[RioRico]

I got my first Trek hiking staff around 25 years ago. I still have it. We bought others as gifts and inherited those, so now we have four of them, stashed in a closet. These break down into 3 pieces that easily fit into luggage. They have a threaded end, normally covered with a wooden ball. Replace the ball with a camera and it's a monopod. I'm rather tall, so I added a collapsible table-top 'pod as an extension to bring the camera up to my eye level.

And how useful? Not very. That's why they're stashed in a closet. Great hiking staffs. Fun to mount a camera, set the self-timer, and wave it over a crowd. But as a camera stabilizer: meh.

When my main camera was a little Sony DSC-V1, a light protable Velbron Maxi-343E (later a Maxi-347E) tripod was its constant companion. I'd wander picturesque villages day and night with camera and tripod. Much better than my dad's old video tripod, a clumsy beast. But my K20D plus almost any lens are too heavy for the Velbrons, so I got a nice tall (74in / 188cm) Opteka TR74-EVO. Not so convenient, not such a constant companion. But when I *need* the support, there it is, at least if I've remembered to pack it.

When I'm out in public with an MF camera (6x6 TLR or 6x9 folder) on a Velbron, or the K20D plus whatever lens on the Opteka, I'm noticed. (Hay, look at the funny guy with the funny camera!) I plunk the 'pod down and establish my space, and it's noticed and respected. I'm not just a tourista with a Rebel nor a hipster waving a phone around; I'm a goddam PHOTOGRAPHER, so watch out! I get some nice still shots too, eh?

[Sandy Hancock]

"Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose." --KK

Written by KK, made legendary by JJ.

tripod is billiards, handheld is pool.

Billiards is a better game.

[Sandy Hancock]

After years of competitive archery, I have become very good at holding very still. I love shooting handheld; the more challenging the situation the more I relish it.

That said, there are times when that will not be enough, so today I just lashed out on a flashy German carbon fibre tripod to take out bush. I'll only have it with me when I really need it if it's light enough to carry.

[Lowell Goudge]

Having read through this all several times, and also having shot with many tripods, monopods and hand held over the past 30 yearsI can only offer from my own experience.

I will list all the points I agree with first:

- tripods make you slow down and think, which is good
- moving tripods about is a PIA
- monopods make great walking sticks and can offer support when needed, to a limit
- monopods are much easier to get into restricted venues than tripods
- shake reduction can eliminate the need for a tripod in many cases


I also liked the idea of scouting without a tripod and using one to shoot, but there is a risk to this. If I am out scouting a location, and i have my gear with me, I am most likely to take the shot hand held when I see it, because part of what makes me see the image is the lighting, and if I scout the entire location first, by the time I decide what I like and don't the lighting has changed. What you really need to do, is to learn to see the image without the camera. to know what will be interesting and go right to where you need to be. this takes time and experience

I would also like to offer some advise to tripod users, Regardless of how much you spend to get the latest and greatest light weight tripod you can carry, when shooting, all tripods weight 20 pounds or more. simply because the $500 carbon fiber super light tripod needs about 20 pounds of rocks, gear or what ever, hung below it to make the thing stable enough, especially for use with long lenses (my real interest in tripods)

when considering tripods, you need to also consider how to transport them for travel. the best tripods come with minimal number of leg sections and are usually too long top pack in a reasonable suitcase.more compact tripods with more leg sections are flimsy when extended due to the rotation around each leg joint

When I travel I leave my tripod at home. I take a monopod and rely on this, plus shake reduction for support of my tele lenses. I could imagine taking a small tripod, like a table top model for holding camera plus lens only for family shots, as I fimd myself all too often not in the picture.

[TaoMaas]

My problem with tripods, as much as i like their precision and IQ they produce, i tend to place them too quickly. And then not move them. They are a mechanical device which takes time to set up and adjust.

I like to tell people that if they want to produce pictures that nobody else takes, they have to be willing to do what the Average Joe won't do...get up earlier, stay longer, concentrate harder, use tripods, shoot slower ASA's, etc...

[Lowell Goudge]

I like to tell people that if they want to produce pictures that nobody else takes, they have to be willing to do what the Average Joe won't do...get up earlier, stay longer, concentrate harder, use tripods, shoot slower ASA's, etc...

i'd add one additional thing. If you want to take photos no one else takes, if you see a group of photographers near you................MOVE

[monochrome]

I like to tell people that if they want to produce pictures that nobody else takes, they have to be willing to do what the Average Joe won't do...get up earlier, stay longer, concentrate harder, use tripods, shoot slower ASA's, etc...

Best post on this thread

Probably in the top-ten posts I've read here since 2007.

[Paleo Pete]

shoot slower ASA's

Somebody's shot lots of film...

I do 90% or more handheld, even most of my macro work. I have 3 tripods, 2 newer ones and an old Safe Lok that's probably from around 1960 or so. That's the one I usually pull out if I want to use one. All metal, more stable than any new one I've seen in ages, not that heavy, two leg sections, and works great. The only drawback is no quick release.

But I rarely use it. Birds, lizards, spiders and dragonflies don't sit around and wait for me to set up a tripod. Monopod is almost useless, since mine has nothing but a screw, no tilt available so I have to tilt the whole damn thing. Doesn't work well. So most of my shots are handheld. Fortunately at my age my hands are still steady, I'd be in trouble otherwise. (I didn't get this grey beard by being a youngster, it's been that way for 15 years...)

About the only time I do use a tripod is the odd occasion when I can set up and wait for a while, like at the Pileated Woodpecker nest a couple of weeks ago. I knew exactly where they would be, I could pre focus and wait, so I used the old Safe Lok a couple of times. Or shooting some of the flower macros, I think I've tried that 3 or 4 times, usually handheld though. Let's see...about 20 years ago at the only wedding I ever shot, 35mm ME Super and the Velbon tripod I still use now and then. Made it easy since I was shooting most of the family groups in the same spot, just swap the 50mm for the 28mm if needed for larger groups, leave everything else in place.

It has its uses, and my tripod (2 of them actually) is always in the Jeep, but I very rarely use one. As I said, the majority of my photography rules out tripods. Birds, spiders, lizards and bees don't sit around and wait while I set up. I have to grab it quick and cross my fingers...even the time it takes to put the binocular lens on is more than enough for a wasp or lizard to be long gone.

[mikeSF]

...probably the greatest thing invented since Nutella. ....

YUM!


oh wait, i thought you said Nigella.

[vonBaloney]

Monopod tip:

Get a ball-head. You can get a cheap one that is still sturdy for about $20-$30.

Alternatively, and I think this is actually the better option, get an Ultrapod. They are very cheap, and have a surprisingly functional two-way ball head on them. They have grooved legs with built-in velcro strap -- it is designed to be able to strap to tree branches, etc. I strap mine to the top of the monopod, ignoring the flat plate that it has, and instant ball head. I use a second velcro strap around it so it is really sturdy. Now I've got a monopod with ballhead, but I can also remove the Ultrapod and use it by itself as very low tripod on a rock or something or strap it to post or branch etc as needed. The Ultrapod isn't strong enough for a big telephoto, but for compact zooms and primes it is ok. It is the one tripod I do always carry with me -- if I don't bring the monopod I always strap it to my bag. Comes in handy...

[RioRico]

i'd add one additional thing. If you want to take photos no one else takes, if you see a group of photographers near you................MOVE

I'll supplement this with my 180-Degree Rule: When you get to a "Kodak moment" vista, or see a number of photographers aiming their lenses at something, turn yourself around 180 degrees and shoot in the opposite direction. It's like being "across the alley from the Alamo", a reality check.

[Macario]

I don't use a tripod when not needed. But that said, I come in various circumstances when a tripod is a must (or atleast a monopod). And I do not mind using one at those moments (mostly have one attached to my backbag anyway)

[TaoMaas]

Somebody's shot lots of film...

LOL Well...true, but I think it still holds for digital. You're almost always going to be better off if you can shoot at a lower ASA and reduce your noise as much as possible. Sometimes it's not practical, as in the subjects you mentioned, but I see a lot of shots where folks take the easy way out. And as they say, "If it were easy, everybody would be doing it."

[emalvick]

I like the comment about seeing a lot of photographers, so move... This is important in general as one of my primary goals when out shooting popular locations is to take that shot that you can't buy on a post-card. Giving a common location a different perspective is huge. If I have the time, I find that a tripod can help, but I find I give myself more flexibility without one. Without a tripod, I'm willing to crawl on my hands and knees to get a unique perspective, to climb to vantage points I wouldn't trust my tripod with, and so on.

However, with a tripod, it is worth taking advantage of its full capabilities. Too many people shoot with a tripod with the legs fully extended and even the shaft just to get the shot at their eye level. People don't think to try with the legs shortened or the shaft inverted and so on, except maybe those macro photographers who know that they need to get close.

I can't say too much though as I shoot 95% without a tripod. I do see the advantage of planning with a tripod, and even when I try to plan my composition without one, I don't see as much benefit. Fortunately, I have a new tripod in the mail that will be much more useful for my shooting in many situations.

[Lowell Goudge]

LOL Well...true, but I think it still holds for digital. You're almost always going to be better off if you can shoot at a lower ASA and reduce your noise as much as possible. Sometimes it's not practical, as in the subjects you mentioned, but I see a lot of shots where folks take the easy way out. And as they say, "If it were easy, everybody would be doing it."

I think the use the lowest ISO possible is somewhat incorrect, because it is implying that the correct photograph is made with the smallest grain largest exposure latitude medium. I think the best statement would be to use an ISO that is appropriate for a) the lighting, and b) what you are attempting to achieve.

some shots look a lot better with a ton of grain, as it adds to the ambiance of the moment.