Monopod with legs - collapsable?

[Liz]

I recall seeing a monopod with collapsable tripod legs at the bottom.

I'm looking for a (very) lightweight but sturdy monopod/tripod. Is anyone familiar with something like this?

Monopod vs tripod question:
I know a tripod is sturdier - but could anyone who uses a monopod share their experience. Does a monopod make a big difference in the image?

Thanks.
Liz

[mjs1973]

Hey Liz,

I bought a monopod last winter for my trip to Africa. I haven't used it much since then though. Depending on the situation I was in, I would say that yes, the monopod made a big difference in my photos. I used it mostly with long, heavy lenses so the extra support was a huge plus. I made some images that I don't think I could have made hand held.

That being said, I still prefer my tripod much more than the monopod. It's just so much more stable for a long lens.

I have seen the monopod with the legs on them and thought they were kind of gimmicky. It might help stabilize your monopod a little bit, but it's no substitute for a good tripod. Of course every little bit helps and it's not always practical to have a tripod...

They might work OK for a small/light setup.

[another view]

I have seen the monopods with the small tripod legs that come out of the bottom, but never understood why they made them. To me, it looks like a table-top tripod with a 5' center column! Personally, I try to avoid using the tripod's center column because it can take away sharpness and I'm talking about less than a foot. A few years ago I bought a monopod but I never found a good use for it. They're great for long lens shooters (sports especially) but I really don't see an advantage to them in most other situations - especially with IS or VR.

An old photojournalist's trick is to get a piece of lightweight chain that's about as long as you are tall. Put a 1/4-20 eyebolt on one end of it (the same screw thread type that's on a tripod) and screw it into the camera. Let the other end fall to the floor and put your foot on it. Pull up on it a little bit and you'll basically have a monopod in reverse (creates support by tension so the camera can't go up and down, but it still can swing from side to side as it can on a monopod). It's much smaller and lighter than a monopod with the same advantages other than the support of the camera's weight. People that have used them (back in the days before VR or digital where you can just bump up the ISO for one shot) have said they've made shots possible that might not have otherwise worked.

[A.M.D.A.]

I recall seeing a monopod with collapsable tripod legs at the bottom.

I'm looking for a (very) lightweight but sturdy monopod/tripod. Is anyone familiar with something like this?

Monopod vs tripod question:
I know a tripod is sturdier - but could anyone who uses a monopod share their experience. Does
a monopod make a big difference in the image?

Thanks.
Liz

Hi Liz,

I have both a Canon monopod 100 (albeit the NYIP version), a Velbon CX-540 tripod and a mini-tripod.

The monopod I’ve had for a couple months now, and am extremely pleased with its performance. Seemingly impossible shots like the following have worked successfully without any indication of camera-shake:

Focal length 35mm equivalent: 891mm.
Shutter-speed: 1/50 second.
Aperture: f/3.6
ISO: 100.

Another thing which I am really fond of is that it can relieve the weight of a heavy camera/lens. This monopod is also very sturdy, lightweight and has several extendable/retractable leg sections.

On a side note however, you must have a very steady hand in order to achieve great results. People with twitches, nervousness, anxiety, heavy stress, or extreme tiredness will not do well.

I would definetely recommend this monopod for constant/nearly constant action stuff (e.g. stalking birds, fast-paced sports), and to minimize weight/bulk on long trips.

For landscapes and other work where precision matters – such as portraits – I would not use it, rather a tripod. Especially since the ball head isn’t awesome at avoiding wonky horizons.
--------------------------------
Conclusion: In my experience, this monopod does make a significant positive difference in the quality of resulting images - but when used properly and with the right subjects.

Hope this helps,
Alex

[SmartWombat]

Monopod for lightness, and for moving subjects, with a long lens.
Tripod for stability, and for stationary subjects with a long exposure.

I think monopods with little feet are just a gimmick, leading you to mistrust their stability and smash the camera. It's an inherently unstable support, as soon as the weight of the body/lens is outside the support of the feet - down it goes.

[Liz]

Thanks everyone - for all the input. I'm glad I asked because now I know that I should be looking for a light weight tripod. I won't use it often. However, I have a slight camera shake problem (always had slightly shakey hands). Although I'm getting older, thankfully it isn't getting worse, but there are times when I would like to get sharper images: i.e. low light/indoor shots, macro - and night shots once in a while. I would also like to try to do some portraits of my friends' children. For the most part there are no visible signs of camera shake with the equipment I have - IS, fast lenses, etc.

I have a very cheap tripod that seems to lower it's head slightly when the XTi is attached. Besides it's kind of bulky to carry around, although not heavy.

I appreciate your input, and will check out B&H the next time I'm there - or check their website.

Thanks again for the information and clarification.

Liz

[JTcooper]

I pretty much agree with Wombat there, I have a monopod once and now I don't even know where that is unless you are carry something big like those lens Wombat had.