Monopod VS IS (Image stabilization)

[Hussein]

We all know that having IS on a lens adds at least $500 to cost. A good quality monopod costs around $100 or maybe a bit more. How many thinks a monopod is equally effective but a much cheaper option that prevents hand shake and stabilize image rather then going for IS option on some lenses.

 

[rs]

It depends on what you're shooting, and how much you want to carry around. For instance, at weddings it's much easier to blend into the background when your second body with the 70-200 mounted doesn't have a big pole poking out of it. And as for stabilisation, I quite often cover water sports events from small motorboats. It's amazing how effective IS can be on the 70-200 II in the choppy water. For my usage, IS is perfect for me on my 70-200, and a monopod could never be a substitute.

 

[FTb-n]

I'm a strong believer the anything one can do to minimize camera shake will help sharpen the image. I use monopods when feasible. They work great at figure skating events where your vantage point is often limiting and you can't readily move around to get a better angle. But, all to often, I find monopods more restrictive when trying to get the shot. For example, at grade school basketball games, I'm able to shoot courtside, but I need to be able to move quickly to stay out of the way or to dodge a player who's blocking my shoot.

In both of these examples, I'm typically shooting faster than 1/400 with a 70-200 f2.8L II on a 7D. Conventional wisdom suggests that higher shutter speeds eliminate the need for added camera shake prevention -- such as IS or a monopod. But, a 200mm lens on a crop body is like a 320 on full frame. The reciprocal rule suggests the 1/320 is the minimum safe hand held speed for this lens. 1/400-1/500 isn't that much faster. IS and/or a monopod will definitely help.

When it comes to candids, such as wedding receptions or event photography, you have to be quick to get the shot. Physical supports like a monopod will likely get in the way.

On paper, it may make sense to save money and use monopods instead of spending extra for IS. In practice, I think you'll lose more shots quickly tire of carrying the monopod everywhere. You may find some situations where a monopod is an acceptable alternative to IS for a given some lens. But, if IS is available for the given focal length and aperture, it will give you greater flexibility than the monopod.

 

[bycostello]

monopod too restrictive... gets in way, something else to carry... mine rarely comes out...

 

[funkboy]

When I need large depth or field or am shooting in low light, I'll take what I can get.

Most of the time I'll run one or the other. I would love to use IS lenses with the monopod as the net result would be even better, but my IS lens is the 24-105L. It being f/4 means that I don't use it for low light when there's any possibility of subject movement, and if I'm shooting landscape I usually opt for either the 135L or another prime. The 24-105L tends to be my walk-around/travel lens, and those kinds of situations don't lend themselves to monopod use (which is one of the reasons I got the lens in the first place .

I usually run my Adorama Podmatic in a belt pouch. It's usually in conjunction with primes like the 135L, 85 USM, or any of my 50/40/35/20 primes, or the Tokina 11-16 (which is pretty much a 16mm f/2.8 prime on the 6D).

If I'm shooting indoors in low light I'm using a fast prime, and I haven't found one yet with IS & an aperture wide enough to do the job, so out comes the monopod. In the belt pouch it's a bit less effective but more discreet & a lot more mobile. It's also handy for getting a more stable shot for video, & you can pull the 'pod out of the pouch & raise the camera up over people's heads or other obstacles while it's still rolling.

 

[Loswr]

My vote: None of the above - use both if at all possible.

Also, consider the lens - I can't see using a monopod routinely with a 'light' lens like a 70-200...

 

[bdunbar79]

Just to say what I do. I shoot a lot of sports with the 300 f/2.8L I IS and 400 f/2.8L I IS and I never use IS and my images don't reflect that I need to start doing so. I just use a monopod and a really fast shutter speed.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

My vote: None of the above - use both if at all possible.

Also, consider the lens - I can't see using a monopod routinely with a 'light' lens like a 70-200...

This.

For me, a monopod is really only useful for a Great White, and then just to take the weight off my arms. I can hand-hold the 400 f/2.8 at 1/15s and not have any camera shake -- but not if I've had to hold it up to my face for any length of time!

It wouldn't occur to me to use the monopod for any other lens. Tripod, yes, certainly; the vast majority of everything I do is on a tripod. But not a monopod.

And, of course, when I am using a monopod, I'm absolutely going to want IS if the lens has it.

Cheers,

b&