Using monopods (2)

[Panama Hat & Camera]

How much can I reduce the shutter speed ("f-stops equivalent" or Exposure Value) using a monopod? Or "what I am gaining using a monopod"?
Cheers,
Antonio.

[Shadowman]

How much can I reduce the shutter speed ("f-stops equivalent" or Exposure Value) using a monopod? Or "what I am gaining using a monopod"?
Cheers,
Antonio.

You gain a reduction in the pressure applied to the camera from pressing the shutter, however if the monopod isn't completely stable you could still get a forward or backward pressure. With the base of the monopod braced against a solid surface you'll eliminate or further reduce that pressure.

What you'll gain in shutter speed is a few stops. For instance, if shooting with a 300mm lens normally handheld at 1/320s or faster you can get twice as much light on the sensor at 1/160s.

[Polar01]

I have a monopod, only time I use it is if I am out walking about with a large heavy lens on the camera. This allows me to keep the camera pointed at the action on the pod instead of holding it in my hands. Try holding a full frame camera with a 80-400 lens for 5 minutes in a shooting position hand held, the mono it for support and arm relief.

Cheers:

Allan

[AB26]

Antonio,

In my opinion a monopod is used for a specific application and not to replace a tripod. A monopod is used for support and not to gain much in shutter speed or exposure value.
I use my monopod only when hiking or when it is unpractical to carry a tripod with me. For sports photographers it is a practical tool to support those heavy lenses when you have to keep your eye glued to the viewfinder (like Allan does).

I have used my monopod like a tripod in the veld but then you need to make all sorts of innovative plans like, dig a hole or use rocks or a tree to support it, not very practical. A bean bag is sometimes more practical.

If you wish to gain on exposure, rather use a tripod.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Antonio,

How much can I reduce the shutter speed ("f-stops equivalent" or Exposure Value) using a monopod?

I would not think of it like manufacturers often try to 'specify' IS/VR performance.

I would think of it (as I have found it in use) as simply a way to ensure sharper results at the shutter speeds I should be using (be that for subject movement or lens focal length).


No doubt I might find a tripod would be better still, but often impractical to carry or use.


You could always test yourself;
a) turn off IS/VR (simply to remove one variable in this test)
b) zoom to maximum focal length on a distant static subject with good contrast edges and tiny points of lightness (to aid identifying camera shake)
c) focus and set to manual focus so it doesn't change
d) set manual exposure (assuming constant lighting)
e) shoot 10 frames each with and without a monopod, be careful to shoot from exactly the same place (for constant focus distance)
f) critically assess/measure point blur at 100% (pixel peep)
g) average these over the 10 shot spread
h) reach your conclusion

Cheers,

[DanK]

There is no one answer to this. You just have to try.

Like Dave, I use a monopod more to get better results than to allow slower shutter speeds. It also makes some work much easier. For example, I do a lot of macro work. It is much less effort to hold the camera reasonably still with a monopod, particularly because I have a flash rig that is fairly heavy and puts the center of gravity both forward and to off cente.r

[RustBeltRaw]

The major benefit from a monopod is ergonomic. It takes the weight off your arms and supports the lens near its center of gravity. Handy for long lenses, or shooting for several hours.

The benefits of IS are broadly debated. I suspect early iterations of the technology had lots of drawbacks that are persistent, because Internet information never dies, and people have trouble stepping away from their conclusions as the products change. Suffice it to say that how much one can gain from IS is a tricky question. Since it compensates for camera movement, it depends on how fast you move off subject (if the IS motor can move fast enough), how far you move off subject (if the IS motoer can move far enough), and whether the IS and focus systems have corrected identified what they're supposed to be tracking. These variables can cause rather confusing behavior. A good IS system, like the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II's, is a marvel. Older systems, like the EF-S 55-250mm f3.5-5.6 IS, are not nearly as effective.

At the end of the day, IS is not a substitute for good technique, and it's not a panacea. But it can expand your shooting range a little. Personally, I think John's 1-stop suggestion (halving shutter speed) is a reasonable expectation. Note that Canon claims 4 stops on the EF 70-200mm f2.8L II, which I don't quite believe. In certain situations like very predictable panning with a steady hand, sure, but not always.

Note that I don't have a single IS lens in my usual kit. I've rented several, owned two, and sold both when their image quality started to bother me. They were not sold because of any IS issues. That doesn't mean I dislike IS. It means that I consider focal length, aperture, and image quality are more important.

[HenkB]

Flipping your question around, I would say there is a potential of gaining the advantage of two stops better sharpness over handheld using identical exposures. If you wish to use some of that advantage to lengthen your exposure time and end up where you would have been without the monopod, fair enough. At the very least it can effectively mitigate most unwanted motions - but there will always be one left out, typically traverse (AKA yaw). This, of course, is exactly the motion sports photographers want to be absolutely free in so, for them, win/win.

I have spent much of the last year shooting with a monopod on my daily walks and am totally sold on its use - for me and for my equipment (D600, a far cry from an S100). The monopod adds weight to the kit, certainly, but, since I also use a ball head, it can be articulated to fit nearly every shooting situation from straight up to straight down including camera at ground
level. Even without the leg deployed to the ground it can act as an effective damping mass and add stability, especially when it is supported on my body somewhere (stuck in my belt, under the arm, over the shoulder - remember the ball head). I wonder how this would play out with a camera substantially lighter than the monopod itself. I have found I use it at least as much as a damper than as a direct support. It's a bit klugey to carry, but pays back in results.

[rpcrowe]

There are several reasons why I will use a monopod...

1. It does provide extra stability to my shooting. I have not worried about quantifying just how much extra stability it provides. However, when combined with IS, the monopod works quite well.

2. Holding a camera with a long and rather heavy lens in shooting position for a several hour shoot can be somewhat taxing on the arm and shoulder muscles. The monopod reduces the need to bodily hold the camera/lens...

3. I like carrying a camera and long lens attached to a monopod. I sling the pod over my shoulder and have the lens resting behind my shoulder. That works quite well and as an added bonus, it tends to be a support if I trip...

4. It reduces up and down camera movement and when combined with the Mode 2 of Image Stabilization is great for panning.

5. I prefer to have my monopod directly under the camera and perpendicular to the ground. I tend to get better support this was and it is easier to make a smooth pan. Therefore, I use a swivel head on my monopod. IMO, the swivel head works better than no head at all or better than a ball head. I use a Kirk Enterprises MPA-2 swivel head and an RRS, Arca-Compatible, L-bracket on my camera (when I an not using a tripod ring equipped lens)...

I have a phone case which I previously used for a Nokia Smartphone. Since I now use an iPhone, the Nokia belt case us surplus. I will occasionally wear it on my belt and place the foot of the Monopod in the case which makes a nice and very mobile camera support. I got this idea from the Manfrotto monopod belt support...

[NorthernFocus]

... A monopod is used for support and not to gain much in shutter speed or exposure value.
...

Take note, Andre. We DO agree on SOMETHING

IMO on average it is a mistake to think a monopod is going to buy lower shutter speeds. If one is extremely shaky, either by nature or due to trying to support the weight of heavy equipment, then yes it may buy a stop. But generally speaking it isn't advisable as a primary means of steadying the camera.

[AB26]

Take note, Andre. We DO agree on SOMETHING

I am so glad Dan. They say only fools never differ.

[PhotomanJohn]

My two cents worth. I have limited experience with a monopod having only recently purchased one. I do find that it does significantly improve my ability to hold the camera steadier. This is certainly the case when I use the 70-200mm f/4 with the 2X teleconverter. The VRIII on the lens is very effective without the teleconverter shooting handheld. But add the teleconverter at full zoom (400mm, 600mm equiv. on crop sensor) with the resulting f/8 max aperture and handholding is not an option in almost all ambient lighting conditions at lower ISO settings. I find that using the monopod angled away from me (so I can lean into it slightly forming sort of a tripod with my legs) with VR on I reliably get excellent images at 1/250 sec. This is a stop or two better than I can do without the monopod.

Richard - Thanks for the recommendation for the Kirk monopod head.

John

[ajohnw]

The problem with a question like this is that even hand held the slowest shutter speed that can be used varies with the person taking the shot. All that can really be said is that IS and monopods will improve that aspect. The nice thing about a monopod is that it will allow IS to be used as well improving things further.

I don't think it would be possible to take this shot of the "grass" without a monopod. A 500mm F8, mirror lens 1/80 sec on m 4/3 = 2000mm.



As you can see focusing on the goose with 7x mag = 14000mm and no IS was problematic. More of a guess really. No shake though and there almost always would be without. It's head was moving anyway. The grass is still sharp full frame. At some point I will try this with an EM-5 as that does have full time IS. The mag will still be needed though - it can be a problem to even find the thing that is being photographed.

John
-

[rpcrowe]

One thing that I do when holding a monopod is to slip my hand through the carrying strap (most monopods have them) I then grip the pod and press down, This seems to give me the steadiest hold.

Cathy... I previously used a Kirk MPA-1 monopod tilt (lost it with the monopod when I left them on a bus in Croatia). My 7D + 70-200mm f/4L IS was about the maximum weight that the MPA-1 could handle. The MPA-1 is a Manfrotto 234 Tilt Head ($35) with an Arca Compatible clamp which increases the price.

However, Kirk no longer provides this tilt head and the MPA-2 is a far heavier duty head also with an Arca Compatible clamp. If you are using the tilt head only with a lens that incorporates a tripod ring, then you don't need the Arca Compatible clamp. The Manfrotto 234 might be fine for your needs. However, it is skirting the maximum weight capability of that head if you are shooting with a 70-200mm f/2.8L (series) lens. The max weight capacity is (as per Manfrotto) 2.5 lbs.

The Kirk MPA-2 is far more expensive than was the MPA-1 but, it has a reassuring capacity of 80 pounds which is far more than I will ever try to support with it...
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...opod_Head.html

[jcuknz]

Back when my target was A3 prints and without stabilisation I made and used a monopod and added a ballhead to it....immediately my 'takers' ratio improved. Subsequently with OIS I rarely bother to take it out
and my target is no longer prints but projection images. I also have more Mp so not pushing things so much.

After one shoot involving a church steeple I came to the conclusion that the 'proper' monopod needs to be tall enough so that with the camera in portrait mode, hanging sideways off the ballhead, one can look up a steeple while one's body remains relaxed and standing normally ... the basis of that is that your legs are the other two legs of the 'tripod'. I also organised a collar for my telephoto adaptor to balance the rig which worked nicely. [ 950mm Angle of view ]

A side issue is the low angle shot and when I knew I would be working close to ground level I organised a short pod out of a short length of aluminium tube with a quarter whitworth thread in one end. That was back in film days without stabilisation. But if you are not a DIYer you have to live with what is made for you ... I have made several monos ... the tall one, a multisection one to fit in my suitcase for an American visit, and original one[s]. Utilising rectangular aluminium tube whose different sizes slide inside each other. Only snag for me is you have usually to purchase six metres of each size here in NZ

If you want to try out the idea at low cost get yourself a wooden broom handle and screw a quarter whitworth bolt into one end and cut the top off to mount your camera/lens on it.

[jcuknz]

The quarter whitworth goes by other names and is a 1/4" by 20 threads per inch [1/4" x 20tpi]

[ajohnw]

The quarter whitworth goes by other names and is a 1/4" by 20 threads per inch [1/4" x 20tpi]

If you buy a die to cut threads it's best to make sure it has a whit form ie 1/4 BSW. Just buy a 1/4x20 and it's likely to be either UNC / ISO and can be a very tight fit in a BSW hole. Correct dies and taps may be marke 1/4x20 but will also have whit,whitworth or bsw etc on them.

I use a manfrotto 679. 10kg rating but I feel that is very conservative. It weighs 0.8Kg with the ball head on. I bought it used very reasonably with a pan and tilt head on it and quickly removed that and fitted a ball head. I do have a pan and tilt head that would truly match the rating of the monopod but it wouldn't surprise me if it weighed more. It's the fluid type with a 15in long lever for control. Ideal for extreme telephoto but rather heavy. I would guess it weighs over a 1kg. I've looked at numerous other monopods including carbon but none so far are as rigid. This one extends to 1.57m. They probably do a 4 section one that will go higher but often the bottom sections of this type are rather flimsy.

John
-

[benm]

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned it but a monopod also makes a great hiking stick.

Also, they are available in 3- and 4- sections. The 3-section will not fit into a carry-on bag, just so you know.

[Dave Humphries]

Also, they are available in 3- and 4- sections. The 3-section will not fit into a carry-on bag, just so you know.

Yes, I have a 3 section one and if I want both hands free to take a handheld shot (without fear of leaving it behind), it has to dangle beside my leg off the waist belt of my camera bag (and be held out of way of knee when walking) - I tried attaching it horizontally once, but it kept catching on doorways and almost injuring people passing me.

From the above you can tell I don't attach the camera and let it hang over my shoulder as many seem to carry their kit

[jcuknz]

Surprisingly, no one has mentioned it but a monopod also makes a great hiking stick.

Also, they are available in 3- and 4- sections. The 3-section will not fit into a carry-on bag, just so you know.

My wife uses a walking stick as a monopod