Tripod or Monopod? Also WB question

shaveblog said:
Exactly my point -- it has post-processing stabilization, so why even use the monopod in the first place? If you're going to sit there and let FCP and Smoothcam analyze and stabilize your footage, why not just go handheld? In many ways handheld is better than a monopod, it doesn't encourage the kind of motion that even Smoothcam can't really correct for later.

The OP's original question was whether he should bring a monopod along to a shoot along with his carbon fiber tripod. Some of us cautioned him that a monopod is not nearly as good as a tripod at stabilizing the camera and preventing unwanted movement that will look terrible. Some of us disagree, feeling a monopod is capable of good video. And some of us seem to consider a monopod with added legs a monopod when it ceases to be a monopod once the leg count grows larger than one. Those Manfrottos you referenced are actually tripods, Dan, regardless of what Manfrotto calls them. If they have three legs, they're tripods, and FWIW, I've tried those things and they're no better than a straight "still" monopod. They do not hold the camera firmly locked in a single point in space any better than a simple monopod, and that is what we're trying to do here, lock the camera at a single point in space so it doesn't move around while shooting video. The less movement, the better the tripod. The more movement, the worse. There isn't a monopod out there that can hold a camera as motionless as a good tripod, so since the OP is already bringing that with him, I would think the matter's settled. But alas.
Click to expand...
AFAIK, no one (including me) is saying that a monopod is better a tripod for holding a camera in a single point in space. OTOH, a monopod (with folding support legs) provides a usable alternative in some situations. In tight spaces, like in a wedding crowd or on a narrow hill trail in Belize, it offers some advantages over a tripod.

Regards,

Dan.

p.s. In addition to my two monopods, I have a Markins ball head on Gitzo carbon fiber sticks for stills and a Manfrotto 501 on heavy, no-name sticks for video. I understand and value a good tripod.
 
We're just going to have to disagree here. I've had miserable luck with using monopods for video, and I've got a serious Gitzo monopod that's as good as it gets. But experiential evidence aside, there's just too much hard science working against a monopod if you're trying to prevent unwanted camera motion while shooting video. They're fine for stills, though I would always rather have a tripod here as well, but like you said, sometimes a tripod isn't a viable option.

So here's what I do instead of half-assing it with a monopod. I use a Gorillapod Focus flexible tripod, the heavy steel pro-grade Gorillapod, and I bend it so two of the legs rest on my shoulders and the bottom leg presses into my chest. I also added a small Giotto ball head to the Focus to allow for more range of camera positioning. Holding either the camera body itself or the bottom leg, I find that this arrangement offers a much more stable and motionless support for video shooting in tight quarters than a monopod. I'm much happier with footage shot this way than with a monopod.
 
shaveblog said:
Exactly my point -- it has post-processing stabilization, so why even use the monopod in the first place? If you're going to sit there and let FCP and Smoothcam analyze and stabilize your footage, why not just go handheld? In many ways handheld is better than a monopod, it doesn't encourage the kind of motion that even Smoothcam can't really correct for later.

The OP's original question was whether he should bring a monopod along to a shoot along with his carbon fiber tripod. Some of us cautioned him that a monopod is not nearly as good as a tripod at stabilizing the camera and preventing unwanted movement that will look terrible. Some of us disagree, feeling a monopod is capable of good video. And some of us seem to consider a monopod with added legs a monopod when it ceases to be a monopod once the leg count grows larger than one. Those Manfrottos you referenced are actually tripods, Dan, regardless of what Manfrotto calls them. If they have three legs, they're tripods, and FWIW, I've tried those things and they're no better than a straight "still" monopod. They do not hold the camera firmly locked in a single point in space any better than a simple monopod, and that is what we're trying to do here, lock the camera at a single point in space so it doesn't move around while shooting video. The less movement, the better the tripod. The more movement, the worse. There isn't a monopod out there that can hold a camera as motionless as a good tripod, so since the OP is already bringing that with him, I would think the matter's settled. But alas.
Click to expand...


I wish I could post some samples, but I don't own the footage. I use the 561BHDV all the time with a 30mm lens and it looks fantastic. All I was trying to say is that my footage is pretty stable handheld, so take that as an example to how much more stable it is with a monopod. Don't discount it... It works well!
 
I love using my monopod, I added the manfrotto shoulder brace to it and all the feedback on my videos has been very positive. If you look at this link, I shot all three videos on this page with my GH2 on my monopod. Watch the interviews.:

http://www.humans2humans.com/

By the way, on top of the monopod, I have a whole cage with the GH2, monitor, sennheiser mic, and xlr adapter. I did screw up one shot because of cramped space and shot a little low, but otherwise I am very, very happy with this set-up for these kinds of videos!
 
shaveblog said:
The only scenario where a monopod is capable of holding a camera steady enough for shake-free video is when your camera/lens has built-in image stabilization, which means you wouldn't really need a monopod anyway. Even with a wide angle lens, even with a steady grip, the camera will pivot and move horizontally with a monopod, it's inescapable.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that's exactly where a monopod works well - for level panning rather than for holding the camera steady. The Manfrotto 560B video monopod is well-suited for this purpose with a ball head mounted on a small, three-legged foot (which is not itself a tripod). However, I found the tension on the ball head caused enough friction to twist the thinnest leg extension of the monopod while panning. This caused the leg extension to twitch slightly (but visibly!) at unpredictable points during a pan.

The fix for this kink was simple - I disassembled the ball bracket and inserted a thin washer in between each side of the screw-mounted ball socket. This expanded the clearance enough to allow me to adjust the tension on the ball while tightening up the entire assembly. The result is a monopod that pans smoothly at any degree of tilt, good for many types of pans that would be sketchy if attempted without vertical camera support.

BTW, I also use image stabilization along with the monopod. While the monopod prevents vertical drift, I find that OIS smoothes out any micro-twitches I may make while panning the camera.
 
I sold my 561BHDV-1 a couple of weeks ago. I'd much rather shoulder mount and I couldn't take its weight anymore. The final straw was hiking up Mt. Lee in Griffith Park with it; it ruined the whole experience.
 
A monoPod with a balancing weight on the bottom will act as a steady cam if you hold the Pod at it's balance point. That's all i do and i get stable video from the back of a jetski. Works better than any shoulder mount. I've done 50+ paying videos that way including one with a GH13. http://vimeo.com/user383267

This was shot entirely on GH13 on a monopad.
 
Last edited:
If a three-legged camera support isn't a tripod, what is it then? Whether the three legs join the central support rod up high or down low, if it has three feet it ain't a monopod, whether Manfrotto calls it that or not. Pod = foot, Mono = one. I will grant you that the 560B is sort of a hermaphrodite, neither fish nor fowl, but if I had to categorize it as being mostly one or the other it would have to be considered a tripod. Nobody buys it to not use the extra legs.

I envy your ability to engage OIS while shooting video. My GF1 (and soon my GH2) lack in-body IS, neither my 20mm pancake or any of the legacy lenses I shoot with have IS, so I have to stabilize my rig the old fashioned way, by using either a tripod, a shoulder rig, or lately a FlyCam Nano which I've grown to love after a rather steep and frustrating learning curve. I strongly dislike the additive artifacts of post-processing stabilization like Smoothcam, so I try to avoid having to lean on it as much as possible by keeping my footage as natively steady as possible. This is why I have such a strong aversion to using monopods for video, I've gotten burned by them in the past and no amount of Smoothcam tweaking could fix things without adding artifacts I found even less acceptable than micro-movement. So now I use my Fancier WF717 unless conditions won't allow room for it, in which case I go to my shoulder mounted Gorillapod Focus or the FlyCam. Neither holds the camera locked in place like the tripod, but neither is plagued by the insidious micro-movements of a monopod which always look a thousand time shakier and more amateurish on playback than they do when you're shooting.

lpowell said:
Yes, and that's exactly where a monopod works well - for level panning rather than for holding the camera steady. The Manfrotto 560B video monopod is well-suited for this purpose with a ball head mounted on a small, three-legged foot (which is not itself a tripod). However, I found the tension on the ball head caused enough friction to twist the thinnest leg extension of the monopod while panning. This caused the leg extension to twitch slightly (but visibly!) at unpredictable points during a pan.

The fix for this kink was simple - I disassembled the ball bracket and inserted a thin washer in between each side of the screw-mounted ball socket. This expanded the clearance enough to allow me to adjust the tension on the ball while tightening up the entire assembly. The result is a monopod that pans smoothly at any degree of tilt, good for many types of pans that would be sketchy if attempted without vertical camera support.

BTW, I also use image stabilization along with the monopod. While the monopod prevents vertical drift, I find that OIS smoothes out any micro-twitches I may make while panning the camera.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree, using a monopod as a ghetto Steadicam is a useful technique. My monopod is a Gitzo Safari (now discontinued) which is ideally suited for this trick because it's designed with the thickest section at bottom and the thinnest section up top where the camera mounts. So it's inherently bottom-heavy, and once you determine the zero balance point and lightly grip the Gitzo slightly above it, it works passably well as a kinda sorta Steadicam. But now that I've gotten the hang of using a FlyCam Nano properly, I get much better results from that and my Gitzo rarely gets any use these days.

rambooc1 said:
A monoPod with a balancing weight on the bottom will act as a steady cam if you hold the Pod at it's balance point. That's all i do and i get stable video from the back of a jetski. Works better than any shoulder mount. I've done 50+ paying videos that way including one with a GH13. http://vimeo.com/user383267

This was shot entirely on GH13 on a monopad.
Click to expand...
 
Well, there's always the Flowpod for a monopod/stabilizer 2 in 1 option. Looks tempting, but I think I'm going to go with the Flycam 5000 with the comfort arm/vest. The only thing I'm worried with about the Flycam is whether or not there's horizontal adjustment to help me balance a monitor and Zoom H4n all mounted on an indieSQUARE.
 
Last edited:
I've deleted several posts within this thread as several members have made their arguments personal. Attacks of any kind on other members is a violation of the policies set forth here. We invite debate, but keep it civil.

Anyone taking this thread into a direction that is anything less than constructive and positive will find themselves sidelined for a bit to rethink their overzealous position on the matter of monopods.
 
Looking at reviews, I guess the CineCity comfort arm and vest is widely considered to be a non-functioning piece of junk, and the Flycam 5000, though capable of getting very stable shots, is heavy and difficult to setup and keep balanced. Oh well.
 
shaveblog said:
...I will grant you that the 560B is sort of a hermaphrodite, neither fish nor fowl, but if I had to categorize it as being mostly one or the other it would have to be considered a tripod. Nobody buys it to not use the extra legs. ...
Click to expand...
FYI... The 561BHDV has the same foot (feet?) as the 560B. That's why I like it. At least now. After 10 days in Belize, who knows?

One point about the feet... They fold up against the main tube. That way it doesn't catch on things as your moving around and it can be used as a regular monopod for stills.

Regards,

Dan.
 
shaveblog said:
...if a three-legged camera support isn't a tripod, what is it then? Whether the three legs join the central support rod up high or down low, if it has three feet it ain't a monopod, whether Manfrotto calls it that or not. Pod = foot, Mono = one. I will grant you that the 560B is sort of a hermaphrodite, neither fish nor fowl, but if I had to categorize it as being mostly one or the other it would have to be considered a tripod. Nobody buys it to not use the extra legs.
Click to expand...
While anatomically it may resemble a long-necked, three-legged critter, the Manfrotto 560B's lower appendages are functionally equivalent to a single, three-toed foot:
560b-feet.jpg

The purpose of the extended toe joints is merely to anchor the lower ball socket firmly upon an irregular surface, preventing the foot from slipping or rotating while the ball-mounted shaft is manipulated. Since the camera itself remains rigidly balanced on a single fixed point, the contraption is effectively a monopod.

One significant detail I omitted is that in practice, I found the 560B's "fluid cartridge" completely useless. While the shaft does turn smoothly within the cartridge, it has far too much hydraulic inertia and torques the ball enough to rotate it within its socket. This makes the whole monopod twitch, which is what motivated me to modify it to relieve the tension on the mounting ball. After doing so, the ball rotates smoothly within the socket, and the shaft does not rotate within the cartridge at all.

In general, I've found Manfrotto to make solid equipment machined with disturbingly loose tolerances. I'm currently hoping to find bushings for the 560B's tilt head central bolt so it won't rattle around so much when it's loosened. Even a seemingly simple device like the Manfrotto 234RC Quick Release Plate is plagued by its sloppy bolt retainer which allows it to be tightened to the camera in such a way that it won't lie flush against the 234RC tripod head!
 
Last edited:
Spectacularly well-played, LPowell. The toe vs. leg strategy is a masterpiece of semanto-gymnastic argument. By appealing to my love of phrase-turning, you've forced me to concede that I enjoyed your gambit so much I'm forced to give this one to you out of sheer admiration for such bold and clever play. Once again, your contributions more than make up for the other stuff one encounters in obdurate-man-toy fora.

My experiences with Manfrotto hardware match yours. The parts are very well machined, but the assembly and sometimes the tolerances are not commensurate with the prices. I sort of assume nowadays that anything I get in that has moving mechanical parts ships in "loosely tightened" state and requires a thorough going-over before pressing into duty, but at those prices you shouldn't really have to go through all that as you would with the cheaper Chinese knockoffs on eBay. All of the $10 QR01 quick release adapters (thanks again Vitaliy for the rec) I've gotten have the same maddening tendency to push the top plate ever so slightly away from the base when tightening the lock screw, but for $10 I'm willing to do a little machining to get things to lock down tightly. With a Manfrotto, you shouldn't have to jump through the hoops you describe.

All this talk about OIS and physical camera stabilization has me hoping the next gen of Lumix m43 cameras includes in-camera IS for video. My wife's $400 LX5 has it, and shoots such depressingly steady and decent 720p right out of the box that it begs the question why doesn't Panasonic include this in its more expensive cameras which are more likely to need it in the first place? With its 24mm f/2 lens I can turn the LX5's OIS off and still get reasonably good footage. Slap anything longer than the 20mm pancake on my GF1 though and out comes the tripod.
 
It was a long long way to recognize, that nothing can beat a decent tripod for video, but.....there are some reasons to use a monopod - if you have little space for tripod and different, fast changing places, but dont use long lenses, for the GH2 the 14-45mm is a good idea for Monopod.
I bought a few weeks ago the Bilora 936 Tripod and was really excited. Sure, its not as sophisticated as a Sachtler etc, its simple, but its halve as heavy and cost here in germany 110 Euro, with a simple Fluid head- but it works absolute ok, when you are abroad, especially with the small GH2 and it will give you more stable shots than the monopod.
Benn
 
I got one question. If manf 560 is tripod, how come manf don't call it that? Manf is speak wrong english?
 
Perhaps! My definition of a matte box versus sun shade is that a sun shade does one thing - and that is keep sun from hitting the lens. The matte box was invented for traveling matte photography, where glass elements were added and removed to mask certain areas of the resulting frame(s). Today's matte boxes feature multiple rotating and / or static stages and a sophisticated means for flagging on multiple sides of the frame.

Still, I see the words sun shade and matte box transposed for each other all the time and I used to let it drive me crazy. No matter what you think, it simply doesn't warrant a heated discussion.
 
Monopods are nice, but if you need a tripod and are short on room/don't want the baggage, I'd say just stick with the tripod. 20mm can be stabilized by a simple shoulder device - gorillapod, weight, etc. Unless you have a 50-85mm lens that you'd like to be portable
 
I had to shoot a focus group that lasted over an hour today. The client wanted me mobile so a tripod was out. I was shooting with an hvx 200 so there was no way I was going to attempt to shoot it hand held. My monopod saved the day, and I didn't have to suffer from wrist fatigue, shoulder pain, and sore arms. Long live the monopod.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top