handholding vs monopod

[jamesw]

hey everyone,

may seem like a dumb question,

there is a general rule of thumb for hand holding, being 1/focal length.

how much futher can you push this with a good monopod setup? i know there may be some variability between setups (some may be sturdier than others).

cheers

[Yi-P]

It's very hard to say from this. A monopod is mainly used to ease off the weight of your gear/lens so it does not put much strains on your arms/wrist. Different people have different techniques in handling a monopod, and the stability of the monopod is not determined by its build but your technique. Be better built monopod will only ease you on its usage or it can simply carry more on top (BIG lenses).

Practice to the most comfortable stand you can get out from your monopod and perfect the skill from there.

When I use it, I push the monopod leg against my right foot, left foot in front and push my face onto the camera while applying pressing down the lens. I was successful with ~1/150 out of a 300mm prime. It all depends on the situation and there is no certainty in this.

[johnd]

I was using my D200 and 80-400 the other day on a monopod to photograph a hockey match. As Yi-P mentioned, taking the weight of your hand/arm with a heavy lens is a great benefit. With the monopod supporting the weight, I found I was able to point the camera and operate the shutter with right hand and drape my left hand over the lens to zoom it as the action came towards me (continuous focus of course). Not normally a good technique without a pod.

Cheers
John

[jamesw]

i think i should also add my intended purpose in.

i shoot a lot of bmx action as people here will have noticed, and i am experimenting with longer shutter speeds when shooting street stuff with flashes to freeze the particular piece of action i want.

obviously with handholding i am limited to how slow i can go.

the most straight forward way of going about this would just be to invest in a tripod setup (something that i am seriously considering).

my primary issue with a tripod setup is basically that they are reasonably big and heavy to lug around. my current kit has my body, 4 flashes, triggers, all my lenses, 2 light stands, and usually a bunch of batteries too. adding another tripod in will make my backpack pretty damn heavy and i doubt i have room to even strap it on somewhere.

if a monopod could help me to stretch how slow i can go, at least a little, it may be worth looking into. i do not intend to use it with large heavy lenses (i tend to use my primes the most as i have the luxury of being able to actively choose my composition).

[ATJ]

How much of the lighting is from flash? If it is 100%, it will freeze most of the camera movement as well. Adding a monopod should improve the situation even further - if there really is a problem.

At full power, most flashes are around 1/1000" in duration. As the power is reduced, so is the duration and low power may be 1/10000" or even shorter.

[jamesw]

How much of the lighting is from flash? If it is 100%, it will freeze most of the camera movement as well. Adding a monopod should improve the situation even further - if there really is a problem.

At full power, most flashes are around 1/1000" in duration. As the power is reduced, so is the duration and low power may be 1/10000" or even shorter.

there is a reasonable amount of flash, i try to keep them below full power though.

i am trying to keep the shot as sharp as possible. the flash keeps the rider and the foreground sharp, however objects in the distance become soft/blurred if i go too far past 1/focal length.

i do not need the background to be tack sharp as it is not the focal point and with some lenses may not be in focus, but i do want to them to be sharper than hand held.

to give you an idea, imagine shooting a bike rider grinding their bike down a rail in the middle of the city. i'd like to light up the bike rider and the rail, as well as capturing the lights and cars in the city.

[Matt. K]

The monopod should give you at least a stop...maybe 2 with care and skill. But that low shutter speed won't stop your moving subject from blurring.

[jamesw]

The monopod should give you at least a stop...maybe 2 with care and skill. But that low shutter speed won't stop your moving subject from blurring.

the flash can take care of freezing the rider. there will be some blur and the rider may look transparent,but its a price im willing to pay.

cheersfor your answer.

[ATJ]

The monopod should give you at least a stop...maybe 2 with care and skill. But that low shutter speed won't stop your moving subject from blurring.

the flash can take care of freezing the rider. there will be some blur and the rider may look transparent,but its a price im willing to pay.

And won't it do the same thing to the "camera shake"?

[jamesw]

The monopod should give you at least a stop...maybe 2 with care and skill. But that low shutter speed won't stop your moving subject from blurring.

the flash can take care of freezing the rider. there will be some blur and the rider may look transparent,but its a price im willing to pay.

And won't it do the same thing to the "camera shake"?

as i mentioned earlier,

the flash will be taking care of the rider and what they are riding. imagine a rider jumping over a rail or something down a set of stairs. ie, imagine a photo where the flash is only being used to light a portion of the photo.

i would like to be able make use of the ambient light from surrounding buildings.

the only reason there will be blur from the rider is because the rider is moving. i am hoping a monopod (rather than going all out on a tripod setup) will keep parts of the photograph not lit by the flash acceptably sharp.

[ATJ]

Won't the sharpness of the background be determined more by the depth of field dictated by the aperture you choose? Unless you are using a very small aperture, a very wide angle lens or the background is very close to the subject, the background won't be all that sharp, even if you had the camera rock solid on a tripod.

I would think, and this is obviously my opinion, that it would be desirable to have the background soft so as not to draw attention away from the subject.

I guess in the end they are your photographs and you can set them up the way you like.

[jamesw]

i think our wires are slightly crossed

at night time, camera shake really blurs up lights quite badly. you cant hide it with DOF.

even if they are out of focus what i am trying to avoid is the light trails that you most commonly see with a slow sync shot.

[dviv]

i think our wires are slightly crossed

at night time, camera shake really blurs up lights quite badly. you cant hide it with DOF.

even if they are out of focus what i am trying to avoid is the light trails that you most commonly see with a slow sync shot.

Do you use 2nd curtain sync? It could be the look you are after.

[jamesw]

i think our wires are slightly crossed

at night time, camera shake really blurs up lights quite badly. you cant hide it with DOF.

even if they are out of focus what i am trying to avoid is the light trails that you most commonly see with a slow sync shot.

Do you use 2nd curtain sync? It could be the look you are after.

i have not really tried to hard with a rear shutter sync. the reason being that it is immensely difficult to get the shot timing right. imagine that you are trying to take a photo with the rider doing a trick, and you want to get exactly the right moment. you ahve to guess the moment with a rear sync, especially when you are shooting a longer shutter speed.

keep in mind that i can shoot at 5fps and sometimes completely miss the 'money shot'.

for simplicities sake, here is the type of shot i want to be able to achieve. its not my shot, i just goodled it. but this should give you guys an idea of what i want, and why i want the camera as stable as possible.