I've recently purchased some nice new glass, burning my pocketbook to a crisp. As such, I no longer trust my old, flimsy tripod, but don't want to spend too much (~100)! I come to ask:
Would you recommend the purchase of a Monopod (Give suggestions), or something on the lines of Bogen's 3405 Jr Tripod?
I fancy myself going into longer-range photography (Moving to Alaska in two months!)... eventually. But I do enjoy mobility, and the chance to get a higher quality monopod for the money! But I bow to the collective wisdom of these forums.
-- The Fuzzy Otter
#1. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0Philip Basic MemberThu 30-May-02 07:32 PM
I use a monopod with up to 300mm lenses, when stalking wildlife for example, but I would never use my 500mm on a monopod.
I think your choise depends on both what lenses you are going to use, and what kind of photography you're interested in.
There is a big difference between walking 100 m from your car to the sports field and shooting sports with a 600mm on a monopod, or hiking 10 or 20 km while stalking deer with a 300mm f2.8 on a monopod.
#2. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0JM Registered since 01st Mar 2007Thu 30-May-02 09:34 PM
Hmmm...Actually I see the tripod vs. monopod question as one of apples and oranges. Each has its own purpose and strengths but they don't really replace each other in filling a job.
A monopod is very handy for situations where mobility is needed, not so much for pickup and carry but for subject moving as in sports.
A tripod is for more static subjects and rock solid stability.
If your planning on moving to Alaska and capturing those magnificant vistas you need a solid tripod. If birds and wildlife is your forte you could go with a monopod.
Spend some time at B&H's web site and a few others looking at tripods with an eye towards weight and quality. The main players, Bogen Gitzo and some minor players Hukuba/Velbon Slik etc. all offer a range of features but you need to be sure its stable, reaches a hieght that is comfortable and will mount your camera/lenses easily and quickly.
So follow what will be posted here by others and enjoy the poverty imposed by desiring equipment that will perform as needed.
#3. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0BJNicholls Charter MemberFri 31-May-02 03:50 PM
If it's a choice between a tripod or a monopod, I'd go with a tripod. It's a fundamental piece of photographic equipment, a monopod is handy but there are ways to duplicate its function with better camera/lens holding technique, a beanbag, etc. With your minimal budget, look for a good used Bogen/Manfrotto deal.
The thing I've found is having an effective quick release system makes using a tripod much more convenient and therefore I use one much more often.
#4. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0Rob86 Registered since 16th Mar 2002Fri 31-May-02 09:29 PM
I second the previous comments about tripod vs monopod. They are apples and oranges. If you are going to take nature at large apperature and slow shutter speed get a good tripod, don't get a cheap one, you'll regret it and wind up getting a good one in the end. A monopod is a natural for a lens like the 80-400vr it holds the camera steady enough to let the vr work and you are mobile with a long lens. You will see monopods used mainly at sporting events because of the mobility they afford with lenses at about 300mm. If your looking for sharp with a long lens it's tripod not monopod.
#5. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0Rob86 Registered since 16th Mar 2002Fri 31-May-02 09:59 PM
Forgot to mention, Get a decent ball head with a quick release, they make using a tripod almost enjoyable. I use the Bogan grip ballhead and quick release. It is reasonably priced, the quick release plates are low cost so you can have one on each body and your big lenses affordably. I have used this grip/ballhead (don't remember the number) in every position possible with a lens as heavy as the vr. Once put in position it stays there, doesn't sag or drift. You can buy more expensive but I don't think better for 35mm. Just my opinion and I know there are as many as there are tripods out there.
#6. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 5Sat 01-Jun-02 10:10 AM
Thanks, all, for your imput. :3 I'll probably go Tripod, from your recommendations; of course that means you'll be hearing from me agian when I have enough money to even consider buying a good one..
Thanks a bundle.
#7. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 6ironhayden08 Basic MemberSun 02-Jun-02 12:31 AM
I bought a decent leg and head combo for around $150 from Camera World of Oregon. I got the Bogen 3011N and a 3262 medium ball head. I also attached a Really Right Stuff Clamp, but thwe bogen comobo is really good...and cheap..
Green Bay, Wis.
Home of the 12 time NFL Champions
#8. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 7jrp Charter MemberThu 06-Jun-02 11:17 PM
A monopod is a good substitute for handholding, not for a tripod, specially with a big lens.
Have a great time :-)
JRP (Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert) Gallery, Brief Love Story
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade.
Check our workshops at the Nikonians Academy and the Nikonians Photo Pro Shop
#10. "RE: Tripod v. Monopod?" | In response to Reply # 0
I have used a Tiltall tripod for many years. It's not fancy but it sure is rock-solid and costs a little over $100USD. My son-in-law knows that I lust for his tripod, a Bogen (I think its a 3011n)with the quick-release plate. It would be my choice if I didn't have the Tiltall. I also use a Bogen (Manfrotto) 3016 unipod. It lightweight and I use it for lenses up to 300mm and in situations where I need to steady the lens but not as much as a tripod would do. I used a Gitzo 1564L unipod and while it was tall enough for my heighth (6'4") the extra weight was the factor that made me consider the lighter and shorter Bogen.
Dick Van Nostrand