MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: News - Yuri's Favorite Photography Gadget: The 4 Piece Manfrotto Monopod  (Read 18479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

News Feed

« on: November 17, 2008, 07:15 »
0
Yuri's Favorite Photography Gadget: The 4 Piece Manfrotto Monopod

Using a monopod takes away the element of luck in getting sharp images and is an essential tool for Yuri. You don't want to select away otherwise great photos because they're not sharp – this video show you all the amazing things you can do with a monopod.

http://www.crestock.com/blog/photography/yuris-favorite-photography-gadget-the-4-piece-manfrotto-monopod-147.aspx


« Reply #1 on: November 17, 2008, 08:44 »
0
A $500 monopod.  Wow!

« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2008, 09:36 »
0
Yippee!

« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2008, 09:57 »
0
A $500 monopod.  Wow!

So does that mean the tripod equivalent is $1500?

« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2008, 10:29 »
0
No matter how expensive monopod you have,    It will F A L L if you let it go...  :o

« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2008, 12:08 »
0
I use a monopod for most shots, too. I'm surprised that Yuri prefers using (and wearing out/breaking) many cheap ones instead of getting a more durable model that can stand up to (pun intended) regular use with heavy equipment.

« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2008, 12:20 »
0
monopd is greatest sh*t ever invented. I simply hate it.

« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2008, 12:37 »
0
It won't be much use in a studio using flash.  The flash exposure is so fast, there should be no possibility of visible camera shake.

« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2008, 14:05 »
0
It won't be much use in a studio using flash.  The flash exposure is so fast, there should be no possibility of visible camera shake.
This is not true as soon as you have some ambient light I would say.

I like monopods too, but a monopod is not intended to replace a tripod. I would say a monopod is a little bit like an external image stabilization systems. A lot more practical to use than a tripod, but definitively not as stable.

And this is not a $500 monopod because the heads can be used on a tripod of course.

Anyway, thanks Yuri for sharing your tips & tricks  :)




hali

« Reply #9 on: November 17, 2008, 14:25 »
0
i'm sure yuri gets all his equipment free, for endorsement . like bjorn bork with his tennis many years ago,even his mercedez. any tennis fans remember the great one?

« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2008, 15:22 »
0
Hey what a great thread. It has so much currency for me, I am waiting for this month's $$$ to buy a Manfrotto monopod for everyday use.

Reason being: I am getting older, and my hands shake too much.

I was reading a wedding photographer forum where lots of people were suggesting that using a monopod re-corrects bad habits that have been learned over time. So that even when you do not use the monopod, your posture, and camera holding technique is improved.

« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2008, 16:36 »
0
It won't be much use in a studio using flash.  The flash exposure is so fast, there should be no possibility of visible camera shake.

This is not true. If you have strobes with head generators (for locational lighting) they still can't offer more speed then than the flash syncron of your camera. Practicly it is around 1/160s. If you use a telephoto lens and a camera with high mpix sensor you will need the support a monopod offers.

vonkara

« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2008, 16:55 »
0
He's so sexy. :-* I like when he play with his monopod

« Reply #13 on: November 19, 2008, 12:26 »
0
It won't be much use in a studio using flash.  The flash exposure is so fast, there should be no possibility of visible camera shake.

This is not true. If you have strobes with head generators (for locational lighting) they still can't offer more speed then than the flash syncron of your camera. Practicly it is around 1/160s. If you use a telephoto lens and a camera with high mpix sensor you will need the support a monopod offers.

you are incorrect.

The sync speed has nothing to do with how fast the strobes are firing.  It is simply the minimum amount of time the shutter can be open while allowing the strobe to send a burst of light.  The light comes at a speed of about 1/1000 second.  This freezes basically any movement there is, so in most settings a monopod or tripod is not necessary.  You could easily be shooting with a 200mm lens and still get very sharp images.

Perhaps if you are shooting at 100 or 200mm and holding a hasselblad with a digital back and 45 megapixels things could start getting heavy and wobbly and a TINY TINY bit out of focus..... but for 35mm DSLR shooting at 100mm or less your are not going to see any motion blur.

Yuri_Arcurs

  • One Crazy PhotoManic MadPerson
« Reply #14 on: November 23, 2008, 06:45 »
0
I use a monopod for most shots, too. I'm surprised that Yuri prefers using (and wearing out/breaking) many cheap ones instead of getting a more durable model that can stand up to (pun intended) regular use with heavy equipment.


Good Q. The problem is speed. No other monopod out there goes up and down so fast. The Gitzo ones, which I have a couple of for, takes way too long time to adjust.
Monopod: Adjustment in height: 1 sec.
Gitzo monopod: Adjustments in heights: 4-8 sec. (for a stable shooting position).

Sync with a flash (any flash or triggering system) starts giving you that vertical black line at about 1/160 to 1/200 in shutterspeed in canons and nikons. This is because of the shutter mechanism they use. The Hassy shutter is a sideway shutter and lets you sync at up to 1/800 at which point you do not need a monopod. However, for people without a Hassy, and operating with speeds around 1/160 or in some cases 1/200 (the new canons) in the studio, you will for sure need a mono or tripod.

« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2008, 06:46 »
0
I use a monopod for most shots, too. I'm surprised that Yuri prefers using (and wearing out/breaking) many cheap ones instead of getting a more durable model that can stand up to (pun intended) regular use with heavy equipment.


Good Q. The problem is speed. No other monopod out there goes up and down so fast. The Gitzo ones, which I have a couple of for, takes way too long time to adjust.
Monopod: Adjustment in height: 1 sec.
Gitzo monopod: Adjustments in heights: 4-8 sec. (for a stable shooting position).

Sync with a flash (any flash or triggering system) starts giving you that vertical black line at about 1/160 to 1/200 in shutterspeed in canons and nikons. This is because of the shutter mechanism they use. The Hassy shutter is a sideway shutter and lets you sync at up to 1/800 at which point you do not need a monopod. However, for people without a Hassy, and operating with speeds around 1/160 or in some cases 1/200 (the new canons) in the studio, you will for sure need a mono or tripod.

at the risk of being wrong... I have to kindly disagree :) although I feel I am stepping out on a limb here everything considered.. but....

strobes fire at 1/1000 second so it doesn't matter if you set your sync speed at 1/160 or 1/10 you are are going to get the exact same exposure and both are going to be sharp - even if you are using a long 180mm lens (granted you are not using ambient light at 1/10 shutterspeed).  If you were shooting in a completely dark room except for the strobes (no ambient light at all) you could shoot with a 5 second shutter speed and still hand hold it and get sharp images with a long lens.

Since the flash fires for only 1/1000 second all it has to do is flash while the shutter is open, the max shutter speed simply states how fast the two can be synced and only has any determination on the final photo when ambient light is starting to be used.  The only time a high sync speed is useful is when trying to balance bright sunlight with flash.  If the sun is bright enough you might have a hard time getting an exposure with such a slow shutterspeed at 1/160, which is why most DSLR cameras have a high speed sync option when using a speedlight.
anyhow.... a clear example...

shutter 1/160 aperature f/16 iso 100    and
shutter 1/10 aperature f/16  iso 100

will give me the EXACT same picture if strobe lighting is my only light source, and both will be sharp, even with a 180mm lens, this is because the image will be exposed at 1/1000 which is the length of time the strobes are giving light to the scene.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 07:49 by leaf »

« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2008, 06:51 »
0
I agree Leaf.  I'm always hand held in the studio.

AVAVA

« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2008, 12:22 »
0
 I shoot all my studio work hand held I am not sure why Yuri worries about getting a sharp image at 1/200 of a second. Our studio isn't dark we have a few daylight balance flourescents on the ceiling so we can see what we are doing, it's quite bright in there. But when I shoot a frame under that light at F4 at 1/200 without the flash turned on my file is pitch black. The only light that my sensor picks up in studio at 1/200th is the strobes. I Hand hold all day in studio anything else would slow me down. Location is a different beast and then I rely on a tripod.
  I do like the idea of a camera that syncs at 1/800th and I have thought about the new Blad. The price is down from what they use to be, still spendy but what a file. I just hate how slow the frame rate is when you're shooting lifestyle. Plus the lack of depth of field you get with the larger size means slower shutter speeds in ambient settings.

Best,
AVAVA

Tuilay

« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2008, 13:01 »
0
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/syncspeed.htm

i found this article. it could be of use to some of us .hope you like the read  8)

« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2008, 13:12 »
0
I am wondering if a monopod might be necessary to get sharp images at 45 megapixels. Mistakes are magnified that much more at 100% crop, true/false??? Not that you can't get sharp images handheld but your normal percentage might drop a bit which could be frustrating. With that said, I hate using the monopod  :P

AVAVA

« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2008, 13:26 »
0
Hi CD,

 The real concern is the focal length of your lens. A 300 mm is much tougher to steady than a 50 mm. Basic old school rule is you need an equal or faster shutter speed than the focal length of the lens you are using to hand hold ( 300mm needs a shutter of 1/300 or faster to keep image sharp ). With todays image stabalisizers that number and rule is quite different.
 Also the way you shoot, how you push the button coupled with how you breath and move has a great affect on getting images sharp. I am not a hunter but if you are it's a lot like pulling the trigger of a rifle from a great distance, smooth and easy with proper breathing and focus. If he is shooting in studio with strobe the only speed he is dealing with is his flash speed of at least 1/1000 for me that was the part of his article that didn't make much sense unless he uses ambient light in his studio mixed with his flash.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2008, 13:32 »
0
I'm talking about the difference between shooting with 8mp vs. 45mp.  All things being equal it would be much harder to get a sharp image at 45mp or perceived sharpness..no?? all problems being magnified that much more.

Then again, if you downsized from 45mp back to 8mp things would be equal again.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 13:33 by cdwheatley »

AVAVA

« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2008, 13:37 »
0
 Hey CD,

 I am definitely not the tech gut to ask but I think since the pixels are all on the same plain of field I don't know why the sensor size would make any difference. Is there someone here that knows this stuff, you might be absolutely correct and I would be interested to know.

Best,
AVAVA

« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2008, 13:43 »
0
I only say that because I noticed a difference going from 13 mp to 21mp. I would imagine going to 45mp would be quite a jump in magnification. Same reason you need better glass with the larger cameras because they look like sh***t at 100%  :)

Its the same thing with audio and extremely high sample rates. Not much margin for error because you can hear everything.
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 13:47 by cdwheatley »

CofkoCof

« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2008, 13:47 »
0
Hey CD,

 I am definitely not the tech gut to ask but I think since the pixels are all on the same plain of field I don't know why the sensor size would make any difference. Is there someone here that knows this stuff, you might be absolutely correct and I would be interested to know.

Best,
AVAVA
I think it matters. Imagine two sensors, one with 5000 pixels on the horizontal and one with 10 000 pixels on the horizontal side. Let's say the senzor size is 23.6mm on the horizontal (same like Nikon D90). Now if your hand moves for 1mm in the horizontal direction while the shutter is oppened you're gonna have (lets just say we take a picture of a black line on a white paper):
1. 5000 pixels/23,6mm = 212 blurred pixels on the first picture
2. 10000 pixels/23,6mm = 424 blurred pixels on the second picture

At least I think so :D
« Last Edit: November 24, 2008, 13:50 by CofkoCof »


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
3516 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 16:00
by News Feed
0 Replies
3417 Views
Last post September 05, 2008, 19:30
by News Feed
20 Replies
8336 Views
Last post October 03, 2008, 07:20
by Secretariat
0 Replies
2545 Views
Last post January 15, 2009, 20:00
by News Feed
34 Replies
12060 Views
Last post July 05, 2011, 13:15
by RacePhoto

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle