Photography - Tripod or Monopod?

Question

What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Trying to decide which to buy... please advise. Thanks

Answer 1

Tripod !

The monopod will move and shake because you have to hold it. The very best is the heaviest tripod you can comfortably carry.

The heavier the tripod the more sturdy, the less likely you are to have movement from shaking or wind.

A light weight tripod is suitable for a small camera. The bigger the camera the bigger the tripod is a good rule of thumb.

The answer is to have a heavy tripod and a flexible tripod such as the Benbo Trekker for all those very tricky shots.

Answer 2

The only time I use a monopod is with heavy telephoto lenses with a tripod mount. I would never screw a monopod into the camera's tripod mount. The idea is that the monopod makes it eaiser to hold the lens. It adds about a stop and a half to the normal minimum for hand holding. For example, if you are shooting at 400mm then hand held you want ~1/400th of a second shutter speed. With a monopod, I'd go down to 1/300th or so.

I use my tripod more often and for more things. Night exposures are a must. I mean, whenever you are in poor light and can't get you shutter speed to the recipoical of your lens length, tripod is the best option. In minimal wind, a tripod adds an unlimited number of stops to your minimum shutter speed. You could use a cable release and do a 4 hour exposure.

So, unless you are shooting sports with long lenses, get a tripod.

Answer 3

Honestly, both have their place, and the experienced photographer will own and use both as appropriate.

The monopod is a sort of compromise between a tripod and handholding. It gives you most of the flexibility and mobility of handholding while offering some of the stability of a tripod.

I love using a monopod the few times I photograph sporting events. Although the stability isn't so much of an advantage, not having to hold 8+ pounds of camera(motor driven Canon F-1N-5 lbs and 400mm 4.5-3.5 lbs) for an hour or two.

With the aforementioned 400mm lens on a monopod, I've had good luck at shutter speeds of 1/90, and have on occasion gotten sharp results as low as 1/30.

A tripod is completely unparalleled for stability. If you have the time to set it up and get it positioned properly, there's no better option for supporting your camera. Unfortunately, tripods are often heavy and bulky, which keeps me from using mine as much as I'd like to.

Whatever you get , get a good one. A $30 Wal-Mart special tripod doesn't count-in my experience, these are often worse than using no tripod at all. I'd suggest at minimum spending about $70 for something from Velbon or Slik. At $100 new, the Tiltall is another great option, and the one I personally use, although I use a 50 year old Tiltall.

$500 Gitzos are great, but honestly overkill for most people.

Answer 4

It's actually nice to own both. Within the limits of their respective designs they provide a more stable platform than hand holding. Tripods allow you to set your camera then concentrate on your subject--if you have a tripod you really should have a cable or remote release. A monopod is lighter and more portable, so you can move around quickly and easily to get the shots you want. If you can only afford one get a tripod, it's irreplaceable. By the way, get a good tripod. Too many people buy an inexpensive, light weight tripod that really does not provide a stable platform. From my personal experience an acceptable compromise of stability and weight is found in the Slik U212, but only for smaller 35mm slr and dslr.

Answer 5

Tripods are definitely better if you are in need of something stable, especially for longer exposures. They are kind of annoying to carry around but it is easy to find a light weight one and they can usually be attatched to a bookbag of some sort. Monopods are much easier to carry around but they are useless if you're actually looking for something stable. Unless you're shooting with a digital camera that has a lense with image stabilization or a vibration reduction option, I would go with a tripod. But if you're exposure's aren't going to be very long and you don't really need something as stable, monopods work fine. There are also monopods that turn into tripods, but they still are not as stable as regular tripods.

Answer 6

I see the pros at action events using the monopod more often, becuse of it's portability and light weight. They see a shot coming and they just put it down and they are ready to shoot.

I have a very lightweight, cheap tripod that I have used as a monopod by extending only one leg. Works "pretty" good, but it is still a bit heavier than I would like.

Answer 7

Tripods are way more stable, however monopods are lighter, easier to carry and are more durable. It really depends on what you are willing to pay and what kind of photography you take and where you travel to. Tripods are better for holding large cameras and lenses, and hold your camera more steady for longer exposure.

Answer 8

Tripod has more stability. Better pictures.
Monopod is easier to carry. Probably cheaper.

Answer 9

Monopod is lighter, but nowhere near as stable. It helps to keep y

Answer 10

Buy a tripod.

If you extend the legs but don't open them up -
VOILA! - you have a monopod.