Trackside with Erik and Mike: The monopod debate

[Bergie]

In the Trackside with Erik and Mike Volume 5 Voting Results story (read here), I discussed my use of a monopod (as opposed to a tripod) and the abuse that Mike has been giving as a result. What do you think? Is Mike showing jealousy from not being able to use a monopod with his Image Stabilizer-lacking lens, or is Erik walking around trackside looking like fool for using the monopod? Please voice your opinion here.

[tree68]

As with any tool, if it does the job, go for it. I don't have one myself, but can see the use in long-lens or slow shutter speed shots where setting a tripod would be problematic. Not a problem from my point of view.

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

As with any tool, if it does the job, go for it. I don't have one myself, but can see the use in long-lens or slow shutter speed shots where setting a tripod would be problematic. Not a problem from my point of view.

Thanks for the feedback, Larry. Actually, I only use the monopod (in conjunction with the telephoto zoom lens) during perfect light conditions. If it moved to slow shutter speed situations, I'd move to a traditional tripod to assure complete stediness.

Erik

[JoeUmp]

Bergie

If I had one of those stabalized lenses I'd sure be using a monopod for quick setup pics, no matter what the subject. But I agree with you that a tripod is better for traditional settings and where you have time to get everything just right.

Joe

[trains4one]

Eric,

Like you I use both depending on the situation, and I don't even have the stabilization feature on my Canon 75-300mm.

Steve

[Anonymous]

My case for three legs:

I'll start with a disclaimer, namely that I've never used a monopod. Having said that, I consider using a monopod as basically a way to brace a handheld shot. A similar effect could probably be generated by bracing yourself or your camera against a tree, building, or other stationary object while shooting. It's just that a monopod is a lot more convenient.

As Erik notes, using a monopod allows much more freedom of movement and ease in re-composing than a tripod. That, however, is my biggest problem with it. Because it takes a little while to re-compose a shot on a tripod, using one forces me to pre-visualize my shots, which almost invariably makes me a better photographer. If I'm handholding my camera (particularly with a zoom lens), I may get greedy and try to fire off multiple compositions of the same train. If I plop the camera down on a tripod, I have to pick out the best composition ahead of time, which almost without fail results in getting one shot that's better than all the ones I may have gotten in a handheld sequence.

Case in point: I was in Chicago a few weeks ago for the Center for Railroad Photography and Art's convention. Since I was flying and didn't plan on much serious photography, I opted to travel light and brought only one camera and zoom lens. On Friday evening, I was trackside for part of the Metra commuter rush during a great midwestern sunset. I got several good shots that I am very happy with, but in almost every one of them I can nitpick about some little detail:

http://home.cwru.edu/~sjl5/chi/metra4.jpg

In this example, there seems to be a smokestack growing right out of the control car, partially obscuring the distinctive horn mounted on the roof. True, I could "fix" this in Photoshop, but it would take some time and could have easily been avoided in the first place. Had I been using a tripod and planning my shots, rather than simply firing away every time a train passed, I probably would have noticed this and waited for the train to move just a little farther away before tripping the shutter.

I don't mean to come down too hard on monopods -- for something like a sporting event where the action is all over the field, they offer a huge advantage. Trains, on the other hand, tend to follow a set path of predictable movement. In that case, I find my own photographs usually turn out much better when I take the time and effort to use a tripod.

Scott Lothes
Cleveland, Ohio

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lothes19

My case for three legs:

I'll start with a disclaimer, namely that I've never used a monopod. Having said that, I consider using a monopod as basically a way to brace a handheld shot. A similar effect could probably be generated by bracing yourself or your camera against a tree, building, or other stationary object while shooting. It's just that a monopod is a lot more convenient.

Actually, if there is something around to brace myself against while using the monopod, I'll use it (tree, telephone pole, etc.)

QUOTE:
Case in point: I was in Chicago a few weeks ago for the Center for Railroad Photography and Art's convention. Since I was flying and didn't plan on much serious photography, I opted to travel light and brought only one camera and zoom lens. On Friday evening, I was trackside for part of the Metra commuter rush during a great midwestern sunset. I got several good shots that I am very happy with, but in almost every one of them I can nitpick about some little detail:

http://home.cwru.edu/~sjl5/chi/metra4.jpg

In this example, there seems to be a smokestack growing right out of the control car, partially obscuring the distinctive horn mounted on the roof. True, I could "fix" this in Photoshop, but it would take some time and could have easily been avoided in the first place. Had I been using a tripod and planning my shots, rather than simply firing away every time a train passed, I probably would have noticed this and waited for the train to move just a little farther away before tripping the shutter.

Great shot, Scott! I looked at it prior to reading your second to last paragraph. Don't be too hard on yourself, I didn't notice the smokestack until you pointing it out. Let's face it, railroads don't always cut through the nicest parts of town, so sometimes there are going to be unavoidable backdrops. More important in your shot is how you captured the setting sun and its affect on the rails and the passing train. Well done!

Thanks for the feedback!
Erik

[Anonymous]

Check out the professionals at any sporting event. Its Monopod or no pod at all. The flexability that is gained with the monopod far out weighs the stability of the tripod. Monopod for action, Tripod for still life.

As a side note however, with the advancements in photo technology being what they are today and all the choices available sometimes it is nice to slip back into the old comfort zone of black and white photography where it all started, and see what developes in your own dark room.

Al Szirony

[Anonymous]

My darkroom has a CPU. I put the photo through and increased the brightness and contrtast by a considerable amount and seem to have got what you have. Looks good! As for tripods and monopods, if I had a mono, the tri would get a lot more rest.