Some musings on monopods

[Paul Bestwick]

Yea I worked that out. How are you thinking about using yours Nikolai. Are you going to put a head on it.
What lens are you going to use on it ?

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Paul,

Yea I worked that out. How are you thinking about using yours Nikolai. Are you going to put a head on it.
What lens are you going to use on it ?

I'm mostly plan to use it for sport-type shooting with my 100-400 IS, or maybe 70-200 f.2.8 IS if the action is closer.
No, I do not plan to use any extra head on it, at least for now. Maaay be a QR clamp.

EDIT: In fact, after pondering about it, definitely a QR clamp. Just ordered from Adorama

Yourself?

 

[Paul Bestwick]

I will use it with my 300 f2.8 is. I have decided to put a Markins M20L head on it.

I often like to get very low to the ground & shoot up at various angles. I can see that without the ability to tilt the camera to various angles I am going to find it difficult to achieve the result I have in mind.

I have spent days researching the best solution on the net & this seems to be a good choice.

 

[Lucio Gomes]

Don't Put a Ballhead on a Monopod!

Paul,

I hate to sound like an authority here, but putting a ballhead on a monopod is not a
very good idea, especially with lenses in the 300mm f2.8 range.
The Markins ballhead costs almost $400, while a Wimberley Sidekick should cost $250
and all you need then is a piece to go between the monopod and the Sidekick.
Take a look at this contraption:
http://photosbylucio.com/sidekick2.jpg
I have been using this set-up for bird photography for about 2 years now, and it works
wonderfully!! 99% of the images on my site, www.photosbylucio.com, were taken with
a Sidekick on a monopod and a 1D MkII+500mm f4 IS.
The great thing about using the Sidekick is that the camera/ lens will be perfectly balanced
and feel weightless, as opposed to flopping all over the place, which is what happens when you release the lock knob on a ball head. You're gonna be putting a lot of stress on the camera/lens mounts using a ball head!
A Sidekick only moves up and down, and the monopod does the panning. Once you balance the
set-up, you can aim the lens up, release the Sidekick lock knob and the lens will stay put in any position you choose.

If you're not gonna be using anything heavier than a 300 f2.8, then your best
(and cheapest) bet is a Bogen swivel/tilt head. I think it's the Bogen 3232, but I'm not sure.

Now if you are an octopus, then the ball head is an ok choice.

 

[Nill Toulme]

... Now if you are an octopus, then the ball head is an ok choice.

I am in complete agreement with everything Lucio says, including his octopal allusion. ;-)

The big problem with a ballhead under a heavy camera/lens IMO — and this is true even on a tripod but especially so on a monopod — is that the rig not only wants to move up and down (which you want it to do sometimes) but also sideways (which you almost never want it to do unless you're in some weird contorted position). A gimbal head, like the Sidekick, or a swivel head, like the 3232, limits the motion to one axis, which is most likely all you will want or need — particularly with a collared lens which already gives you the ability to tilt the rig by turning it in the collar.

Paul, the 3232 only costs about twenty bucks. I'd strongly recommend you do this, in this order:

1. For a while, try the lens on the monopod with no head at all, just the QR clamp.

2. If you think you need more up-and-down range of motion, attach the 3232 head, modified as per the RRS article that I linked above.

3. If you're still not satisfied, order a Sidekick and attach it via the 3232 turned down to right angles. See how you like that. Wimberley has an extremely generous try-before-you-buy and return program, so you can try the Sidekick at your leisure, risking only the shipping charges.

4. Then and only then, if you're still not happy because you do want the ability to tilt everything sideways beyond what the swivel or gimbal and collar combination gives you, try a ballhead.

But I'm betting you never get past step 2.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Paul Bestwick]

Lucio, Nill,

thank you, your advice is very much appreciated. I will give it some more thought & post an update.
Nicolas, how are you going with your setup ?

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Stupid me, I didn't realize what this Bogen head was all about...
Ordered from Eagel Optics... $21, no tax, shipped free )
With the QR clamp I already ordered, this will make one bitching monopod system. I'm sooo gonna use it in the airshows

 

[Steve Robinson]

Thanks to Nill and all who posted. I just ordered the Faisol 1471 and Bogen 3232. I think it'll be easier to use in the field in YNP and also for my attempt at sports car racing in SLC. Thanks again.

 

[Nill Toulme]

I just received the following e-mail from Kerry Thalmann of Really Big Cameras. I have no affiliation with Kerry or his company but am posting this with his permission.

There may also now be other US Feisol distributors/dealers of which I am similarly unaware.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nill,

I just read through your monopod musings post on the Open Photography Forums. Thanks for posting the link. It's a great write up.

My company, Really Big Cameras (www.reallybigcameras.com), is an authorized Feisol dealer. Of course, this is a new development since your original post.

The big advantage for customers purchasing a Feisol monopod from Really Big Cameras is the lower domestic shipping rates. I charge standard rates for insured USPS Priority Mail shipping (2-3 day service). That means my shipping rates for a CM-1401 range from $6.95 to $10.40 and $7.35 to $13.65 for the CM-1471. The actual shipping charge depends on the buyer's location. As you can see, these rates are much lower than the cost of international shipping from the manufacturer in Taiwan.

Also, Feisol recently raised the price of the CM-1401 to $85.00. This cost increase was due to improvements in the materials and went into effect about two months ago. The CM-1471 is still priced at $99.00 - which is a heck of a good deal for a large, sturdy carbon fiber tripod. Sales of both models have been very good.

I'm not an active member of the Open Photography Forums. So, I didn't know if it would be appropriate for me to post this information as a reply to your thread. But, I thought I'd share it with you in case you want to update your thread with the current price on the CM-1401 and let folks know there is a source of Feisol products with much lower shipping costs.

If you ever have any questions about Feisol products, or need any replacement parts, just let me know. I'd be happy to assist in any way possible. My email address is:

sales@reallybigcameras.com

Kerry Thalmann
Really Big Cameras

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

This is some coincidence Nill. I have been considering investing in a monopod and have been re-reading this very thread just an hour ago ;-).

As you might know, I do not shoot sports or birds. My main areas are landscapes and cityscapes. I also do some HDR and panos too. So I have been discussing with Bart whether a monopod would be useful for me. Obviously, I cannot do "proper" panos using monopod, but one can still shoot with some overlap and stitch as usual with AutoPano or PS CS3. Precise stitching might be an issue though. The same goes for HDR. The individual images will always have to be aligned whereas on a tripod this is not an issue.

So why a monopod? Because it is compact and light and can be taken along in the camera bag whereas my tripod is usually left home, especially during holidays. But what will it actually offer? From what I gather, a monopod will help me balance my Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens and reduce shake. So I can shoot at lower shutter speeds than the ones IS would allow me to. Is this a correct assumption? Is there a lower limit to the shutter speeds which can be realistically attained? I am guessing that shooting at 1/2 sec or slower is still a no-go area.

Should I go this route, I have narrowed down my options to a Gitzo 2560T 6x carbon monopod or any other one which is as compact and as light as possible. I will mount the Bogen 3232 tilt head on it and use a RRS QR clamp. Or maybe I may buy a Feisol. Are the clamps sold by Feisol compatible with the Arca/RRS plates and L-brackets?

Thanks in advance for your advise

 

[Nill Toulme]

Cem I have no personal experience with the Feisol clamps but they certainly should be. Its best to avoid lever type clamps when mixing brands, but there should be no problem with screw-type clamps.

For pano purposes though, wouldn't even a very small and light tripod be a better solution than a monopod?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Cem I have no personal experience with the Feisol clamps but they certainly should be. Its best to avoid lever type clamps when mixing brands, but there should be no problem with screw-type clamps.

For pano purposes though, wouldn't even a very small and light tripod be a better solution than a monopod?

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

Hi Nill,

Thanks for your response. Yes, I will not be doing any serious panos with a monopod. For the rest, I am pretty certain that there are no light tripods that are in the same weight class as a monopod, nor as compact as one. And therein lies the power of the monopod. But again, is it going to be any use to me for shooting single frames (i.e. no pano, no HDR). I do not have longer lenses than the 70-200, BTW.

Cheers,

 

[Nill Toulme]

Certainly. A monopod can be an enormous aid in holding the camera steady. Not scientific, but I would hazard a guess that it's at least as good as IS in that regard, i.e., good for 2 to 3 stops of increased hand-holdability. And IS works well with a monopod, so with good technique you might very well get decent shots with your 70-200 down in the 1/4 second range.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

 

[John_Nevill]

I've been considering a Gitzo tripod for months now and seeing Nill's post, I thought I'd take a look at Feisol tripods. A bit of internet research led me to a bunch of Nikonians that give them the thumbs up for both value for money and build quality, so I decided to order a Feisol CT-3372 tonight.

It's there biggest tripod and sits somewhere between the Gitzo 3 and 5 series models. The three section model weighs ~1.7Kg (4lb) and extends to 150cm (59").

Maybe it's a bit of gamble, but here in the UK, the Gitzo equivalent sells for £575 ($1150), that's a lot of dosh, so paying just short of £350 incl. import duty and VAT, saves me a few quid.

I just hope it lives up to it's nubile reputation.

Apologies for the off topic!

 

[Nill Toulme]

Here's another in the "things that make you say hmmmm..." category of monopod musings that has just dawned on me in the past year or so. That is, where you place the clamp fore-and-aft on the lens plate affects the amount of lens motion you get when you're shooting on a monopod.

The combination of camera/lens and monopod constitutes a simple lever system, where the camera/lens is the lever, and the top of the monopod is the fulcrum. Mind you, I'm talking about lateral movement here, not up and down. If the "fulcrum" is centered between the camera (to which you impart motion with your hand) and the front lens element (to which that motion is translated, resulting in relative subject motion that affects the sharpness of your image), then a given amount of lateral camera motion results in a like amount of lens element motion. E.g., if with my own personal highly developed ugly spastic shutter release motion I jerk the camera a quarter inch to the left when I shoot a frame, the lens element moves to the right a like amount, a quarter inch. (This, I'm sorry to say, is all too often the case when I'm tracking a play and banging away on the shutter. In fact, 1/4" is probably charitable.)

But if the "fulcrum" – i.e. the top of the monopod, around which the whole rig pivots laterally – is closer to the camera than to the front of the lens, then the motion is magnified. For example, if the clamp is placed on the plate such that this pivot point is only 1/3 of the way from the camera to the front of the lens, instead of halfway, then the effect of camera movement on the lens element is doubled – that quarter inch of camera motion now translates into a half inch of lens element motion, with twice the deleterious effect on the sharpness of the image.

Conversely, if you move the whole rig back in the clamp, so that it's 2/3 of the way from the camera to the front element, you get what amounts to a damping effect; that same quarter inch of lateral camera motion now only results in an eighth of an inch of movement of the lens element.

The bottom line is I've started mounting my 400 f/2.8 on the monopod such that the front of the 6.5" Wimberley plate aligns with the front of the 2.5" clamp. It's still a 100% secure mount, but it means the camera hangs farther out behind the pod, and I get the benefit of some motion-reduction effect compared to a more central mounting point. It feels a little different, but it takes only a very little getting used to, and I think I can see the benefit in the results.

Nill

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nill,

Here's another in the "things that make you say hmmmm..." category of monopod musings that has just dawned on me in the past year or so. That is, where you place the clamp fore-and-aft on the lens plate affects the amount of lens motion you get when you're shooting on a monopod.

I assume the issue here is lateral displacement of the camera's point of perspective as the camera is changed in azimuth (panned) by swiveling the camera-plus-monopod on the 'pod foot.

Assuming that the ball head is locked with the camera axis perpendicular to the 'pod axis (the "obvious" setup), then the ideal situation would be with the 'pod axis passing through the entrance pupil of the lens.

But that would normally require some special mounting plate arrangement (as we sometimes encounter in panoramic work - and as you discuss in your note).

But the actual requirement has nothing to do with the 'pod axis. It is that, with the camera aimed at the horizontal (we will assume that the shot requires that), a vertical line from the 'pod foot (about which lateral rotation takes place) should pass through the entrance pupil (whether it travels along the 'pod column or not).

With the camera mounted on the ball head in the familiar convenient way (no expensive hardware), then we need to think of having the camera tilted slightly "down" on the 'pod by way of the ball head so that as we bring the camera axis back to the horizontal by rocking the 'pod a little backward, the vertical line upward from the pod foot, while not following the pod column, will in fact pass through the entrance pupil of the lens.

The required geometry knows nothing about the location or attitude of the 'pod column!

I realize that in the situation, horizontal panning can't be done just by "spinning the rig around the 'pod column". But, with anything else than a tripod situation with a pan-elevate head, horizontal panning is typically done by "sight" (perhaps keeping a moving boat centered in the frame), so this is no disadvantage.

Here we see the general idea (the angle here is not exactly right):

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Nill Toulme]

Yes, you're exactly right. That requires a head on the monopod, and many if not most of us who shoot primarily sports prefer not to use a head. But if you have a head and don't have a long QR plate, you can accomplish the same thing either way.

Nill

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nill,

Yes, you're exactly right. That requires a head on the monopod, and many if not most of us who shoot primarily sports prefer not to use a head. But if you have a head and don't have a long QR plate, you can accomplish the same thing either way.

Carla says "I put a housecoat on for that?"

I never did ask what is it that makes you concerned with lateral shift in the point of perspective?

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Nill Toulme]

It's not a matter of perspective, it's camera/lens motion contributing to decreased sharpness of images. This is always an issue, but apparently as MP count gets larger and pixels get smaller and sensors get denser, it's becoming a more and more critical one.

Nill

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nill,

It's not a matter of perspective, it's camera/lens motion contributing to decreased sharpness of images. This is always an issue, but apparently as MP count gets larger and pixels get smaller and sensors get denser, it's becoming a more and more critical one.

Oh, I guess you are talking about motion blur - perhaps shift of the camera pointing angle as the 'pod is inadvertently shifted from side to side.

If so, then we want the 'pod axis passing through the center of gravity of the camera+lens.

But I'm not sure I understand the model of the system.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Nill Toulme]

And here I thought I had explained it so well ... ;-)

Nill

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nill,

And here I thought I had explained it so well ... ;-)

Well, I just re-read your original description. Yes you explained it clearly - I wasn't paying enough attention. Sorry.

But I don't agree with your outlook. You seem to be saying that of the "pivot" is near the front of the lens, then when the body is inadvertently moved to one side or another, the front of the lens doesn't move much, so there is not so much blurring.

But (unless you are doing macro work) what causes blurring is change in the pointing angle of the lens. If the body moves to one side, but the front of the lens doesn't at all, that constitutes a change in pointing angle, which leads to blurring.

I guess you mean that angle change is still less than if the body moves to the side by the same amount but the pivot is closer to the body. If the pivot truly stands still, I guess that would be so. (I'm not sure the pivot would stand still - I guess it depends on what causes the body to move to the side.)

But don't think that if the front of the lens doesn't move to the side at all that blurring would be eliminated.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There are several things going on.

- Nill is trying to reduce the effect of camera shake due to over-enthousiastic pressing of the shutter release button. After all, tracking fast moving subjects requires fast response once the subject is in range.
- A monopod can help to reduce much of the vertical camera shake, while still alowing to track moving subjects relatively easily.
- A tripod with a gimbal head (e.g. Wimberley) will also allow tracking but will restrict mobility of the photographer (e.g. running along the side lines of fieldsport). The benefit of a gimbal head is that the setup rotates through the center of gravity of the setup, but jerks at the camera will result in blurring of a stationary subject because the entrance pupil will move (unless it aligns with the entrance pupil). Tracking a moving subject becomes easier because of the weightless/effortless camera movement, but the jerking sensitivity remains.

The best use of a monopod under normal circumstances is by using a forwards placed monopod foot, so that together with the photographers two legs a sort of a tripod is created. If the monopod were fixed to the ground, then Doug's suggesting (monopod foot plumb under the entrance pupil) will resist movement of the entrance pupil.

By placing the monopod foot even further in front we gain resistance to forward/backward swaying motion (and some sideways camera movement), but sideways panning starts to rotate the horizon unless the photographer circles the monopod foot. I guess it depends on the subject and maneuvering possibilities of the photographer which scenario works best.

Anyway, Nill brought up a good point that creating a different pivot position will have influence on susceptibility to camera body movement.

Cheers,
Bart

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Bart,

. . .but jerks at the camera will result in blurring of a stationary subject because the entrance pupil will move (unless it aligns with the entrance pupil). [?] Tracking a moving subject becomes easier because of the weightless/effortless camera movement, but the jerking sensitivity remains....

. . . If the monopod were fixed to the ground, then Doug's suggesting (monopod foot plumb under the entrance pupil) will resist movement of the entrance pupil.

I have to reiterate that (unless we are shooting a subject just a foot or so away) the motion of the entrance pupil, per se, is not the cause of motion blur, but rather the change in camera pointing angle (which can be occur with zero displacement of the entrance pupil). Of course, both will typically occur during inadvertent camera motion, but we need to keep separate what causes blurring and what just happens.

In a properly set up panoramic rig, for example, there is no lateral motion of the entrance pupil with rotation, but certainly if we rotate the camera (change its pointing axis) during the exposure with a modest shutter speed we will experience substantial motion blur.

On the other hand, if we have a truly rigid X-Y-azimuth-elevate-roll head and, during a long exposure, shift the camera in the transverse direction by, say, 1/2" (with absolutely no change in pointing azimuth, elevation, or roll), then assuming that the subject is distant, there will be very minor blurring of the subject (in fact it will amount to 1/2" on the subject). For a subject at 100 yards, that corresponds to the blurring we would get from a shift in pointing angle of only 0.008°.

To put that in perspective, if we have a lens whose entrance pupil is 8" forward of the camera's tripod fitting, and consider inadvertent rotation of the camera about the tripod fitting, that small shift of pointing axis would correspond to a lateral shift of the entrance pupil (not of itself relevant) of about 0.001"!

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Nill Toulme]

I think it amounts to the same thing. We're talking about a given amount of lateral movement of the camera, occasioned by the clumsy shutter button push. Call it a quarter inch. If the lens is a hypothetical 11" long, and the pivot point is 10" out, almost out to the end of the lens, then that .25" of camera movement is reduced by a ratio of 1:10, it only moves the front of the lens .025", and the change in "camera pointing angle" is very small. But if the pivot is only 1" out, very close to the camera, then that same amount of movement is multiplied by a factor of 10:1, the front of the lens moves 2.5", and the change in camera pointing angle is quite significant. No?

Nill

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Nill,

I think it amounts to the same thing. We're talking about a given amount of lateral movement of the camera, occasioned by the clumsy shutter button push. Call it a quarter inch. If the lens is a hypothetical 11" long, and the pivot point is 10" out, almost out to the end of the lens, then that .25" of camera movement is reduced by a ratio of 1:10, it only moves the front of the lens .025", and the change in "camera pointing angle" is very small.

About 1.4°, in fact.

Again, the movement of the front of the lens does not enter into this at all - it is just an "occurrence". All that matters is the 0.25" displacement of the camera and the 10" distance to the (assumed) pivot. If the lens were 24" long, and the pivot were still 10" in front of the body, and the body was still shifted to the left by 0.25", the front of the lens would move to the right by 0.35", but the change in pointing angle would still be 1.4°.

But if the pivot is only 1" out, very close to the camera, then that same amount of movement is multiplied by a factor of 10:1, the front of the lens moves 2.5", and the change in camera pointing angle is quite significant. No?

Certainly true for the conditions you describe (and seemingly assume) - about 15°.

And if the front of the lens was at the pivot (a "pancake" lens, perhaps), then in this case the front of the lens does not move laterally at all, and the change in pointing angle is still about 15°.

I urge you to leave your focus on the lateral movement of the front of the lens - it is not a factor here.

I'm not sure the conditions you assume obtain. Its hard to imagine a 0.25" sideways movement of the camera would lead to a 15° shift in pointing axis unless the monopod were anchored in concrete. I think your assumption of the monopod being fixed is not realistic (unless you brought a "grip" with you to hold it in place, and then there would be union problems, and so forth).

This is not so say that there is no difference in the degree of change in the pointing angle, upon inadvertent disturbance of the body, with change in the mounting position of the camera (as you say you believe you experience). I could imagine various stories about why that might be true. The best one is that a ghost grip is holding the 'pod column fixed in space. Another is that the 'pod column is very massive, so inertia tends to keep it in place during a "camera disturbance".

Ordinarily, we would expect that, (let's say in a laboratory situation, with the monopod not "anchored in concrete" but just "reaching from the body to the floor") were we to quickly force the body to one side (in a way that puts no "torque" on the system), we would find that the whole system rotated around a point slightly forward of the center of gravity of the whole thing (camera, lens, monopod). That point would change only slightly as we moved the camera on its plate (unless the monopod was very massive).

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Nill Toulme]

Doug I'm afraid you've lost me. It seems fairly straightforward to me and comports with my real world experience. The way I shoot, with a long lens fixed on a monopod (no head) and my right hand on the camera and my left resting on the lens hood, the whole rig does in fact pivot very freely on the monopod foot, and when I mash the shutter in the heat of the moment, the camera does indeed (I'm sorry to say) move to the left an appreciable amount — maybe a quarter inch, maybe as much as a half in the worst case — pivoting around the monopod foot. Heck it's a wonder I ever get a sharp shot at all. ;-)

Beyond that I don't follow what you're saying.

Nill