Monopod as cheaper "IS" at Weddings?

[Eoseni]

Wanted opinions, if possible, from those of you who've tried this: Using a monopod during ceremony shots in dark interiors - as a substitute for IS lenses, like the 70-200 IS.

Completely sane idea?
Dream on...weddings are too fast moving? (but not for the ceremony part!)
Great idea...the poor photog's Image stabilizer.

I know how useful the IS can be...and I intend to get one eventually. But I'd like opinions. I have a monopod that extends and retracts quickly with one hand (manfrotto 3245) with a 486RC2 ballhead. I am of the opinion that it's not such a bad idea.

[cosworth]

Well what did people do before IS? Fast glass and fast film with a monopod where they could do it.

I'd take one. I never leave home without mine. Get a mini ball head for it and you are set.

[mmahoney]

Originally Posted by Tim Wee

Completely sane idea?

I'm just starting to book weddings but have done a number of lower light events such as New Years Eve and did use the monopod with my 70-200 2.8 and felt it helped a lot.

You can get things very steady with a monopd and the only issue is the monopod itself and how quickly you can adjust. Mine is the Manfrotto 079-4 which has three levers so moves height fairly quickly.

I'd just hook it up to the collar on the lens and leave the collar a little loose so you could level shots and / or switch from portrait to landscape easily.
Mike

[Philco]

Hey Tim,
I always bring a monopod with me, but I"ve only used it once in a super dark venue where even at ISO 1600, 1/30th @ f.28 was still underexposing a full stop. My thoughts are that you can probably get away with it for a ceremony if you're only using one camera. Trying to keep up with another body on your other shoulder is a challenge w/a loaded monopod, especially if you want to grab a wide shot with your unmounted camera.....do you lay down the monopod? It's just too much for one person, at least for me. Plus it's harder to be discreet and quiet if you inadvertantly ding the monopod w/ your other camera, or you're raising/lowering, etc. Kinda rambly, sorry...just sharing my experience.

[song4themoon]

but with a monopod, dont you still get shake? I mean you still have to hold it. I would think that only a tripod and remote would really avoid the shake

[cosworth]

If you get shake with a pod, the shutter is WAY too low - then the subjects would have blurred already.

Monopods can get really slow shutter speeds and stll sharp. Lean it up against something. Practice makes perfect... aim, breathe, verify focus, breathe, confirm, slowly exhale and shoot.

[Eoseni]

Originally Posted by song4themoon

but with a monopod, dont you still get shake? I mean you still have to hold it. I would think that only a tripod and remote would really avoid the shake

From my practicing with the monopod, it's just as good as a 3-stop gain (just like the IS on the 70-200mm) so, yes, you're right there's still shake, but MUCH less than if you handheld without it or IS.

It's not so much to eliminate shake but to reduce it to the point where more images captured are keepers.

I've shot 1/10 sec at f2.8 at 160mm-200mm with no problems, as long as the human subjects are still - as in a ceremony.

[Big Mike]

I agree...it's not really about eliminating movement/shake...it's about reducing it as best you can. Good posture and shooting technique is also something that will help. As Tim said, it's about increasing the amount of keepers.

An instructor of mind had a wedding photography company and his most successful shooter always used a monopod...so it's not an insane idea.

[picturecrazy]

I couldn't use one, personally. Probably because I have enough problems already getting into the positions and angles I want WITHOUT a monopod. Throw a monopod into that mix with a klutzy person and disaster is sure to strike sooner or later... I'd probably swing my gear around and the monopod would whip around and whack the mother of the bride in the eye or something. Either that or sack the best man in the nuts... take your pick.

I'm sure you could use one but it depends on your shooting style. And with my style it definitely wouldn't work.

[cdifoto]

Originally Posted by picturecrazy

I couldn't use one, personally. Probably because I have enough problems already getting into the positions and angles I want WITHOUT a monopod. Throw a monopod into that mix with a klutzy person and disaster is sure to strike sooner or later... I'd probably swing my gear around and the monopod would whip around and whack the mother of the bride in the eye or something. Either that or sack the best man in the nuts... take your pick.

I'm sure you could use one but it depends on your shooting style. And with my style it definitely wouldn't work.

LOL this kinda mirrors my thinking about it. I'm awkward with a monopod at a basketball game while sitting in one spot...I can't even imagine making use of one at a wedding where I'm moving around. I'm too much of a klutz.

I could see maybe using it just for the ceremony though. Maybe.

[TeeJay]

I don't shoot weddings, but I'd say a monopod would be ideal for when you want to use it.

TJ

[Phil V]

At my last wedding I mounted my 70-200 to the monopod for the day, and just attached the body as required. I have the Manfrotto 685 neotec (no latches - just pull to length as required) and it's so fast in use. I don't tend to do odd angles with the long lens as it's not really that useful a combination. (ie you don't shoot up through a crowd from 10 feet away)

Oddly though, I don't have QR plates for my monopod or tripod as I find the plate uncomfortable when the camera is detached. I believe the speed of connection on a ballhead is fast enough as a compromise. I only wish I'd bought the neotec version of the tripod too, it really does just 'work', but for the little that I use the tripod I couldn't justify the extra cost.

[picturecrazy]

Whoa Phil! 666 posts!

I think the problem for me would be that I leave my 70-200 hanging on my shoulder at all times, and I'm using my other body to get the weird angles which at times require freak show contortionism. This is when I'm sure I'd trip over the monopod stepping backwards (while it's hanging from my shoulder attached to the 70-200) and give myself a bath in the holy water pool or something embarrassing like that.

[jamiewexler]

I did it once, before I had IS, and found it really unweildy. I'm in the "I'd probably put out someone's eye" camp. What I did do more successfully before I had the IS lens, was to mount my 80-200 f2.8 to a tripod (preferably in the balcony) by the lens tripod mount, and leave it there. When I wanted a tele shot, I just attached the body and shot...

[tommy_london]

Originally Posted by jamiewexler

I did it once, before I had IS, and found it really unweildy. ...What I did do more successfully before I had the IS lens, was to mount my 80-200 f2.8 to a tripod...

Pretty similar thing here - I used to shoot with a 80-200 on a monopod or tripod before I had IS. It wasn't ideal - bit of a squeeze moving around small country churches! - but it certainly did the job.

All praise IS!