Monopod vs Tripod

mortallis288

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
303
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
ok i know that one has one leg and the other has 3 legs but i dont quite understand what the difference between each one? can someone give me an example?

Thanks
 
A monopod is reasonably portable and a good leap above shooting handheld for stability.

A tripod is far more stable than a monopod but not as portable.
 
thats what i was thinking but i wasn't sure thanks!
 
i was debating that not too long ago also. i know as an avid shooter with only a couple weeks of practice i decided to purchase a tripod instead. this is only because i knew that i was going to shoot alot of stills of live models that were going to be going through alot of poses at a studio. so i knew i was going to keep my camera in a few angles for many shots. with a monopod i dont think you can keep it stationary very well.. it might be good for event shooting and youre constantly moving from one area to another but if youre going to keep your camera in a more set position, id go tripod.

they do make the kind of tripod that has these hidden legs. but i wouldnt rely on those for long periods of time. they just dont seem sturdy to me.
kinda like this one
http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/P/B00007E7IL.01-A1PY46IM1CBEG3._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V38987601_.jpg
thats the bogen3231. cool monopod with the option of legs.
 
Axial motion is limited, but not eliminated with a monopod. A tripod eliminates motion (nearly completely).
 
A tripod has 3 legs. A monopod has 1 and you use your other 2.

A tripod is strudier and I use the monopod 10X as much as the tripod.

My $0.02. YMMV.

LWW
 
if you use a monopod, it gives you not as much reduction of camera shake and unwanted motion blur, but on the other had you are more flexible to _quickly_ change perspective. Also, when you don't have much flat ground area around, a monopod is much mor quickly set up.

you cannot do any really long exposeure times with the monopod,
well, you could but you would see unwanted motion blur ;)
 
Monopods are useful for sports and event photographers with (often heavy) medium range telephoto lenses, where the main benefit is that it is the (weight of the) lens, rather than the camera body, that is supported by the monopod.
But they're mostly too unstable for nature and wildlife work, where even longer focal length lenses rule.
 
With a tripod you don't need to be (and shouldn't be) touching the camera when it's fired. With a monopod, you are still holding touching the camera but not supporting it vertically.
 
I'd recommend having both a monopod and a tripod in your posession. Obviously, monpods are lighter, and generally easier to transport, so they may be better suited for situations requiring light travel. Tripods are really a must for low-light photography.
 
If you are looking into purchasing one, I would recommend a tripod, and then later purchase a monopod. At least with the tripod you can create a 'temporary' monopod but simply extending one leg. Sure it will be bulkier and more cumbersome then a true monopod, but it doubles quite well.
 
thanks, i was thinking a monopod with the quick pull out legs but im still not sure i have a month or so to decide
 
mortallis288 said:
thanks, i was thinking a monopod with the quick pull out legs but im still not sure i have a month or so to decide
A monopod with the quick pull out legs is very unstable. It will still be swaying after your selftimer runs out...
Just look at it:
B00007E7IL.jpg


Get a tripod.
Great for landscapes, portraits, architecture, weddings, macro, etc. etc. And sports and events too!
 
I just use my tripod as a monopod, keep the legs together instead of out for support. I cant see myself buying a monopod unless, like mentioned before, I was using it for support of a heavy lense.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top