I also tend to use the 3265 only on lenses which have their own, rotatable mounts, so that switching to vertical format shots is easy. Without the rotatable lens mount, switching to portrait orientation hangs the camera way out, away from the axis of the pod, and makes it a bit awkward to use, especially with heavy lenses.

Just my $0.02

Tom
Washington, DC

From: Tom Hickson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Q: Inexpensive Ballhead?

LeRoy,

Take a look at the Bogen 3262-QR. This is a light weight and versatile unit which I also use on a monopod. I use it with an F4s and haven't had any problems with the camera weight (but I wouldn't want to put much more stress on it; it's spec'd to 8.75 pounds maximum load). It runs around $45 new from B&H Photo.

Tom

...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000
From: "Lehman John A." [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] TLR Finder Magnification

With regard to the "Hail Mary" over the head shooting method, it is still useful. A few years ago I was at a very crowded Yakut games (traditional tribal competitions, etc) in Yakutsk and decided to go the camera above the head idea one better. I put my Rolleiflex T on a monopod, set the self timer and raised it six feet over my head, aiming in the approximate direction. The results were good -- one picture from the series has appeared as a front cover on several University of Alaska Fairbanks publications, and my friends used the raised Rolleiflex to find me in the crowd :-)

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Ultra light lens carry ? and quality monopods ?

Hi Laika!

You could keep a few spare lenses in some big pockets - perhaps lining them with a bit of EVA material.

See these discussions on monopods and hiking;

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0012NM&topic_id=34& topic=Nature%20Photography

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0011DI&topic_id=34& topic=Nature%20Photography

Best regards,
Lars.

> laika wrote:
> I wonder what is the most compact/unobtrusive way of carrying a couple
of spare lens (MF primes eg: 35mm & 200mm) ... What's are some reputable
monopod makers ? I'm looking for something quality and strong that can
double as a walking stick. ...

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharpness - Lessons Learned

"Chris Kelly" [email protected] wrote:

> I recently re-cataloged all my slides, and took a very close look
> at many (100's) of them with a 15 power loop.  There have been
> some definate lessons learned, and I thought I would pass it on
> to all of you.  Many of you will say Duh, and I would too, but I
> was amazed at the effect of the simple things I first learned, and
> how much of an effect not using them made.
(big snip)
> If you have started moving away from the tripod for "quick people
> shots" I hope I have given you reason to re-evaluate the situation.
> If you want big beautiful prints off of 35mm then the only way to go
> is a tripod.                        

Chris,

Thank you for such an excellent and informative posting. My checks on slides with an 8x loupe yielded exactly the same information; if you want sharp photos use a support.

I have freelanced with three photographers who are masters of getting sharp photos without a tripod. I normally use a monopod, and my slides are sharper with the monopod than theirs are without. We're using the same camera bodies and lenses.

With the evidence in front of them, one of the three has already gone back to using a monopod and the other two are considering doing the same. The primary subject matter is landscape and tourism, although some nature and some sports photography (soccer) is also involved. All three take monopods to soccer matches.

You'll notice I've said "monopod" throughout. In my experience a monopod gives something like 70% of the improvement in sharpness you'd expect from a tripod, but is far, far easier to carry. Of course a tripod is *essential* once speeds start heading below 1/15 sec and is *desirable* at slightly higher speeds, say up to 1/60 sec. Above this speed I believe a monopod should be sufficient.

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000
From: "Natasha" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharpness - Lessons Learned

....

I'm considering a combination of 35mm equipment (Canon image stabilization lens) with a monopod, and the addition of a rangefinder MF camera like the Fuji 645's or Mamiya 7 (but too expensive).

Here's some ideas on monopods and straps I've culled from the NET:

http://www.teleport.com/~bcat/movement.html
http://www.teleport.com/~bcat/steadistrap.html

(Black Cat steady strap)

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0009gz&topic_id=23& topic=photo%2enet

http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~wee/article2.htm

I am a great big fan of the monopod. A lot of that probably has to do with the fact that I do a lot of low light photography, and that's where the monopod really shines. But not everyone seems to share my opinions on this one-legged tripod, but my own suspicion is that a lot of this boils down to the fact that the people who think the monopod is a waste of time just don't know how to use it correctly.

Let's explain why I use a monopod first. Two main reasons. One because it allows me to arrest camera shake until much longer shutter speeds than I'd be able to just handholding. And two, it takes the weight off my hands while I'm waiting for the right moment to trip the shutter. Before I discovered the monopod, I used to wait for up to 15 minutes for static speakers to look in my direction and not have a grimace on their face, let alone actors and the like, with a F90x, MB10, SB28 and Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8 lens... which weighs in at 3kgs! After 5 minutes your muscles feel like jello! And then there are sports matches...

Now, you may be wondering why I don't use a tripod. Don't get me wrong, and this has to be cleared up. A monopod is not a substitute for a tripod! They cater to different situations. When you need to run around a darkened theatre capturing the action on stage, or need the flexibility and speed of a one-legged stand, nothing beats out the monopod. When you need exposures measured in minutes, then nothing touches the tripod. But when you're meandering in a crowd and trying to get a shot, the monopod is simply the only viable option.

And personally I feel you don't lose anything if you use a tripod for low light photography, rather than the tripod. With a monopod I can consistently get shutter speeds as slow as 1/30 with a 200mm lens, without motion blur. If I take care, I can squeeze out 1/15 with that lens. At either of these shutter speeds, I'm already pushing the limits of subject motion, so the tripod is really no benefit since the monopod will already let me go as slow as is possible in the given situation.

So, exactly how should you use that monopod? For starters, in all but one situation, I don't recommend using the monopod perpendicular to the ground. Yup, that's correct. Don't stand with the monopod sticking straight up in front of you. If you do that, the monopod becomes really susceptable to sideways movement, or yaw. A slight movement can pivot the camera 360 degrees, before the inevitable crash to the floor!

Now before I go into the specifics, I really think you should get a monopod, or at least some kind of stick like a broom for example, and follow along or this won't make too much sense... your monopod should also obviously have a head which can angle to about 30 degrees so it can point straight ahead when your monopod is angled.

If you're standing or kneeling, angle the monopod 30 degrees to the normal.

Tuck the foot of the monopod into the inside of your right shoe (I'll use shoe to refer to your foot, and foot to refer to the monopod's foot), and wedge it there. Thus you've stopped any possiblity of the foot slipping to the right. Next, push your left knee slightly forward, slightly bent, and place the middle of the monopod against the inside of your left knee, actually closer to you thigh. And lastly, grip the camera with your right hand as you normally would, and exert a gentle pressure towards the left.

Your monopod is now anchored via 3 points:

Your shoe, stopping the monopod moving right.

Your left knee/thigh, pushing the monopod right and stopping leftward movement.

Your right hand, pushing the monopod left and stopping rightward movement.

Think about it. Because of the 3 anchor points, and the fact that the monopod is angled, should leave you a very stable shooting platform. Better yet, you still have a left hand!

There are 3 schools of thought on what to do with your left hand. Some advocate slipping it through your monopod strap and pressing down near the rubberised/foam grip. I hate this method, and seldom use it, because it's then next to impossible to adjust anything on the camera.

The other 2 ways I practise, depending on lens and camera in use. First, is the stand that one should press down on the camera or lens, at whichever point the gear is attached to the monopod head. So if you have a long tele mounted via a tripod collar, push down on the lens at the point above the collar. Note this is the point where collar meets head, and not where collar meets lens. If you have a lens without a tripod collar, then press down on the camera.

The second is my favourite, and a bit complex. I generally recommend it only for long lenses with tripod collars. Bring your left hand in front of the monopod, and up on the right side of the lens, and twist your wrist to let your hand rest on top of your lens. A bit of contortion needed, but it works. And it leaves my left hand conveniently located to placed to turn the zoom ring on the 80-200/2.8 class lenses, and focus ring on any lens. It also prevents the camera from swaying to the right, as your left hand is now naturally trying to return to its resting position, exerting a leftward and downward force.

Now, you're almost ready to go. Just apply some basic breathing technique and shutter control and you're ready to go. Proper breathing technique I tend to exercise only when I'm pushing the limits of hand holding, or the monopod. You inhale deep regular breaths, and the just before you shoot you exhale 30% of your breath and hold it there. This allows your heart to steady itself, and allows you a better shot. Don't stab at the shutter either -- your finger should always be on the shutter release, and just gently press is all the way and follow through. Don't immediately jab and then jerk your finger off.

In conclusion, the monopod is an awesome tool if you learn how to use it properly. I've gotten many photos I'm happy with, that are sharp, in low light conditions with a moderately slow lens in the 80-200/2.8. Because I discovered the monopod, I've put off buying the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AF-D. Yes, I think it's that good!

------------------------------------------------

I use a 70-200 with 2X on a short monopod stuck into a pouch hung from my belt. This gives you the benefits of a monopod, full mobility, and carries all the weight on the belt even when you are walking around. Coupled with an IS lens, it should be an ideal combination. The monopod eliminates the high frequency jitter and the IS can cope with the low frequency motion that remains. I use a Bogen 3232 swivel head and rotate the tripod collar to level the camera because the monopod is tilted when used as described. Better than a shoulder stock is a short monopod whose tip is put into a pouch or socket attached to a belt around your waist. This gives you almost all the stability of a monopod with the mobility of a shoulder stock. The monopod transfer most of the weight to your waist, so the tension and fatique associated with using a shoulder stock is eliminated. Plus a monopod is lighter than a shoulder stock, and you have a regular monopod when that is what you really need. You'll need a swivel head or small ballhead on the monopod to get the angle between the camera and monopod right for comfortable use.

I ended up with the Velbon CUP-40 carbon fiber monopod for reasons that have little to do with weight or rigidity. I use a monopod with its end stuck in a small flashlight holder on a waistbelt. On top, I have a Bogen 3232 swivel head and RRS clamp. I use it with a Canon 1N-RS with 70-200/2.8L, often with 2X. This gives me almost all the stability of a monopod (much better than handholding alone), complete mobility, and carries the weight of the equipment when shooting and also when walking around. For this use, I needed a monopod which was short folded, yet was long enough for conventional use.

The Velbon is only 19.3 inches folded, has four sections, and when unfolded, is long enough to get over my eye level (I'm 5-10). When the legnuts are really tightened, there's no wobble in the legs. By contrast, the legs of my Gitzo 1349 wobble even when the legnuts are tightened as much as possible. This doesn't affect tripod performance, but the wobble is significant in a monopod.

-- Lloyd Nakatani, July 27, 1999

Want a serious recommendation for a monopod, which is what you should use if you can't set up a tripod? Get the Gitzo Studex 1564 and the Bogen 3232 Monopod Head. This is recommended by Really Right Stuff (along with their Arca-style Q/R) and by several threads here in the Q&A. The Bogen's are not up to snuff in the monopod dept. The Gitzo lock ring is far easier to use than the Bogen flip-lever. It is the set-up you will see most sports photographers with.

-- Chris Gillis, July 26, 1999

Subject:Re: Mono Pods
Date:04/16/2000
Author:Tony Spadaro [email protected]

previous in search � next in search

I use a Bogen 3232 tilt head that came with a quick release. The QR can be shifted 90 degrees in a matter of seconds. It's a lot lighter than the ball head I formerly used.

I use a cheap Velbon monopod that has 4 leg sections. It can be set lower than three section pods. It is probably not as good a walking stick as a better pod would be but I don't go too far these days anyway. There is a beautiful bogen/manfrotto model #3230 that has fold away feet. Unfortunately it is only 3 sections.

A simple one directionl tilt works better on a monopod.

I would get an Arca Swiss B1 Monoball over the Kirk or any other makers. heads. While some ball heads may be cheaper (or more expensive) than the B1, no one makes a ball head as well built or as well designed as Arca Swiss. And one always runs into limitations with cheaper and more poorly designed heads. the original heads was a direct knockoff of the B1 and they were forced to redesign it, meaning that somehow it is compromised. Eventually you'll want a B1 so save yourself some time, frustration and money. And no, I am not employed or compensated by Arca Swiss or any of their dealers.

-- Ellis Vener,
January 21, 2000
Re the Arca B1 ballhead.

I probably did something wrong, but the B1 is known for occasional jamming.I know how to clear it, but mine was jamming and catching on a regular basis.I returned it ot Arca, but , so far don't know what was causing it. perhaps dirt or condensation. I also use a Studioball. It is not as light, but the pan knob is much easier to lock and I have never experienced a jam or lockup. I use the Studioballs more locally and the B1 everywhere so far. I shoot with several tripods and formats side by side so the comparison is valid. IF I am not satisfied on its return, I probably will sell the B1. I guess I am alone complainer, but wiling to find out what I did and hope the B1 will work properly. As far as the monopod, I got a QR one axis tilt head, put a clamp on it and use it with the arca style plates, thereby never having to remove the plate from camera or lens.

-- Dr. Steven Bein, January 21, 2000

Stephen, I tried two Graf Studio Balls before i switched to Arca. i gave up on the Studio ball for the following reason. Within six months of purchase of the first one, the head started getting wobbly on the panoramic base. This head was returned to the dealer, who immediately sent me a replacement as graf admitted the head had a design flaw which had been fixed on the latest version, Within four months the replacement head went wobbly. This time Graf admitted to the dealer that the head had a design flaw. I couldn't replace that head with a third because in frustration (i was in Davenport, Iowa shooting a job.) I used a pair of vise grips on the stem to remove the quick release platform so I could mount it on another head. Dealer & Graf indicated that they wouldn't accept the head as a return because of my actions in removing the QR shoe. As soon as I returned home I switched to Arca (a used one, at that) That was six years ago, and I've had no prolems with it at all.

The jamming seems to come from people using the tension or drag screw to set a relatively high tension setting and then forgetting to back it off before they remove the camera. My solution is generally (unless the camera or lens mounted to the head is a big or heavy) is to not use the tension screw at all or at the maximum a very light setting. You may also be over tightening the head. try using a little less force and see if that is the case. Good luck!

-- Ellis Vener, January 21, 2000

If you are using a long lens (common reason for using a monpod) with a tripod collar on the lens, you don't need a head. Swivel pod to pan, push back or forward to tilt, rotate outfit in lens collar to change from portrait to landscape, or to straighten horizons, verticals, etc. Generally, by backing the locking screw off a part turn, the lens will spin in the locking collar, allowing you to do this.

K

-- Ken Munn, January 21, 2000

I use a Gitzo 1568 carbon monopod with a Gitzo 1175 "ball" head on it. This makes for a lightweight and useful combination. The 1175 is not a real ball head a la the Arca B1 (which I have on my tripod) but is a much smaller ball which fits into a 90 degree slot to give you any angle from horizontal to vertical and also swivels 360 degrees around its base. Sorry, my descriptive powers are quite inadequate. It is very light small and useful.

I've never done it but I bet that the B1 would be too heavy to carry around on a monopod. I think the B1 is best left on a tripod.

-- Bill Akata, January 21, 2000

Yes. A Manfrotto joystick ball head. It allows me some extra height (I am 6'4"), and allows me to press monopod to my chest and adjust angle of camera with one hand. Costs about a quarter as much as the B1 and is twice as easy to use!

-- Martin Davidson, January 21, 2000

RRS is specifically recommending the Gitzo 1564 monopod and their instructions relate to that--obviously, if the attachment on your monopod doesn't come off, their instructions don't apply.

FWIW, I use the 1564 setup exactly as they recommend, and it works wonderfully. Solid as a rock and a cinch to use. I do verticals by rotating the lens in its mounting collar.

-- Danny Weber, February 26, 1999

Ansue, you might want to try the FOBA Mini-Superball. Its smaller and lighter than the B1, and you can also get it with a QR.

-- Kam Nawus, January 21, 2000

I use a small Stroboframe ballhead on my Manfrotto monopod. Ballheads on monopods are sometimes useful, though I doubt that they are vastly superior to a simple tilt head in terms of absolute versatility. As for the size of the ballhead, I think that smaller is better. The Stroboframe is smooth and cheap ($40), and easily supports a 300/4. I think it would have no problem with a 300/2.8, either, but a 400/2.8 would be a stretch. Nevertheless, I have found that you can typically get by with a smaller head on a monopod due to the fact that not only does the head support the lens, but your body does as well. As a monopod is merely a third hand, of sorts, I would suggest getting something smaller than a B1. Too big and you will have a very awkward and unwieldy setup. Also, don't even think about putting camera on a monopod without a quick-release. If dropped, a monopod acts like a great lever, throwing camera to the dirt, asphalt, etc. with increased force. You should be able to get the camera off quickly and easily.

-- Timothy Breihan, January 21, 2000

I find ball heads too big for a monopod and, since you can tilt the pod fast, not too useful. A simple pan head like the Bogen 3025 ($20) will allow you to flip to vertical fast. It is all I seem to need.

-- Tony Zipple, January 21, 2000

Really Right Stuff describes the best solution for a monopod head on page 43 of their catolog. I use this option and it works great. I have made an attempt to scan the description and picture and upload it. Hopefully, it will work. I have no connection to RRS, just a happy customer.

-- Steve Rosenblum, January 21, 2000

The reason I and several other people have been advocating you not get a monoball to put on a monopod is that between the

basic unstable nature of a monopod and the also unstable nature of a loosened ballhead (any ball head) you have to many pivot points to easily control the movemetn of your camera. A simple tilt head, like the one Steve Rosenbaum has posted about above, used with a monopod makes your life as a photographer much easier as it is a combination thatis easier to control yet offers all of the freedom of movement you'll ever find necessary.

-- Ellis Vener, January 24, 2000 /-

Although I use a Kirk QR, the combination works very well. The RRS catalog has a description of a bogen swivel with a quick release for monopod use, but to date I haven't found a situation were I couldn't just angle the monopod.

I prefer the stability and simplicity of just the QR.

-- Jamie Curtis, May 27, 1999

John,

I read a suggestion a while back on Photo Net to use a Bogen 3232 Swivel ($13.00 at B&H) in conjunction with a Kirk or RRS quick release. This allows you to angle the bottom of the monopod out, essentially creating a tripod (your two legs and the pod)for greater stability. I tried it and by golly it works! I feel I have greater flexibility and more stability with my monopod than ever before. I used to hate the thing, couldn't understand why anybody used one. Consequently, when not using a tripod, I always use the monopod with my longer lenses and have noticed a marked improvement in my picture quality.

-- Eldon --, May 27, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

How do you shoot verticals on a monopod if you do not have a ball head or similar on it? Surely the Bogen head is not sufficient if you want portrait shots? I think I need enlightenment on this aspect. Thanks

-- Robin Smith, May 27, 1999

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----

Robin-I use the Bogen 3232 "tilt" head on my monopod. It works very well for vertical shots. Set it up so it tilts sideways! Stable, and it does not get too far off-axis. Check out the RRS catalog description. Highly recommended.

Paul

-- Paul Harris, May 27, 1999

Note that Bogen have a couple of QR systems which simply attach via a 1/4-20 thread. That is QR plates (e.g. their Hex plates) and holders with no head - designed to give QR capability to standard tripods with no QR. You could put one on top of a monopod and have a monopod with a QR, but no head. They are about $40 for the system (holder and plate). They will hold a 300/2.8 with no problem (I've used the hex plates with very large lenses - they hold well as long as you are careful to make sure the plate is well seated). No, they aren't as good as Kirk or RRS QR systems, but just a mounting plate for either of those is $50+, so on a total budget of under $150 for the support, head and QR system, they are out of this user's price range

-- Bob Artkins, March 5, 1997

The ballhead with quick release plates are innovative and very helpful. Before I read this Ad about ballheads and QR plates, I wanted one. So I contacted Kirk Enterpirses (1-800-626-5074) and order a catalog. A couple days later, while drooling over the catalog, I ended up calling them and ordering over the phone using my Visa card. I order the black anodized aluminum milled plates that fit perfect under each camera body with a recessed set screw (each plate comes with an allen wrench). The ballhead I ordered is an exact duplicate to the B1, but less cost. I ordered the Kaiser (Made in Germany) Studio ball and is it stout! Any size body you want to use... it'll hold them all. The price of the ballhead was $295 and the QR plates are $65 each. Once the plates are attached, you leave them on.

They're so sleek, you don't think about them anymore until you mount them up on the ballhead. The ballhead operates smoothly and precisely, and locks down easily with a large tightening knob. Oh, one more word on the plates.

Each one has a taped out screw hole if you want to use an accessory where the tripod usually mounts. I leave my QR plates on all camera bodies all the time. When I need to use a monopod, I just screw it in the accessory hole provided in the bottom of the plate (next to where in mounts into the bottom

I would say you can certainly go at least two shutter speeds slower when using most monopods. There is one monopod on the market that acts almost like a tripod. That is the Bogen Manfrotto model 3230 professional monopod.

I have one that I use for wedding work an can tell you that photos taken at speeds of one second with a 180 mm lens come out great. This monopod has three small legs that hide in the bottom of the unit and simply unscrew to convert to a free-standing unit. Looks just like any other monopod and the only drawback is a slight bit more weight to carry around - but still lighter than a tripod and more compact besides. Good luck. Steve Crist

-- Steve Crist, July 5, 1998

There is such a thing as a DuoPod. There are two models from UniLoc, and I use the larger one with a small ball head. This is a largish monopod plus a foot plate which pivots into place. The foot plate tightens down to become a brace. Then you stand on the foot plate to stabilize the whole thing while shooting.

The large DuoPod model is lighter and easier to use than my lightest tripod, but not as stable as the tripod in most conditions. I woudln't even try it for macro shots. Also, I wouldn't try using it to shoot a sporting event without removing the detachable foot plate. The foot plate slows things down when compared to a plain monopod.

I'm not trying to hype the DuoPods, but with the foot plate attached, you have a device that effectively bridges the gap between a monopod and a tripod. Without the foot plate, you still have a perfectly good monopod. It works fine for me much of the time, and I will not go back to using a mere monopod. The DuoPod makes it nearly as easy to change lenses as having a tripod. Also, the DuoPod takes about one third the time to set up as a tripod.

The DuoPod is awkward to carry unless you get a strap that works well with it, such as the Gitzo strap. It also might be awkward to fit into some backpacks. I haven't experienced any other problems with it in light use so far.

-- Charles Miller, January 21, 2000

> I use the Bogen Automatic Monopod 3245.  It's not cheap, B&H sells it
> for $64, I think I paid $110 locally.  I use it on my Nikon 80-200
> f/2.8.  It's sturdy, and I like the way the top section works.  It has a
> pistol grip, and when you squeeze that, the top section (trombone
> slider, if you like) can be raised and lowered.  This is handy for
> dropping the camera down to chest level while a second camera with short
> zoom is brought into play.
>
> All my buddies who have seen/borrowed mine end up buying one. 
>
> I also use a small ballhead (Bogen 3009, I think) and a stroboframe QR
> system on it.  The ballhead isn't really necessary for collared lenses,
> but comes in handy for those lenses w/o collars.  FWIW, my buddies don't
> like this ballhead for one reason or another.
>
> -Todd

----------

using one of the Bogen single-axis tilt heads (No. 3232) allows putting the monopod at the best angle for stability while letting the camera point where you want it. As for specifics, when properly braced I can get pretty sharp pictures at 1/8 second with a 90mm lens (I'm always surprised at how little light there is on what appears to be a brightly lit stage.)

Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Monopods w/ 6x6

Patrick C. [email protected] wrote:

> Are you refering to Bogen/Manfrotto's Flex head?

Yes. Really ingenious.

> Please elaborate on the three-legs-trick you speak of.

I don't remember where I've seen this but it was suggested not to put the monopod straight up in front of oneself but to incline it and lean into it, making a sort of tripod out of one's own two legs and the monopod. Makes all the difference. Clearly, you'll want a solid and decent monopod for this exercise.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
http://www.free-photons.de

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2000
From: "Hansen, Lars Holst" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Duopod (was: Christmas Pageant (Was: Museum shootin g))

Hi Gunnar! You are perfectly right, that horisontal movement can be a challenge with monopods. I am therefore planning to make a shoulderpod to attach to the Bogen/Manfrotto 3229/234RC tilt top mounted on the monopod. This will not only stabilize the setup when the monopod is extended to the ground, but also in the situations when I "handheld" the 400/3.5 by letting the monopod rest in a belt pouch. The 400/3.5 + camera + MD is about 4.5 kg, so it sure is a relief to have the weight transferred to a belt! I have played with a duopod (mainly when having detached a leg for the "instant monopod" modification). It does however take considerably more space than a monopod, and this might be one of the reasons why it is not on the market. Another reason is probably that it is easy and fast to make one ourselves. Bjorn Rorslett shows one @ http://www.foto.no/nikon/sacht3.html - but this is probably a case where a monopod would have done just as well as the duopod, as the camera and lens will have a two-point support anyways).

Best regards, --
Lars Holst Hansen - [email protected]
http://www.zi.ku.dk/personal/lhhansen
http://www.egroups.com/subscribe/NikonRepair

> Gunnar �berg wrote:
>
> I am returning to the "duopod" - one leg taken off from a tripod.
> If you shoot with long lenses (as for me birds photography) the
> problem with a monopod is vibrations in the horizontal plane. You
> have to combine the monopod with some sort of support against your
> shoulder or as Bill suggestes "pull the strap on your camera taught". ...

Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: re: museum shooting

see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/art.html and mf/monopod.html

Many places won't allow monopods either; I tried to get mine into the Dallas Museum of Art yesterday during a seminar on Gelman collection of mexican art (Rivera/Kahlo..) [with talk by daughter of artists etc.] - no go!

another alternative is a simple 1/4" eyebolt and piece of thin cord with loop at bottom; you step in the loop, pull up, and the camera is somewhat restricted in position - cheap $.25 US trick ;-) be careful to measure depth of socket in camera base; I recommend using two nuts on the eyebolt to set and lock in the max. depth (otherwise, it is theoretically possible to keep turning the screw and go thru some cameras with weak bases made of plastic, hence my warning caveat emptor ;-)

most folks don't use monopods correctly, they really are meant to wedge so as to provide tripod effect with your body/2 legs and pod leaning into you see mf/monopod.html pages for details

other tricks like chest pod (leitz table tripod) rarely work in museums too as they look too much like tripods (which they are) even if not in folks way

another trick for glass cases is to use a rubber lens hood against the glass, and a closeup lens if needed to focus close (no light losses)...

HTH bobm

From Nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: re: monopods

one of the more interesting ideas to turn up in some recent reading was an M.D.'s bird photobook (title?) suggested putting a hose clamp on a monopod near top and attaching a line by clips on each side, long enough to create a triangular delta shape, noting that this helped stabilize the sideways movement of the monopod without adding a lot to the weight when using long telelenses for bird photo shots; I was also impressed that he made his own filters for big lenses - when a neuro/brain surgeon M.D. has to economize on buying photogear, you know the stuff is expensive ;-) p-)

another trick is an eyebolt in a camera (1/4") with string to loop so you step in the loop, pull up on the string, get some reduction in camera sway; this is handy if you can't take a monopod into a museum or site, fits in pocket, costs $.25 US ;-) - an extra stop for many users?...

also some folks put a drilled metal bar under the foot of their monopods, so in soil you can step on the bar and thereby limit the monopod swaying

more tips at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/monopod.html HTH bobm

* Robert Monaghan

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
From: Roland Smith [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bean bags

I use a bean bag sometimes and find they are great for holding the camera in position. While they work best on a horizontal surface, I have found them a great help when held against a vertical surface such as a door frame.

My wife made mine with closed cell foam particles as fillers. She is now selling them for $7 plus shipping. The size is around 12cm X 12cm.

In a quick need, one can fill an old sock with beans and tie off the top.

Roland Smith

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bean bags

Best are those little plastic beads used in some of the commercial "beanbags". You can get them wet without harm and they don't attract weevils like real beans do.

Bob

...

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000
From: Roland Smith [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Bean bags

Additional comment on bean bags;

They are especially good for a medium format camera with a waist level finder since you are looking down into the finder and a lower surface such as a table top, railing, chair or other furniture is usually available for an indoor rest. Outdoors, there are many fixtures for a waist level rest.

Roland Smith

Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001
From: "Robert E. Smith" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Mamiya 220F/330F considerations

....

It may be worth noting here for the originator of this thread, that the use of a tripod is fundamental to good images regardless of the camera format, film/digital. In social engagements, strangers often ask for advise for producing the sharp images they see in the displayed work. =

They seem to expect to hear about gear, cameras, lenses, or other accessories which will magically transform their efforts into recognized prize winners. The advise is to employ a tripod or other good stable base. They are often disappointed.

Appropriate to the Mamiya C330f, et al. I have successfully used a cord attached to the camera tripod mounting via a 1/4-20 thread eye-bolt, available at all hardware stores at less than a Dollar. I step on the bitter end, raising the camera to waste level. The neck strap and the foot cord produce a rather rigid system enabling shutter speeds as slow as 1/8 sec. When done, the cord rolls up and fits into my pocket out of sight. This works very well where tripods are prohibited.

Truly dr bob.

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT - How to use a Monopod?

Hello Kheehua:

Another trick when using a monopod is to lean the monopod against a fence/park bench/etc (i.e. with the end right at the base of the fence/bench such that the monopod is dead vertical against the side of the fence/bench).

One last trick, that you'll probably not use often, but I'll mention anyhow is to use the self-timer and hold the monopod up so you can shoot over a crowd.

HTH,
Dan

Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2001
From: "Jeffery S. Harrison" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: utility of monopods

I read that too a while back but personally disagree with it.

It sounds like a perfectly good technique to use a monopod to simulate a tripod. It does not suite my purpose/style though. I use the monopod simply to add a little stability when I'm shooting with a long lens but still need the flexibility of hand holding. If I need tripod stability I use a tripod. The main time I use a monopod is when I'm photographing little league soccer games. The technique I found works best is to stand that monopod upright in front of me. I have a single motion head on it that I mount to control the up and down motion of the lens. When I attach the lens I do two things that will sound wrong but in a rapidly changing environment such as these soccer games works great. I loosen the head so that I can pitch the lens up or down as needed while retaining a little tension. The second thing I do is loosen the tripod collar on the lens so that the camera is free to rotate within the collar, again while retaining a little tension. I started doing it this way because it was awkward to try to pivot when following the action. Instead of walking around the monopod like you would have to do with a tripod I needed to be able to pivot at the waist and buy loosening both the head and the tripod collar I am able to do than and keep the camera properly vertical or horizontal as required. Granted you can't treat it like a tripod in this situation but it does allow me a couple extra stops worth of stability without getting in the way of the shot.

Jeffery S. Harrison

Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2001
From: "mark.woods" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Beanpod.

Hi!

Great site! Please feel free to include www.Beanpods.co.uk if you'd like (please) ! We're UK based, shipping worldwide.

Regards, Mark Woods.
[email protected]

www.markwoods.co.uk
www.beanpods.co.uk

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Mini Tripod / Support for TLR

The smallest and lightest camera support is a 3/8 eye screwed on to the bottom of the camera. Attach a 4-5 foot string to it. When you need support, step on the string, and slightly pull up on the camera. It will provide great support for places where you cannot use a tripod (historic sites, sidewalks, etc), and it will easily allow use of 1/15 speed. Rolls up in a jiffy and fits any pocket.

Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001
From: Edward Berkeley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: monopods

All the above correspondence provides useful tips for the use of monopods. I personally found the MONOSTAT monopod superior to anything else in the market, very steady and versatile, easily portable, well made. It can be used with up to 600mm telephoto lenses in still photography, and it's great for videography as well, including panning . Worth the inflated price.

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Tripod/Monopod Combination

you wrote:

>The best monopod I know is the "Monostat" from Swisserland. When you use  it
>once, you'll never want to get another. It costs (in Germany) approx.  $150
>to $180.

See http://www.monostat.com/

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

i assebked something to accomplish what you intend to do but more versatile.
I wanted to be able to shoot as you outline to show off the ultrawide
rectilenear Vistsashift 612 camers i design/refin
( http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/vista612.html )
i found a small but heavy duty rolling carrier used for video cameras years
ago when the power supply weighted 40 pounds instead of current oz or so. it
has a small footprint of about 12x inches, with a lever than lifts the
wheels off the ground for rigid fixed support capable originally of holding
the then heavy videa cameras on a extendable column. attaching a monopod to
that ( i have one that has 6 or 7 extensions closing down to less than a
foot) i had matching threads put on it so i can attach my camera it and
raise it to about 12' with 3 lb or so. it is self-supporging on its base
though at the high levels i hold on to it.  So somehthing quite old is new
again and the envy of almost every photographer i top. ralph

> From: Clayton Tume [email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: giant monopods
> 
> Hi all
> 
> anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
> feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
> 
> The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right in
> the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
> get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
> reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that the
> camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
> bit more height.
> 
> I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
> to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
> you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
> 
> Clayton
> 


Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Hi Clayton,

This sounds like a great idea, in fact somethng that I have been meaning to
build for ages, Project No.171, what are you using for the clamps between
sections, I am assuming that you are using telescoping rod

I actually have a manfrotto one already and had considered just canabalsiing
the clamps ETC and using linger sections of tube, but would prefer to leave it
intact.

Glenn

Clayton Tume wrote:

> Hi all
>
> anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
> feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>
> The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right in
> the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
> get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
> reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that the
> camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
> bit more height.
>
> I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
> to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
> you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>
> Clayton

Glenn Barry Photography
E-Mail: mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.acay.com.au/~glenn



Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: Ron Klein [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Check out this site and build youself a really big monopod.  

http://www.bird-shots.com/pap/pap.htm



Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: ralph fuerbringer [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Clayton..It is not featherweight but i sometimes carry it  your way. however
the base about 7x12 "folds up with the release of a lever lock and the unit
rolls.  with the base in place it also  rolls, acting as a carrier. i use it
all the time to lug camera bags, packages, tvs, computers, groceries you
name it. it is much better built than the standard folding roller cart. i
paid $30 for it at a camera store where someone left the video setup to see
if anyone could use anything from it.  i am frequently offered  a hundred
for it just as a grocery cart. a photographer offered me $500 and someone
wanted to go into partners and manufacture them. My vistashift-612 cameras
take all my time. it obviously wouldnt sell  enough to pay the
set up expenses, also may be patented. thrown in the trunk of a car with a
lot of heavy metal cases the 2-section centerpost got bent so the  extention
wouldnt pull out.  i replaced it with a single steel section about 2'high.
i have use various top monopos sections . the super folding monopod has had
to be slip adjussted several times so i no longer use it to pull stuff
around.

  to fabricate this jem would be a hell of job and expense.

 if i lost mine i would inquire for one at every digital and movie forum i
or goggle could find. also you might try classified ads in the video/movie
periodicals as there may be somea  these or similair contraptions just
gathering dust now. ralph

> From: Clayton Tume [email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: giant monopods
> 
> Ralph.......I figured someone? must have built one for another use in the
> past, I asked around and couldn't come up with anything. This video camera
> mount sounds interesting.......is it light enough to carry under your arm?
> 
> Clayton
> 
>> i found a small but heavy duty rolling carrier used for video cameras
> years
>> ago when the power supply weighted 40 pounds instead of current oz or so.
> it
>> has a small footprint of about 12x inches, with a lever than lifts the
>> wheels off the ground for rigid fixed support capable originally of
> holding
>> the then heavy videa cameras on a extendable column. attaching a monopod
> to
>> that ( i have one that has 6 or 7 extensions closing down to less than a
>> foot) i had matching threads put on it so i can attach my camera it and
>> raise it to about 12' with 3 lb or so. it is self-supporging on its base
>> though at the high levels i hold on to it.  So somehthing quite old is new
>> again and the envy of almost every photographer i top. ralph
> 
 


Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

you wrote:
>Hi all
>
>anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
>feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>
>The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right in
>the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
>get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
>reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that the
>camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
>bit more height.
>
>I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
>to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
>you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>
>Clayton
>
>

Clayton,

I saw some inexpensive collapsible alum. flag poles at a trade show -
perfect for monopods. I found them once on the web but don't have the
bookmark anymore. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround


Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>Hi all
>>
>>anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
>>feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>>
>>The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right in
>>the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
>>get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
>>reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that the
>>camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
>>bit more height.
>>
>>I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
>>to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
>>you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>>
>>Clayton
>>
>>
>
>Clayton,
>
>I saw some inexpensive collapsible alum. flag poles at a trade show -
>perfect for monopods. I found them once on the web but don't have the
>bookmark anymore. 
>
>AZ
>Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>
>www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>         or
>keyword.com lookaround
>
>

Clayton,

Found the URL:  http://www.uncommonusa.com/default.tpl

There are others too.

I'm sure this is the best approach.  You need to find an audible level now.
It would beep or make a tone when the camera was not level. I saw plans for
one but didn't build it.  

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Glenn Barry [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Hi Clayton,

Clayton Tume wrote:

> Hi Glenn.....I envy a guy that numbers his projects......obviously organised
> enough to work through them one at a time.

That is my very antithesis, I have so many going at the one time I can't keep
track, all in various states of completion ;-)

> Not me.....I half start them then
> dump it to move onto the next brainwave!

Great minds think alike.............

>
>
> I'm a machinist so the original plan was to manufacture something
> lightweight with smoothly sliding sections that closed down to regular
> tripod size. After deciding I wanted to use it now, not sometime in the
> future I looked around my workshop for unused stands and things to scavenge.
> I thought about robbing the bits off a light stand but extended it looked
> like a fishing rod, it was that flimsy.

I was considering starting with tube of at least 80mm diameter, only 1.6mm wall,
and working up and in from there, that way the sections should be firm enough to
stay rigid. The hard aprt is where to get the clamps for the telescoping
sections?

>
> Today I bought the longest piece of 50x50mm (2 x 2 inch) pine I could get in
> my station wagon, 2.7 metres. This piece of wood is surprisingly light and
> very rigid as well. Bought some other bits for leg braces and I'll see what
> I can do with it tomorrow. I want to test it on Saturday in a crowd. I know
> it sounds a bit agricultural but you can't beat it for
> simplicity........refinement can come later!

Sometimes less is more, you could do just as well with aluminium tubing and it
would give you splinters ;-)

Have fun with it

Glenn

>
>
> Clayton
>
> > This sounds like a great idea, in fact somethng that I have been meaning
> to
> > build for ages, Project No.171, what are you using for the clamps between
> > sections, I am assuming that you are using telescoping rod
> >
> > I actually have a manfrotto one already and had considered just
> canabalsiing
> > the clamps ETC and using linger sections of tube, but would prefer to
> leave it
> > intact.
> >
> > Glenn

Glenn Barry Photography
E-Mail: mailto:[email protected]
Web: http://www.acay.com.au/~glenn



Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Look into a telescoping Antenna - high, sturdy, good base, might be just what 
you need as a basis.

AJ


Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: Mike Sinclair [email protected]>
Subject: RE: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

I made a level indicator a while ago with a monopod, dual axis
accelerometer, a microcontroller (STAMP will do) and a small array of
LEDs in the form of an 'X'. The accelerometer is also very sensitive
dual axis inclinometer (ADI-ADXL-202 works great). The microcontroller
reads the two axes and lights appropriate LED(s) depending on which way
and how much you need to correct the tilt - very fast and intuitive. A
$2 bubble level at HomeDepot also works but isn't as intuitive (and
wasn't as fun). It can get you to within less than a degree fairly
quickly. Not a very demanding project for the electronically-handy. 

Another project was a servo'd version but built for a small electronic
camera which would automatically level it. A gyro would then fire the
shutter for every N-degrees of rotation. Good for quick panoramas when
you don't have time to set up.

-Mike-

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Zinn [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: giant monopods

you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>Hi all
>>
>>anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre
(9
>>feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>>
>>The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's
right in
>>the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need
to
>>get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just
wont
>>reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc.
that the
>>camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to
give a
>>bit more height.
>>
>>I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you
stand on
>>to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod
anymore),
>>you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>>
>>Clayton
>>
>>
>
>Clayton,
>
>I saw some inexpensive collapsible alum. flag poles at a trade show -
>perfect for monopods. I found them once on the web but don't have the
>bookmark anymore. 
>
>AZ
>Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>
>www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>         or
>keyword.com lookaround
>
>

Clayton,

Found the URL:  http://www.uncommonusa.com/default.tpl

There are others too.

I'm sure this is the best approach.  You need to find an audible level
now.
It would beep or make a tone when the camera was not level. I saw plans
for
one but didn't build it.  

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Clayton Tume [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Ron and all

this is definitely worth a look, this guy has put together a real nice 50
foot monopod at low cost. He shows all the construction details too. Also
check out his links, you'll find a company making lightweight 50 foot
tripods that would be brilliant for pan cameras.

Clayton

> Check out this site and build youself a really big monopod.
>
> http://www.bird-shots.com/pap/pap.htm


Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: "A. Buck, G. Wietelmann" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

I've been following this topic waiting for the subject
of how to make sure it's level to come up. I know
someone who shoots profesionally with a well balanced
camera (he made it). A lot of his shots are done with
a monopod, I believe a simple wooden post. To level
it, he relies on gravity: if the post is perfectly
balanced and perfectly vertical, it'll stand by
itself. So he just *very* loosely holds it pushing it
slightly and catching it as it starts to tip. When it
gets very stable and centered, he trips the 'shutter'.
Works beautifully everytime, as long as it's not too
windy.

Andy



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]>
Subject: RE: giant monopods/levels
To: [email protected]

you wrote:
>I made a level indicator a while ago with a monopod, dual axis
>accelerometer, a microcontroller (STAMP will do) and a small array of
>LEDs in the form of an 'X'. The accelerometer is also very sensitive
>dual axis inclinometer (ADI-ADXL-202 works great). The microcontroller
>reads the two axes and lights appropriate LED(s) depending on which way
>and how much you need to correct the tilt - very fast and intuitive. A
>$2 bubble level at HomeDepot also works but isn't as intuitive (and
>wasn't as fun). It can get you to within less than a degree fairly
>quickly. Not a very demanding project for the electronically-handy. 
>
>Another project was a servo'd version but built for a small electronic
>camera which would automatically level it. A gyro would then fire the
>shutter for every N-degrees of rotation. Good for quick panoramas when
>you don't have time to set up.
>
>-Mike-
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Zinn [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:44 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: giant monopods
>

Mike,
Sounds slick - it would be particularly useful because the readout doesn't
have to be level - only the sensors. That is the advantage I was seeking in
an audible level. btw, Radio Shack has a project pamphlet with schematics
for similar devices. I'm waiting for an off-the-shelf gadget that doesn't
cost a mint. 

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

you wrote:
>Hi Michel
>
>I had Gildas design a new Scantech for me so that it could be used on a
>monopod. He balanced the design by building the power pack into the body and
>redesigning the base layout, also a new motor to drive the extra weight. You
>can see it here   http://perso.wanadoo.fr/panorama/voyageur/USE50_03.html
>
>I'm very pleased with the way it handles, it's a lightweight camera that
>allows me to do things I couldn't do with my other cameras. Originally I
>looked at buying the Roundshot 65/70 or Alpa Rotocamera but they were too
>big and heavy for my use, I don't think you'd want to use one on a monopod.
>I wanted 120 film and probably the only other cameras worth looking at
>(lightweight 120) are the Hulcherama or Rotational Specialities cameras,
>neither of which I've seen in the flesh.
>
>Prints from the Scantech are as good as I've seen from a Roundshot, you can
>see some on my website    www.bigshotz.co.nz    under new panoramas on the
>homepage. I've shot transparency on it and they're pretty good too!
>
>Clayton
>
>> Hi all !
>>
>> About MONOPOD, just be sure that your rotating camera (Scantech or
>> Larscan)  is well balanced as well as for vertical use, to avoid
>> balancing of the camera during rotation.
>>
>> I have also put a level to be sure the monopod  is vertical.
>>
>> Michel DUSARIEZ
>>
>> Have a look at http://www.pano360.org/
>> --
>> http://www.pano360.org/
>> Michel DUSARIEZ
>> UNLIMITED FIELDS RESEARCH PANOPTIC IMAGING asbl
>> KITE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WORLDWIDE ASSOCIATION - FOUNDATION
>> 14, Avenue Capitaine PIRET
>> B-1150 BRUXELLES - BELGIUM
>> Fax 32 2 512 68 29
>>
>
Clayton,

I agree with Michel, balance is very important. You will find it difficult
if not impossible to keep an un-balanced camera steady on  a monopod.  The
Hulcher is quite asymmetrical and I found it a real handicap.  I moved the
batteries and made a shot bag that hangs around the lens to improve the
balance on mine - what a cluge!. If I were doing a lot of high monopod work
I'd use a gyro mount or build some weight arms like on my Lookaround. It
spins like a top.

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: "W. David Schwaderer" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Also check:

http://www.luksa.com/
http://www.floatograph.com/

---

Best regards,
W. David Schwaderer
SpinPic President and CEO

http://www.spinpic.com/
http://www.wmrs.edu/VR/Virtual.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/Author=Schwaderer%2C%20W.%20David/002-5596
264-0325832



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Max Warwick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Hullo Clayton

What a lot of really useful info.
The www.bird-shots.com site suggested by Ron is excellent and goes to great
lengths to layout the details for DIYers.
However, if your ham fisted and have loads of money, you might like to try
Luksa Instruments from Ontario, Canada, who make three heights at 30', 45'
and 60' - I can't find the price details though! - www.luksa.com

I have an old 5 legged extension (10') Gilux and some Manfrotto boom arm
sections so believe there is the basis for getting up to 20' with limited
engineering. I need to get the extra height on open shorelines etc and
unable to get a car/truck near.

Max Warwick
www.360vrtours.co.uk


----- Original Message -----
From: "Clayton Tume" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 2:14 AM
Subject: giant monopods


> Hi all
>
> anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre (9
> feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>
> The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's right
in
> the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need to
> get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just wont
> reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc. that
the
> camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to give a
> bit more height.
>
> I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you stand on
> to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod anymore),
> you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>
> Clayton
>



Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Dan Slater [email protected]>
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

"A. Buck, G. Wietelmann" wrote:

> I've been following this topic waiting for the subject
> of how to make sure it's level to come up. I know
> someone who shoots profesionally with a well balanced
> camera (he made it). A lot of his shots are done with
> a monopod, I believe a simple wooden post. To level
> it, he relies on gravity: if the post is perfectly
> balanced and perfectly vertical, it'll stand by
> itself. So he just *very* loosely holds it pushing it
> slightly and catching it as it starts to tip. When it
> gets very stable and centered, he trips the 'shutter'.
> Works beautifully everytime, as long as it's not too
> windy.

I have been using a variation of this technique with the Hulcherama. I
first added a counterbalancing weight just below the lens. This
counterbalancing weight is so desireable that it has been permanently
installed.

I then added a small (3" diameter) circular disk to the bottom of a
Bogen monopod. This instantly sets the monopod vertical when the ground
is level as in the city. The disk also provides a second important
function. Stepping on the disk prevents the monopod from rotating as the
Hulcherama accelerates. I have used this setup many times, even for long
night time exposures. The operation is very fast and simple. I
originally designed this setup for crowd shots in baseball stadiums as
the fans do not take well to tripods, etc. One of the Hulcherama
baseball photos using this setup is on my web site:

http://www.nearfield.com/~dan/photo/streak/hulcher/index.htm

There have been some server problems so accessing my web site is
currently very intermittant.

For high shots, I use a modified Gitzo tripod than can go as high as 17
feet although it is limited to about 12 feet for the spin balanced
Hulcherama. The small size of the inner extension tubes limits the
Hulcherama height. The tripod is a combination of a standard Gitzo
tripod, a long inverted Gitzo monopod and a custom machined adapter. It
folds up very compact, is easily carried (I can even carry it on my
bicycle), and from a distance, it looks just like a standard tripod.

Dan Slater


Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

Manfrotto has been known to make specials to order....

AJ

Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Alan Zinn [email protected]>
Subject: RE: giant monopods/levels
To: [email protected]

you wrote:
>Alan,
> 
>I tried audio but didn't have much luck - best I came up with was
headphones with left ear monopod pitch and right ear yaw. A-440 tone on both
was level, higher meant too high in pitch and too left in yaw, etc. It was
too hard to coordinate. If you come up with anything, I'd love to hear about
it. (I think hearing is best for 1D vectors ;-).
>
>	-Mike-
>	 
>	-----Original Message----- 
>	From: Alan Zinn [mailto:[email protected]] 
>	Sent: Fri 1/18/2002 9:37 AM 
>	To: [email protected] 
>	Cc: 
>	Subject: RE: giant monopods/levels
>	
>	

Mike,

Oooooooeeeee!   The Radio Shack book I have is Engineer's Mini Notebook -
Sensor Projects. There are two simple audio optical level sensors. They
"read" the location of a real bubble level. Seems to me a circular level
could work with one tone.  

AZ
Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround



Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 
From: Mike Sinclair [email protected]>
Subject: RE: giant monopods
To: [email protected]

I made a level indicator a while ago with a monopod, dual axis
accelerometer, a microcontroller (STAMP will do) and a small array of
LEDs in the form of an 'X'. The accelerometer is also very sensitive
dual axis inclinometer (ADI-ADXL-202 works great). The microcontroller
reads the two axes and lights appropriate LED(s) depending on which way
and how much you need to correct the tilt - very fast and intuitive. A
$2 bubble level at HomeDepot also works but isn't as intuitive (and
wasn't as fun). It can get you to within less than a degree fairly
quickly. Not a very demanding project for the electronically-handy. 

Another project was a servo'd version but built for a small electronic
camera which would automatically level it. A gyro would then fire the
shutter for every N-degrees of rotation. Good for quick panoramas when
you don't have time to set up.

-Mike-

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Zinn [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2002 12:44 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: giant monopods

you wrote:
> you wrote:
>>Hi all
>>
>>anyone out there using an oversize monopod? I'm building a 2.7 metre
(9
>>feet) version and wondering if anyone else had success with one.
>>
>>The plan is to use my rotating Scantech on it so I can shoot 360's
right in
>>the middle of a crowd. Also I've come across scenic views where I need
to
>>get over the top of bushes, fences, etc. and a regular tripod just
wont
>>reach. I've got a short bracket that I bolt to fences, trigs, etc.
that the
>>camera mounts on and the monopod will also be used the same way to
give a
>>bit more height.
>>
>>I plan to put 2 extra legs on that have a flip out foot which you
stand on
>>to stabilise the monopod (which I guess means it isn't a monopod
anymore),
>>you've probably seen similar ones from I think Manfrotto.
>>
>>Clayton
>>
>>
>
>Clayton,
>
>I saw some inexpensive collapsible alum. flag poles at a trade show -
>perfect for monopods. I found them once on the web but don't have the
>bookmark anymore. 
>
>AZ
>Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.
>
>www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
>         or
>keyword.com lookaround
>
>

Clayton,

Found the URL:  http://www.uncommonusa.com/default.tpl

There are others too.

I'm sure this is the best approach.  You need to find an audible level
now.
It would beep or make a tone when the camera was not level. I saw plans
for
one but didn't build it.  

AZ

Maker of Lookaround panoramic camera.

www.geocities.com/soho/gallery/8874/
         or
keyword.com lookaround


From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 20 Mar 2002 
Subject: Re: Monopods: How slow can you go?

So my questions are:
1) The use for a monopod
2) How much shutter speed you gain from using it
3) Is the monopod made for low light (dusk) shots, or more for action
shots when camera shake through a telephoto lens is magnified?


You will get a lot of people praising the monopod in this group so let me offer
the alternative view:

What monopods are REALLY good for is taking the weight off a long lens. If
you're going to covering a football game or something the task will be a lot
easier with a monopod because you won't have to support the big lens all day
with your arms.

As for low light and slow shutter speeds, as a general rule a monopod will only
give you one to two stops advantage over hand-holding. So, if you could get
away with 1/60 handheld you'll be doing good to get sharp photos at 1/15 with
the monopod.

As you know, a tripod is much more versatle. Instead of shooting at 1/15 at
f2.8 you can shoot at 1 sec at f 11. Try that with a monopod!

So what's a guy or gal to use instead of a monopod if they want something
that's lightweight and easy to carry so that it's handy when they need it? What
I carry is a small table top tripod. With the head separated from the legs the
whole unit fits in a side pocket of my bag and it's always there, when I need
it. I can shoot at ANY shutter speed with the table pod. I've very successfully
shot multi-second exposures with it resting on a bench, etc. I've even shot
tack-sharp 1 second exposures by holding it against a wall. When I need just an
extra stop or two to help my hand-holding I use it like a chest pod. I contend
that used this way it is every bit as helpful as a monopod.

Personally, I use an old Leitz tabletop tripod and ball head. It's absolutely
the best of its type and actually affordable when purchased used (try ebay).
But Bogen makes a decent one and Minolta used to (may still).

I own a monopod -- a Gitzo Studex, in fact -- but I rarely use it outside the
sidelines. I find the table pod MUCH more useful. And it's always in the bag.



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Monopods: How slow can you go?
From: Kenneth Darling Soerensen [email protected]
Date: 21 Mar 2002


[email protected] wrote
> I got to the stage that I had go get the weight down when hiking so I
> bought a Manfrotto 479-4B monopod with the 234RC QR system to replace
> my Benbo Trekker.

Just got the same pod and head but haven't had time to test it yet. So why
am I posting? :-)

I wanted to give the original poster and others this link
(http://home1.pacific.net.sg/~wee/article2.htm) which I found some time ago
and which concerns how to use a monopod efficiently.

--
Regards
Kenneth



From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 22 Apr 2001 
From: David Morris [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Mini Tripod / Support for TLR

 you wrote:
>Have you ever considered a monopod?

Monopods are great. Your legs form the remainder of the tripod.  I have
used one many a time at 1/30sec or slower.  Works very well with a twin
lens because you look downwards onto the camera which encourages stability
(and also means the pod does not have to be so tall than say with a 35mm
camera which you look through horizontally).  They also double up walking
sticks, bramble movers and weapons against  inquisitive sheep!  I have an
old Cullman tripod that has a monopod as its central post, so you can have
the choice for any occasion.

sincerely,
David Morris ([email protected])


From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Mini Tripod / Support for TLR

> From: Richard Urmonas [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Mini Tripod / Support for TLR
>
> monopods:  been there, tried that.  I guess I am somewhat dissapointed by my
> monopod (Monfrotto 079 = Bogen 3016).  The performance improvement while
> there hardly makes it worth carrying.  I would rather carry the extra 1.1 kg
> and have the tripod (Manfrotto 190 = Bogen 3001).


My favorite monopod is the Mamiya carbon fiber one.  Weighs only 11 ounces,
which is about 1/3 of a kilogram.  In spite of its very light weight it is
quite strong, being designed for Mamiya medium format cameras.  I put a
little Novoflex ball head on mine and it is just perfect to carry around
when weight is an issue.

> Leica type mini tripod:  I had known about these though have not had a chance
> to handle one.  My concern here is how well this could be held against a
> vertical / sloping surface.  Canon seem to make a very similar tripod which
> may
> be worth investigating.

Take a look at the Cullmann travel kit.  It includes a nice mini-tripod, a
couple of different clamps, small ball head, suction attachment (for car
windows, hoods, doors, etc., tree spike, etc.  You can put the components
together in a wide variety of ways to support a camera, second flash unit,
etc.

Bob


From: Alan Browne [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Monpod Technique --more to it than you might think!
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002


Searching for something else, I stumbled upon the following page and
found the advice to be very good (although my adaptation ain't quite the
same for various reasons, this is a great starting point).

  http://www.asiaphoto.com/jed/030399mp.htm#use

main page: http://www.asiaphoto.com/jed/index.htm

Cheers,
Alan


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 
From: "saycheese9" [email protected]
Subject: RE:  An inexpensive monopod - my invention? � larry ellis

I mount a Bogen 3049 quick release plate on my 800si.  Cut a piece of
PVC SCH 40 to the length you desire.  The bottom of the plate just
happens to snuggly fit perfectly inside the 1 1/4" inner diameter of
the PVC.  This works especially good at beaches where you can stick
one end of the PVC several inches into the sand,rotating your camera
with the pipe.  It's light and costs only a few bucks.  If you're so
inclined, you are more than welcome *although not obligated* to send
me a courtesy dollar for the erudite thinking that went into the
inventive process. If enough people catch on to this idea, you might
help me get to Cancun for Springer Break 2003.


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 
Subject: Re: [Nikon] monopod head
From: Robert Fately [email protected]

Al, i believe you're referring to the Bogen monopod head - as I recall
it cost about $15 US.

Bob

 Al Kiecker wrote:
> Sometime ago I was surfing the net and ran across a head specifically
> designed for a monopod.  It allowed easy up/down adjustment of the
> camera,
> no horizontal adjustment as none is needed.  Now I can't find it.
> Anyone
> know what it is I am talking about and where I might find it?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -- al


il
From: "Russell" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Does the 1/focal length rule hold for MF?
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002


Don't forget the MONOPOD.  I used to take journalistic-type photos indoors
with no flash using a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera and a monopod; I could go
down to 1/4 second and usually got one good shot out of 2 or 3.  They are so
easy to use and carry around, and good ones are not expensive (like my Bogen
Manfrotto), I marvel that they are so little-used.  If you get one with a
flat top, get the Bogen monopod head too, much sturdier than a ball head
because it only rotates in one dimension.

I consider a "pod" (mono- or tri-) to be part of the camera, and for the
last few years have not shot a frame without one or the other.

--Russell
....


aus.photo
From: [email protected] (Obake)
[1] Re: DIY Monopod
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002

"David Clayton" [email protected] wrote:
>Hi all,
>Just been looking at monopods for travel - gee they're expensive.  Does
>anyone have any ideas/instructions on how to make one myself?
>
>Cheers
>David

i remember reading  japanese photo mag which had a picture of a guy using an
umbrella upside-down as a monopod :)  theres a screw/thread on the top of most
umbrellas that will take a camera.


From: "Steve Clutterbuck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: DIY Monopod
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 


I made one from a window washer/squeegee that I bought from Bunnings. The
handle of the squeegee is a three part telescoping aluminium tube with twist
action locks (similar to a number of commercial tripods) I cut the squeegee
part off and put a rubber foot over the end to avoid scratching floors etc
and to provide a better grip. At the handle end I turned an aluminium plug
to fit and tapped it for a 1/4 bolt to fit the cameras tripod socket. If you
don't know someone with a lathe it should be fairly simple to use a hand
shaped wooden plug drilled to take the bolt. The bolt could be secured with
araldite if necessary. The squeegee cost about $15 from memory.
....


From: "doughnut" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Techniques and limits to using a monopod????
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 


"Nik" [email protected] wrote...
> For those of you who use a monopod, what are the best techniques to
> stabilize the monopod and what are the slowest shutter speeds you
> would use with it?

I've had good results down to 1/4 second (with wide-angle lens) using my
monopod.  My approach is really about using as much of your body as possible to
provide extra support, dampening, and weight, so that the monopod together with
your body creates a tripod effect.

I use a ball head unlocked but with moderate friction so that it's somewhat
rigid but still adjustable.  I lean the monopod back 5-10 degrees and jam my
face against the camera.  I try to keep my elbows locked against my chest
(especially the left elbow), and I usually hold the top of the monopod firmly
with my left hand and push down with it almost like I'm leaning into it.  The
right hand is firmly grasping the camera.  A wide-ish stance is usually
helpful.

If there's something around that you can lean either yourself or preferably the
monopod against (like a tree or fence), this will make things even better.

I've also occasionally used the monopod just hanging from the bottom of the
camera with the ball head loose.  It looks very odd, but helps by acting like a
stabilizer for fast handheld work with lighter gear and a long lens.  The more
extended the monopod the better, but even completely collapsed makes a notable
difference.


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2002 
From: Karl Snyder [email protected]
Subject: Re: Monopod Flexhead, was: Problem with heavy lens

you wrote:
>Speaking of the Bogen tripod, I bought a Bogen Monopod a while back that came
>with a flexhead attachment.  It seems to me that with this flexhead, the camera
>mooves so easily, I might as well just hand-hold it.  Luckily it comes off(and
>stays off).  I was just wondering what this is supposed to be good for, and if
>I am maybe just using it wrong.  Thanks much.
>
>Mike Schauer

You may be using your monopod wrong.  The best idea I've seen is
that you spread your legs apart and put the stick out in front on
you by about the same amount your legs are spread.  Now you are
making a tripod where your two legs are part of the tripod.  The
swivel on the top of the tripod allows you to adjust the camera
angle to approximate the angle needed to shoot your subject. I
replaced top on mine with one with a quick disconnect plate for
faster on/off.

Monopods are just sticks with a screw on the top.

Hope this helps,


Karl Snyder
Boulder, Colorado
http://www.RockyMountainNationalPark.Info
http://www.EstesPark.US/


from nikon mailing list:
From: [email protected] (H.F.Huber)
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] AW:mononpod

look for 'Monostat of Switzerland', they have one of the best monopods. If
you live in the US, I guess you can get them at B&H. In Europe they are
distributed from every good photostore.

As ballhead for monopod's I can recommend the small MAGIC BALL from
NOVOFLEX, also an European product from Germany. You can order it from
www.isarfoto.de.

Regards

Ferdinand
....






From: "Windel Dickerson" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 
Subject: [Nikon] Monopods

I have looked at a number of monopods hoping to be able to replace my
customary walking stick (a necessity for me, I am afraid.)  None I saw
quite fit the bill, excellent though they might be.  Quite by accident, I
found an antique Kodak monopod originally sold in 1939.  It is a brilliant
design. Collapsed, it passes quite nicely as an elegant black cane with a
knob on the top.  Twist the knob and a telescoping unit can be withdrawn.
Another twist and it is locked at the proper heighth.  When extended, the
ball drops a notch and the mounting screw protrudes.  Another twist and
the whole unit collapses with the screw again flush with the knob.
Though I have looked, this is the only one I have ever seen.  Does anyone

else know of a source of current manufacture?



From: "josh madison" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Monopods
Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002

I haven't seen the one you are talking about, but check out what some
enterprising person created:
http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/merlin_stick.html

Also, Gitzo makes the MonoTrek:
http://www.gitzo.com/products/metric/monopods/monotrek/rightscreen.php3


from nikon mailing list:
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 
From: ed doherty [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] re monopod

A few years ago Billingham supplied a walking pole that converted to a
monopod.  I don't know if they still do it?

www.billingham.co.uk


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 
From: "Don Ferrario" [email protected]
Subject: Re: monopod

>   Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 
>   From: "Prasad Agrahar" [email protected]
>Subject: Re: Re: Re: Thanksgiving Day Parade ideas
>
>
>The reason I had asked this question is because I am planning a trip to
>China and my Manfrotto 055PRO tripod is too heavy & bulky. I am looking for
>a lighter alternative which must be as stable as a good tripod. I am eyeing
>a Monopod - brand Nikon (I think it is really Manfrotto make). It is a
>Monopod in true sense but has three small legs that can be brought out if
>necessary. It is a lot lighter than my 055PRO. Any advice?
>
>Thanks
>Prasad


Prasad:  I am quite familair with the Manfrotto monopod with 3 little
legs - I actually bought one a few years ago.  It's an expensive joke.
Totally worthless.  Save your money.  The little feet add no stability
at all.  Even a small camera won't sit solidly on top of that unit.  It
just falls over.  I sold that puppy a long time ago.

I stiff monopod with a proper head can be made to work quite well.

Many monopods are so flimsy, they are worthless.  Extend the pod
fully, and attempt to bend the legs.  If any flex, try a different one.

To use a monopod correctly, you set it up so the monopod itself
is one of three legs.  The other two legs are your own human body.
The monopod must extend out from you.  That means the pod is
*not* vertical.  That also means you must have some type of head
on the pod - you can't just screw the pod into the camera.  Bogen
makes an excellent monopod head, that rotates in just one axis.
They are not expensive (about $30 new).  I have an extra used one
laying around if you're interested.

The small ball heads that Bogen and others offer for monopods are
not as good for this purpose, as they are too flimsy, and will slip.

With all that, the monopod can be used to add stability, especially
with lenses in the 200mm range.  It's isn't a perfect substitute for
a good tripod, but as you note a tripod isn't always practical.

don ferrario
www.donferrario.com
www.nikonlinks.com


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 
From: "Stu Turk" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: monopod

----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Ferrario" [email protected]

> Prasad:  I am quite familair with the Manfrotto monopod with 3 little
> legs - I actually bought one a few years ago.  It's an expensive joke.
> Totally worthless.  Save your money.  The little feet add no stability
> at all.  Even a small camera won't sit solidly on top of that unit.  It
> just falls over.  I sold that puppy a long time ago.

     Er...you're suppose to keep your foot on one of the legs.  Although
mine is pretty worn out now, I've used one of those monopods with the three
legs that fold out of the bottom for close to 40 years now (not Manfrotto.
The name on mine is Mida) and have never had it fall over.  It wasn't
intended to stand by itself.  As long as I could keep a foot on one of the
monopod's legs it has steadied my F2 and F3's with 180mm and 300mm lens.



From: alindsey [[email protected]] 
Sent: Thu 8/14/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pole Photography

To all pole-a-files,

I got my basic pole info from: http://www.bird-shots.com/

He has changed his site's access and converted from a truck pole to a
trailer pole - a great idea. I may change my pole mounting later on.

There are several PAP sites. Search on "Pole Aerial Photography"

It's not an easy project but a 50 ft (or less) pole is doable.

The cradle carries:
1. A roundshot 35, mounted upside down due to its Swiss alps lookup
character. I get more ground upside down.
2. The Roundshot controller
3. My Minolta D7 with or with out the fisheye adapter.
4. A video transmitter from X10.com for the Minolta or XCam2 video signal.
5. A 6V NiMh battery pack for servos rotating: Hor, Vert, Shutter and Pwr.
6. A 12V NiMh battery pack for the Video xmiter
7. A 7.2 V battery pack for the Minolta

Or, I can mount only the RS and use a small Video camera from X10
(XCam2) to see the camera's view from the air. Leveling is done buy
doing a 360 and adjusting the pole so that the horizon is in the
middle of the TV screen all around.

The D7 when mounted, either landscape or portrait wise, can be rotated
360 degrees in both axis. Sphericals are easy. Only the Nadir patch
is tough. When mounted alone I can put the D7's Nodal point right on
the centers of rotation.

On the ground, I have a video receiver from X10, a small battery
powered TV (with a video input) and a R/C box for activating the
cradle stuff. I use a 4 channel Futaba R/C kit. It came with the
servos, receiver, transmitter (controller), batteries and charger. I
replaced the NiCad batteries with NiMh.

I first used a 4:1 gear reduction but It seemed too fast so I changed
to a worm gear for the two rotation directions. Also, the H & V
servos were modified to provide 360 degrees of rotation. Plenty of
sites tell how to modify these.

I had some welding done on the pole side of the project but everything
else was made in my garage. I have hand tools, a grinder, a drill and
a vise. The cradle was made in my garage using local materials from
Radio Shack, Lowes and Home Depot (except the two worms and spurs and
the small ball bearings which I had to order because I live in a small
town. The R/C unit came from a Hobby Outlet store. Teflon bearings
can replace the ball bearings. If the cradle is made correctly one
can balance the load so the servos are not stressed. I considered
hi-torque servos but worm gears were a bit cheaper and I wanted to
slow things down anyway.

I priced a commercial pole. Bare bones it was $8300. Home brew is
much cheaper. The owner of the bird-shots site told me that he has
used his pole for 2 years and has taken over 10,000 pics.

If you're serious, I'll be happy to provide some construction tips
that I learned (the hard way).

Regards,

Austin Lindsey



End of Page