File :-(, x, )
monopod not you
hi /p/
i just got a D60 and was looking for a monopod, i've never shopped for one before, so far the best option i've seen is this:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/348374-REG/Canon_6195A005_Monopod_100.html

i don't wanna spend much, i'm not pro, just a hobbyist, what do you think of this one?
>> Anonymous
Not phallic enough.
>> not you
also getting an ND filter, what's best rating, 0.3, 0.6, 0.9
i know it depends on what i'm gonna do with it, but for getting started i'm guessing something in between like a 0.6
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>171153
The best rating is you dont need one.
>> Anonymous
If you don't know which rating to use, then you don't need one. Also, tripods > monopods and they're all just about the same. Just don't get something too cheap and flimsy.
>> Anonymous
You know what would be fucking awesome if not stupid, a shutter button under the monopod! That way, you can tap your staff on the floor like a wizard and take a photo with a flash.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171161
That would be a terrible idea, lead to terrible blurry pictures, and would make the monopod way less useful, and I fucking *want one*.
>> Anonymous
>>171161
I shat bricks
>> Anonymous
>>171156
Please marry me.
>> Anonymous
>>171150
I'd advise against a monopod unless you're going into some ridiculous place that forbids tripods but permits monopods.

A tripod with the legs folded in works just like a monopod, while taking up only a couple centimeters more floor space that doesn't matter. It's more versatile and thus more economical, too.
>> Anonymous
>>171161
Brb, gonna put on my robe and wizard hat.
>> Anonymous
>>171161That way, you can tap your staff on the floor like a wizard and take a photo with a flash.

that's just awesome
>> Anonymous
archive this shit.
>> Anonymous
I use a Bogen-Manfrotto 680B (I think). It's ultra sturdy and lightweight. Has a nice grip and sections are secure.
>> Anonymous
>>171168

Yeah plus the added weight of 2 more legs totally doesn't make a tripod heavier than a monopod. No way.

Anyone who buys a monopod is a stupid nigger.
>> Anonymous
>>171350
Protip: Some places do not allow tripods when shooting. Try taking photos in more places other than your backyard.
>> Anonymous
>>171354
Protip: learn to follow the conversation
>> Jesus !1EQ.kCAg9c
>>171161
Oh my.
....DO WANT
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Monopods are for sports and wildlife shit, period (okay, I'm sure there are other uses, so ellipsis...). They're there to stabilize your long-ass, huge lenses.

Odds are, you don't need one.
>> Anonymous
>>171350
I don't know what stupid tripod you're using, but most good tripods are extremely lightweight, built out of carbon fiber or whatnot.
>> Anonymous
>>171354
>I'd advise against a monopod unless you're going into some ridiculous place that forbids tripods but permits monopods.

Museums, churches, some events. That's about it.
>> Anonymous
so uh, how steady are these things? because just looking at it, seems like it's going to add more blur because it makes your camera pivot along the point on the ground

i have a 70-200 with a tripod ring, would i attach it to the lens or to the camera?

seems more trouble than just holding it with my hands, but i've never used one
>> Anonymous
>>171365
its so your arms dont get tired of holding that up for hours. also, probably lens because its more balanced that way.
>> Anonymous
>>171366

oh, i see

it's more like when you're in one place for a very long time and need something to rest your camera on
>> Anonymous
>>171365
There wouldn't be much reason to use it with a 70-200 f/2.8. A 600 f/2.8 on the other hand, is pretty tough to work with handheld for anything more than a couple of minutes.
>> Anonymous
>>171368
and when someone will pick a fight you can you it like a sword !
>> Anonymous
>>171366
While the 70-200 is very heavy, I don't think putting it on a monopod would help any.

If you're moving around, then you're still carrying that weight, plus the weight of a monopod. If you're in one place, you have no reason to use a tripod unless you're in a situation that needs fast panning, like Heavyweather's examples.

And yeah, if a lens comes with a tripod ring you stick the tripod on the lens.
>> Anonymous
>>171368
That's what we use tripods for.

>>171371
Are you kidding? 70-200/2.8 are a bitch to hold to any length of time. The only reason people ever use them is, well, because they're 70-200/2.8s and are generally the only lenses that'll do for the situation.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
All the 70-200s and 80-200s etc are really easy to handhold and balance pretty well. It sucks to keep it on your neck, so sling it around your shoulder if you're not shooting.
>> Anonymous
>>171374
yes but after youre done moving and stop to take pictures, you dont have to support the camera weight with your hands. its that break thats kinda nice as opposed to having to hold it the entirety of the time.
>> Anonymous
>>171380
Then you use a tripod. You still have to hold the monopod up.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>171380
Jesus, lift some weights or something. It's seriously not that bad. I've carried around a D2H with a 300mm f/2.8 for hours, handholding it. It's fine. Hell, I've run around the sidelines with a D200 & 80-200/2.8 and another D200 with a 300 on a monopod, and a bag of crap for three or more hours, and I was STILL fine. If you need a monopod to support a meager few pounds of weight, you've got bigger issues.
>> StantonBiston
>>171390
I agree with this man.

I've done the same, and it's a bit overkill to use a tri/monopod on a 70-200 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>171392
>>171390
i actually didnt mean it specifically for the 70-200, but more of an in general why you might use a monopod.
>> Anonymous
>>171360
>I don't know what stupid tripod you're using, but most good tripods are extremely lightweight, built out of carbon fiber or whatnot.

I don't know what stupid monopod you're using, but most good monopods are extremely lightERweight THAN FUCKING TRIPODS, built WITH ONE THIRD OF THE FUCKING MATERIALS YOU STUPID SHITNIGGER or whatnot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171394
1. Places that tripods aren't allowed but monopods are. Churches, museums, events, etc. There are a lot of situations where a tripod is verboten but a monopod isn't for some reason.
2. Heavy/long lens. The monopod won't give you the stability that a tripod will, but it *will* limit the lens shake to left-right-forward-back rather than left-right-forward-back-up-down, and since the up-down is the most difficult to deal with (thanks to gravity), that's nothing to sneeze at.
3. Situations where every ounce matters, like backpacking over long distance. A tripod isn't very heavy, but however light it is, a monopod's going to be roughly a third the weight.
>> ???? !CANONH9fbE
I have a nice aluminum tripod with strong legs that I can use as a monopod by having the other two legs retracted.

And monopods are great for their portability. It's easy to move them around during events and to make small changes to angles where a tripod can't swivel as easily. I also prop them against stuff like chairs or rails. I can easily lean forward with monopods and go over railings as well.
>> not you
op here,
thanks all for the advice aside from the obvious trolls and wizardry
>> Anonymous
What? No one mentioned that with a Nikon F on the end of a monopod it becomes a sledgehammer? That's one obvious advantage over a tripod right there.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>171529
You can drive nails from six feet away!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
A Monopod is all I tend to use except for very low light shots where only a tripod can do the job. Essentially, the monopod gives you the equivalent of an anti-shake system for your camera.

Many of the shots I take are in lowlight conditions and I've managed to get some spectacular results using a compact digital like the Canon Pro 1 Powershot and a monopod.

For really lowlight shots, you can brace the monopod against a street pole or a table/chair/etc and the results are then much closer to using a tripod. It's a win-win situation.

Unlike a tripod, your monopod can be as cheap and light as you want. If it's a tripod, then the cheaper and lighter models tend to move a bit in a breeze or from your fingertips touching.

See attached pic for example.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot Pro1Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2005:08:21 13:16:19Exposure Time1/6 secF-Numberf/3.5Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias1.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length25.03 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1024Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>171765
Attached picture is win.
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>171780
Guy to the left of the candle.. holding a pipe?
>> Anonymous
>>171784
Guy to the left of the candle.. guy?
>> Anonymous
>>171371
>> 600 f/2.8

That would be one fucking huge lens.
>> Anonymous
>>171361

There are plenty of places that do this. Places that accept touristy photos but wants a cut of commercial photography can phrase it as a tripod ban. Old train stations, historic building interiors, things like that.