Rifle mounts

[Martin Brazil]

Anyone had any experience with the rifle stock camera mounts ?
I'm interested in one to take the place of a tripod as I think it would be much easier to drag around through thick forest.
I saw one on the net a while back but I cant remember the name of the maker and am having difficulty tracking it down now, but it looked great and the manufacturer gave it a splendid write up, but then they would wouldn't they.
Are they good enough at stabilizing the camera to shoot with a 500mm lens ?
Thanks guys.

[mjs1973]

BushHawk is the brand name that I see advertised in the back or my photo magazines.

http://www.bushhawk.com/

I have never used them, but they look like they would be OK. Not as good as a tripod, that's for sure, but better than hand holding. I have heard of birders using things like this to mount spotting scopes to as well.

[Martin Brazil]

Ahh, just managed to track down what I was talking about, its made by BushHawk and can be seen here

http://www.bushhawk.com/

Seems like several people really like this piece of kit.

[Martin Brazil]

Beat me to it Mike

[gryphonslair99]

Anyone had any experience with the rifle stock camera mounts ?
I'm interested in one to take the place of a tripod as I think it would be much easier to drag around through thick forest.

I saw one on the net a while back but I cant remember the name of the maker and am having difficulty tracking it down now, but it looked great and the manufacturer gave it a splendid write up, but then they would wouldn't they.

Are they good enough at stabilizing the camera to shoot with a 500mm lens ?
Thanks guys.

Simple answer is no. You are still holding it up with your arms. The same two arms that would be holding the camera and lens without the extra weight of the stock.

Take a look at the best sniper rifles. One shot, one bullet kill type that the shooter has to put the bullet in the right spot with the first shot. They have bipods on the front. That is because the most stable aiming position with a rifle is the prone position. Now if you want to shoot all of your shots prone then it might work ok.

Personally I would lug the tripod or at least a good monopod.

[freygr]

Anyone had any experience with the rifle stock camera mounts ?
I'm interested in one to take the place of a tripod as I think it would be much easier to drag around through thick forest.
I saw one on the net a while back but I cant remember the name of the maker and am having difficulty tracking it down now, but it looked great and the manufacturer gave it a splendid write up, but then they would wouldn't they.
Are they good enough at stabilizing the camera to shoot with a 500mm lens ?
Thanks guys.

There are used for fast photos of birds and other wild life. I would not use it to replace a tripod. But I would not use it as I'm just as fast with the camera.

[Loupey]

A 500mm? An internally stabilized 500mm - maybe under the right circumstances, a non stabilized 500mm - no way.

As gryphonslair99 mentioned, there are two factors against you with super-telephotos - the weight and the extremely narrow field of view (i.e. more pronounced camera shake). A tripod takes both burdens off your shoulders, a monopod takes the former. But a rifle mount, like hand-holding, places both of those duties on you - and at the same time.

As you no doubt have heard me say in the N&W forum, I have stopped using tripods several years ago for super-telephoto work. But my two monopods have been indispensible.

[Martin Brazil]

Thanks for the thoughts guys.
gryphonslair99, I thought that the idea was that by pulling against your shoulder you are adding stability to the setup, that's the rifle theory anyway.
Loupey, I have been looking at monopods today and I am interested in what I have seen. The one I was looking at has a foot brace bit but still seems a lot easier to lug around than my tripod. I was looking at a belt brace for it too, basically a belt with a pocket that the monopod end fits into when it is at its shortest extension. Any good do you think ?
I understand none of these are going to take the place of a tripod but for the type of pictures I take and the type of terrain I have to move through I need to find some sort of alternative.
Funnily enough I have been using a stick with a flat top to steady the camera alot which is a crude sort of monopod anyway.
Thanks again for the comments.

[Frog]

I have no experience with a rifle stock mount but I'm pretty sure they would be more stable than hand hold just as a rifle is more stable than holding a pistol

[Loupey]

...Loupey, I have been looking at monopods today and I am interested in what I have seen. The one I was looking at has a foot brace bit but still seems a lot easier to lug around than my tripod. I was looking at a belt brace for it too, basically a belt with a pocket that the monopod end fits into when it is at its shortest extension. Any good do you think ?...

There are really only 3 things to look for: capacity, longest length, and shortest length. Everything else takes a back seat.

With a head on it, it needs to be able to raise your camera above your eye. This will allow you to shoot, all day if necessary, with the camera pointing up (as it is usually with birds) while standing comfortably. A tripod forces you to bend over while looking up which gets old fast and you can't spin yourself around to follow an active bird like you can with a monopod.

My monopod is a 5-section carbon fiber model that does the above and it also collapses small enough for me to sit while still using it. Keep in mind that a head will add 6"~8" to it so you must keep that in when checking out monopods.